Re: Re: Re: Re: needs

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> jblau@xxxxxxxxx 12/03/00 02:33PM >>>
Has anyone read Ian Gough and Len Doyal's A Theory of Human Need? It is on point
for this discussion.

Joel Blau

Ken Hanly wrote:

> Actually Hayek in a critique of Galbraith  makes the point that capitalism
> often creates new ways of satisfying old needs rather than new needs per se.
> Capitalism produces new products to satisfy these needs. Galbraith argued
> that advertising creates needs and then manufactures goods that satisfy them
> . These needs he claims are not basic and are unnecessary. They serve only
> the function of creating an effective demand or at least a desire for new
> products. These are subsequently sold at a profit- if such desires occur in
> people with sufficient money to purchase the products. Hayek argues, quite
> rightly in my opinion, that many of these new products are obviously
> significant in improving the quality of peoples lives, helping them
> flourish. Many people feel a need to learn more about the world. New
> technology and companies such as Amazon.com have created new ways of
> satisfying that. The need for entertainment e.g. music is satisfied in new
> ways by the development of phonograph, 78s, lps, cds, and now dvd
> players.etc.   But both Hayek and Galbraith ignore the most significant
> point. Satisfying needs
> is good only if it leads to human flourishing, not just individual
> flourishing but of the individual within a commuinity where the flourishing
> of one is bound up wiht the flourishing of alll. Looked at in this manner
> many basic needs for health, shelter, food, etc. are not met within a
> capitalist community while needs are satisfied
> of those who have money that do not really help the individual flourish, may
> be damaging to the environment, and may use scarce resources in a wasteful
> manner.
> Even though in nc terms they might be Pareto efficient no less.
>     Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Eugene Coyle <eugenecoyle@xxxxxxx>
> To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 11:02 AM
> Subject: [PEN-L:5414] Re: Re: needs
>
> > I think I triggered off this "needs" thread by asking Justin a simple
> > question of why it is a good idea to "create new needs."
> >
> > Having done that, I've not been able to read most of the posts because
> > of other things occupying my time.  But I want to ask Justin how he got
> > from my question to his interpretation, that I (or others) mean by that
> > question that I would tell first world workers that they must
> > sacrifice?  Among the posts that I have read I didn't see anything about
> > sacrifice.  I am quite clear that the "live simply" movement isn't and
> > can't go anywhere, and I never implied that in my question, though
> > perhaps Justin made that inference.
> >
> >     I also agreewith Justin and Yoshie that sacrifice on the part of
> > workers is an idea that should be ridiculed.  I'll let Lou sort that
> > out.
> >
> >     Maybe it will be useful if Justin can parse the distinction between
> > creating new needs and satisfying old needs in creative ways.  The
> > clothes washing machine didn't create the need to wash clothes.  Even
> > one of the most important new consumer items of the Twentieth century,
> > the vibrator, didn't create a new need.  Or am I making a distinction
> > without a difference in reference to Justin's phrasing?
> >
> > Gene Coyle
> >
> > Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> >
> > > Justin wrote:
> > >
> > > >I am rather inclined to agree with you, Louis, that a middle-class,
> > > >suburban American lifestyle is not sustainable for six or ten
> > > >billion people, and that a sustaianble set of needs will have to be
> > > >rather different from those we now have. I certainly disagree with
> > > >Jim H's SUV socialism, a Suburban Assault Vehicle (or two) in every
> > > >garage. But my point was just that even this is to say something
> > > >different from saying that we have all the needs we ought, too many
> > > >in fact, and that we ought to all cut back, live simply, etc.
> > > >
> > > >I also think that we will not get anywhere with first world workers
> > > >telling them that they must sacrifice; rather, the needs that
> > > >motivate them will have to arise rom a lived experience of common
> > > >struggle, so that reording of priorities will not be experienced as
> > > >sacrifice or renunciation of privilege. Workers in the advanced
> > > >countries don't feel particularly privileged, even if they are
> > > >better off than workers and peasants in poorer nations, and so
> > > >guilt-tripping them will produce resentment rather than solidarity
> > > >with those people in other countries.
> > >
> > > I agree with Justin here (for the moment setting aside the question
> > > of exactly how old & new needs can be satisfied under socialism).
> > > There are few things that are more politically ridiculous than the
> > > spectacle of assorted professors & computer programmers on left-wing
> > > e-lists like PEN-l, LBO-talk, & Lou's list preaching the virtues of
> > > sacrifice & simple living to American workers who on average enjoy
> > > much less material comforts than many who post on the lists do.  It's
> > > a job of the Boss Man -- definitely not Marxists' --  to tell workers
> > > not to be "greedy."  A couple of years ago, Lou was much more
> > > sensible on the subject, and I recall him (rightly) criticizing David
> > > Harvey for being ambivalent (due to ecological reasons) about
> > > defending workers protesting automobile manufacturing plant closures:
> > >
> > > *****   David Harvey's anomie, part 2
> > >
> > > Wed, 29 Apr 1998 11:59:51 -0400
> > > Louis Proyect (lnp3@xxxxxxxxx)
> > >
> > > I find myself increasingly drawn into the existential-political
> > > subtext of David Harvey's "Justice, Nature & the Geography of
> > > Difference."
> > >
> > > Although I began reading the book in order to prepare a rebuttal on
> > > the American Indian/ecology question, I find myself deeply fascinated
> > > with the self-portrait that is developing. Harvey wears his heart on
> > > his sleeve and is fetchingly open about his foibles. If only all
> > > academics maintained this posture, the world would be a better place.
> > >
> > > What interests me in particular is his odyssey for a grass roots
> > > social base which will allow his theorizing to connect to some living
> > > struggle. He is a prestigious mandarin with enormous feelings of
> > > insecurity about his ability to make a difference in some mass
> > > movement. I, on the other hand, have been connected to some mass
> > > movement or another since 1967 but aspire for the sort of credibility
> > > he has achieved in academia. I always curse myself for having spent
> > > much too much time in the Trotskyist movement, when I should have
> > > been enrolled in some graduate school getting a Ph.D. With the proper
> > > credentials, I could be writing for Science and Society or Rethinking
> > > Marxism, couldn't I? But is that what I really want?
> > >
> > > Returning to the angst-ridden Harvey, we discover in the chapter on
> > > "Militant Particularism and Global Ambition" that back in 1988 he had
> > > been invited to participate in a research project in Oxford
> > > concerning the fate of the local Rover auto plant. The union was
> > > fighting to keep the factory open in the face of a threat from
> > > Thatcher to shut it down. This was after a painful series of
> > > downsizings that had cut the workforce from 27,000 to 5,000. It
> > > invited Harvey and a number of other left-wing activists to prepare a
> > > report on the economic impact of a plant closing.
> > >
> > > By his own admission, for "personal reasons" Harvey was not "active
> > > in the campaign" and did not "engage much with the initial research."
> > >
> > > A key figure in the research project was Teresa Hayter, who received
> > > a research fellowship from St. Peter's College in 1989 to put out a
> > > book on the history of the auto workers' struggle. For purposes of
> > > "making the book more attractive to prospective publishers," Harvey
> > > agreed to be co-editor. This is another way of saying that his fame
> > > could open doors.
> > >
> > > Pretty soon Hayter and Harvey began to clash. It reached the point
> > > where he proposed that the book have two conclusions, one by her and
> > > one by him. This idea was rejected and an attempt was made to
> > > synthesize the two points of view, but the political differences were
> > > intractable. Harvey says, "Matters became extremely tense, difficult,
> > > and sometimes hostile between Hayter and me..."
> > >
> > > What was the problem?
> > >
> > > Harvey says that in a showdown with Hayter, she challenged him to
> > > define his loyalties. "She was very clear about hers. They lay with
> > > the militant shop-stewards in the plant, who were not only staying on
> > > and laboring under the most appalling conditions but daily struggling
> > > to win back control from a reactionary union leadership so as to
> > > build a better basis for socialism. By contrast, she saw me as a
> > > free-floating Marxist intellectual who had no particular loyalties to
> > > anyone. So where did my loyalties lie?"
> > >
> > > Harvey admits, "It was a stunning question and I have had to think
> > > about it a great deal since." I t turned out that Harvey had been
> > > ambivalent about the whole notion of keeping the plant open. As one
> > > can imagine, this would have caused strains working in a research
> > > group dedicated to that task. Harvey found himself scrutinizing and
> > > analyzing and criticizing every aspect of the struggle. Deteriorating
> > > working conditions made it hard for him to argue for the preservation
> > > of "shit-jobs." Perhaps it is a little difficult for a full tenured
> > > professor making $75,000 a year to appreciate the worth of such
> > > factory jobs?
> > >
> > > He was also worried about the ecological impact of automobiles. This
> > > was very enlightened of him, needless to say. But what I found
> > > extremely troubling was his questioning of the need for automobile
> > > production in a context of overcapacity world-wide. He writes, "I
> > > found myself arguing for at least a European-wide perspective on
> > > adjustments in automobile production capacity, but found it hard to
> > > justify stopping at that scale when pressed."
> > >
> > > What a startling formulation! Harvey the great Marxist, author of
> > > "Limits to Capital" is arguing for a "European-wide perspective?"
> > > What in god's name can this mean but a perspective based on the
> > > long-term interests of the bourgeoisie? Workers have completely
> > > different interests. From the point of view of the capitalist class,
> > > overcapacity can only be dealt with through downsizing. For the
> > > affected workers, this means permanent ruin. The only position worth
> > > defending is one that strengthens the self-confidence of the workers.
> > > In the face of Thatcher's attack, the only response that made sense
> > > was keeping the plant open.
> > >
> > > Harvey decided to write "Justice, Nature & the Geography of
> > > Difference" in order to subsume the dubious economic demands of the
> > > auto-workers into a grand abstraction that addressed injustice on a
> > > global scale. Oddly enough, the most concrete expression of this
> > > grand schema is the need to keep a distance between the workers
> > > movement and issues of sustainable growth and eco-limits, the sort of
> > > issues posed by Marx himself in V. 3 of Capital. When you combine
> > > this with poor Harvey's inability to understand the class priority of
> > > defending the Rover workers unambiguously, one can only conclude that
> > > there is a deep malaise in academic Marxism.
> > >
> > > Louis Proyect
> > >
> > > http://csf.colorado.edu/pen-l/apr98/0794.html   *****
> > >
> > > Whatever has happened to Lou since then?  Where is class priority?
> > >
> > > Yoshie
> >