Justin wrote:
> >>Just for the record, Marx thought it was agood thing to create new
> needs. In the Manifesto, the creation of new needs is something that is
> credited to the plus side of capitalism. <<
I wrote:
> >I'd like to see a quote here.<
Now Justin writes:
>"in the place of old wants, satisfied by the products of the country, we
>find new wants, requiring for their staisfaction the products of distant
>lands . . . . " Manifest, in Tucker, p. 476
I don't see this creation of "new wants" as being something positive _or_
negative in this quote from (or anywhere else in) the MANIFESTO.
BTW, switching from a discussion of "needs" to one of "wants" is a mistake,
since while the concept of "needs" has an objective emphasis ("I _need_
oxygen"), the concept of "wants" is more subjective ("I want to write
e-mail messages now"), though the dictionary definition of "wants" overlaps
with "needs."
>For the 1844 Manuscrips, see The Meaning of Human Requirements, Tucker pp.
>93-101.
I've read that. I didn't see the creation of needs as positive in that
text. As far as I can tell, a "need" is like an itch. It creates an urge or
want (in this case, to scratch).
> > I thought that Marx saw capitalism as creating possibilities,
> potentialities, for socialism, not as actually creating human happiness
> by creating needs. <
>Yes, but Marx thought that creation of needs was a good thing that
>capitalism did, although it did badly in satisfying them. This was
>Charles' point a few points back.
I'd like to see where Marx truly said that the creation of needs is a good
thing -- and always a good thing. After all, as I've said before, when a
new addictive drug is introduced (crack, TV, whatever), it's creating a new
need (an addiction), which is hardly always a good thing.
> >Of course it depends on what one means by "needs," which is why I think
> the emphasis should be on the creation of new _opportunities_ and the
> fulfillment of existing needs. It's important not to confuse "powers in
> the satisfaction of needs" with the needs themselves. It's like confusing
> supply with demand. <
>I don't know what you mean by "opportunities" here. I don't confuse the
>power to satisfy needs with the needs themselves.
You sure seem to.
According to my dictionary at home, an opportunity is "a combination of
circumstances favorable for the purpose ... a good chance or occasion, as
to advance oneself." This can obviously be generalized to talk about
opportunities for society as a whole. By raising labor productivity (output
per hour of labor-power sold), for example, capitalism creates the
_opportunity_ to cut back on the number or hours of labor-power that
workers sell. However, especially as seen during the Industrial Revolution
in England or the last 25 years in the US, this opportunity isn't always
taken advantage of. (quite the contrary.)
> >The usual meaning of need (as a noun) as seen in my handy-dandy college
> dictionary is "1. necessary duty: obligation; 2.(a) a lack of something
> requisite, desirable, or useful; (b) a physiological or psychological
> requirement for the well-being of an organism; 3. a condition requiring
> supply or relief; 4. [in a seeming nod to Marx] lack of the means of
> subsistence." As a verb, need is defined as "1. to be in want; 2. to be
> needful or necessary ... be under necessity of obligation to." Most
> people don't see need as a good thing. I've never heard of anyone wanting
> to be needy. The fact that a coke-head needs his or her drug is hardly a
> good thing.
>
> >Now Marx or Justin may want to use the word "need" in some other way,
> but if anyone is to do so, they must be clear in defining terms. <
>Marx rarely defines his times except contextually.
In retrospect, that was one of his mistakes (or rather, he should have
explained his method more clearly). It makes sense (in context, of course),
but it confuses later readers, just as it probably confused people at the
time. People like Bertell Ollman or Paul Sweezy have to come along to
explain Marx's use of language.
>I have been thinking a lot about needs lately, and it's a complicated
>concept, not susceptible to a quick dictionary definition. I have been
>using the term, drawn from Marx, rather loosely.
I thought that Analytical Philosophers weren't supposed to be loose
thinkers. I also disagree with the loose way you read Marx.
And of course, "quick dictionary definitions" aren't enough! But they do
tell us _how words are conventionally used_. If someone throws terms around
loosely, as you have been doing, we have no choice but to fall back on the
conventional interpretation.
>My point here is that it's good that people should want and even come to
>need, in the sense of being harmed if they lack something, new things. Not
>unqualifiedly of course, [!] You have been hammering on the obvious point
>taht one can come to need something that is harmful. As a smoker I know
>this all too well. But setting aside destructive needs, it's progress that
>people come to need, e.g., diversity and refinement in their diet, to need
>taste as well as nourishment. This develops higher human powers in a good
>way, makes us better.
"setting aside destructive needs" is simply avoiding the question. You seem
to be arguing that your friends the entrepreneurs are good people because
they create needs. Then you throw out the bad creation of needs _by fiat_,
so that your conclusion is true by (loose) definition. I've said this
before, but given the mess that the left is in these days, we need _clear_
thinking, not its opposite.
The looseness of your above paragraph is why I want people to use the word
"opportunities" (or potentialities or possibilities). The world-wide spread
of capitalism allows people to have the _opportunity_ to attain "diversity
and refinement in their diet." This opportunity is sometimes taken
advantage of (especially for us richer folks in the world-dominant
countries) but often cannot be taken advantage of (for the vast majority of
the world's population). If the opportunities can be taken advantage of,
this _can_ "develop... higher human powers in a good way, mak[ing] us
better." Of course, we can also abuse the opportunities, as when some diet
nuts eat new foods (some of these "healthful" herbs) that are actually bad
for their health.
BTW, new things are not the same as "new needs." If an "artistic
entrepreneur" develops something new (to use an old example, Pop Art), that
doesn't mean that we "need" it. Many new things have been unneeded and
often unwanted.
> >After all, the point of using language is to communicate. It's confusing
> to see Justin talking about entrepreneurs as he defines them (seemingly
> ruling out Rupert Murdoch or Charles Ponzi by implicit fiat, since what's
> new is good) creating "needs" which are good according to the way he
> implicitly defines them. <
>No, I don't rule out Murdoch or Ponzi as entrepreneurs. But they no more
>shore [show?] that entrepreneurship is bad than the introductiob of crack
>shows that new needs are bad. I don't define the new as the good. This is
>a wilful misunderstanding, the short of questioning one expects
>froma first year law professor.
If you read what I write, you'd note that I didn't say that all
entrepreneurship is _bad_ (or that all needs are like crack). I was using
Ponzi and Murdoch as counter-examples to knock down your (seeming) sweeping
generalizations, which now seem to be retreating from. (It's hard to tell
what your generalizations are in fact, since (as you now admit) you are
willfully vague.)You suddenly also become clear that not all needs are
good, retreating from your vagueness. (I guess that's one of the good
consequences of serious debate.)
Remember that you said that all societies need entrepreneurs (who you seem
to define as people who create needs and then (sometimes) allow people to
satisfy them) because we need someone to create new needs. That was your
proposition -- which only makes sense if entrepreneurs and needs are by
definition good (or that there are no possible substitutes for entrepreneurs).
Calling me a first year law professor isn't an insult, since I've been
called worse (an economics professor).
> >It makes me think that when Justin accuses the Left of being "ascetic,"
> he's using a different meaning of that word than appears in the
> dictionary. That must be why he didn't respond to my refusal to fit under
> that label. <
>No, I didn't respond because I think that a lot of left ascetics think
>that ascetism is good for other people, not for them.
I hope you're not talking about me. To whom are you referring?
> >>... Moreover, from a utilitarian view, the more needs we have that can
> be satisfied, the better. <<
> >I don't get this. If my utility function is U = U(x, y), where x and y
> are goods, new needs would mean that U would become U(x, y, z), where z
> is a new good. If my income and the prices of x and y stay the same, the
> introduction of z might easily hurt my utility, since I'd either not get
> z or I'd have to cut back on x or y. That is, if I suddenly need a car to
> get to work because the city shut down the public transportation system,
> I might have to cut back on paying rent or eating food. <
>You are being perverse.
If the alternative is vague thinking making sweeping generalizations,
perhaps perversity is good.
>My point is the obvious utilitarian one that if need satisfaction is good,
>the more the better;
Now you switch from talking about "needs" to "need satisfaction"! Is this a
technique they teach in law school? (I thought that was something the
Jesuits taught.)
Even that won't wash. Many people would say that satisfying the pedophile's
need for sex with young children isn't a good thing. Or do you disagree?
>and if we generate new needs to satisfy that we also can and do satisfy,
>we have more happiness in the utilitarian sense.
I still think that Lebowitz's point is extremely useful: (1) capitalism
creates new needs and (2) it creates new opportunities to fulfill those
needs, but (3) it denies many people -- e.g. the working class -- the
ability to take advantage of the opportunities, so that (4) the creation of
new needs can actually make people _worse off_. People can be worse off --
in the sense of getting less utility -- despite a rise of wages, if their
wages fall behind the increase in needs.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
