>>> Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> 01/28/00 01:44AM >>>
Roger Odisio wrote:
>What do you mean by basic needs being "plastic", Doug? I think you said
>that once before, and I don't have a clue what you mean.
What are basic human needs? Aside from the bare minimums of oxygen, water, and nutrients? Love? Tasty food? Art? They seem to vary enormously across time & space, and by temperament too.
&&&&&&&&&&&
CB: Bare minimums such as oxygen, water and nutrients are basic human needs, yes. There are some others that are definitely premises to physical survival. The socialist idea is to certainly guarantee these. That alone is a profound advance for humanity.
Just because there may be some other things that are not as clearly defined as basic human needs is no reason to back off on guaranteeing those things which are clearly necessary to physical survival. So, the definitional difficulty raised by Doug does not undermine the profound value of the socialist concept of guaranteeing those needs that are unambiguously basic.
The aim of guaranteeing these basic needs does not contradict concluding that other things are also basic needs, and seeking to guarantee them; or seeking to fulfill desires , which are not basic to physical survival. So, again, the fact that it is not always possible to be definite as to whether something is a need or is a desire is not a reason to abandon the socialist goal of guaranteeing those things that are undeniably basic needs.
Concretely, because we might be uncertain whether tasty food is a basic need or is a desire is no reason not to guarantee nutritious food for everyone.
First let us guarantee all things that are no doubt basic needs, and then let a further decision process go on as to what other needs should be guaranteed and what desires should be made possible.
CB