From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Wed Jan 18 2006 - 09:02:50 EST
> UN calculations have been done of the type that an annual levy of 5.2% on > the fortunes of the world's 500 or so billionaires would be financially > sufficient to guarantee essential needs for the whole world population. > Wheter it should happen is another story, it is just stated as a fact (it > would require a high level of human cooperation to achieve this). > We're talking here about clean drinking water, proper sanitation, > essential health care, sufficient food intake, etc. Now just extrapolate > the mathematics of this. Jurriaan, You are missing my point. When conceiving of needs, I am _not_ using the UN criteria of basic needs. So, it's _not_ a simple matter of extrapolation. Do you think workers in the Netherlands will be satisfied with the assurance that only their 'basic needs', as defined in some international standard about what is minimally necessary to sustain human life and health, will be met under socialism? Or will they want and expect more, i.e. will they define their needs as being greater than that? > It seems to me reactionary to argue that the lot of the poor > could not be improved, because it would stuff up the environment - > a poverty of thought really. I didn't make that argument. I was simply noting that there are environmental consequences of using all possible global resources. From the standpoint of the issue I wanted to see addressed, this has major implications for determining the quantity of resources that can and should be used to be able to provide for the needs of people. While there is merit to much of what you say in the para that began "There are many reasons ...." (sorry, although I read it, I deleted it when composing this reply), I am not comfortable with the claim that "Necessity is the mother of invention" if it is meant to imply that people will come up with effective social answers because they have to. Since you repeatedly have emphasized over the years the need for Marxists to do more empirical research and more concretely examine the subject of socialism, I thought that you would welcome my call for _someone_ to actually attempt a calculation which examines whether there are enough resources in the world now (without raping Antarctica, etc. and bringing about an ecological disaster!) and efficient ways of using those resources to provide for the needs of people in the world (needs as currently socially understood in different cultures, not just basic needs!). I'll leave the discussion on ethics and morality for another time. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 19 2006 - 00:00:02 EST