[lbo-talk] Liberal Intellectuals and the Coordinator Class

[ravi]

On 18 Jul, 2007, at 10:41 AM, BklynMagus wrote:
>
>> Unequal remuneration will by its very nature cause
> inequality in other areas.
>
> But is it ideal that everyone have the same?  Once the needs
> that a community has decided are essential and must be
> met have been met (acknowledging that expenditures may vary
> among individuals in accomplishing this), why shouldn't
> those who feel the need for more than the essentials be
> allowed to try and satisfy those needs so long as they do not
> disrupt or harm the delivery process involved in providing
> for the essential needs of all?
>
>> Much greater harm is caused by unequal income and rewarding
> desires that can only be satisfied if one has greater income
> relative to others.
>
> But once essential needs are met, why wouldn't it be okay for
> people to pursue the satisfaction of other needs?
>
>> Rather than worry about freeloaders why not be far more
> concerned with the pathological behaviour of those who can
> only feel motivated, fulfilled, etc. by having a higher level
> of remuneration relative to others.
>
> Why is that pathologiocal?  I will admit up front to an
> aversion to pathologizing desires (comes from living queer), but
> I think that there will probably be people who want to have
> more than others or whose desires are more intricate and require
> greater resources to be fulfilled.

The "need" in "to each according to his needs" can be broadly defined  
and possibly accommodate a wide range of desires/wants. The point  
made by the person you are responding to is that the desire just to  
make more is the pathological part, not the desire to have this or  
that thing or pleasure. There is a difference between the two:  
"people who want to have more" (pathological) and "require greater  
resources to be fulfilled" (possibly natural/normal/acceptable).

	--ravi