>>30
First, read about some of the north american indian nations. They were dirt poor in the sense that they owned nothing, but they did not need a concecpt of property, and still they could achieve remarkable civilizationary advances, like a participatory democracy in a confederacy of six nations (the Iroquois) before any democracies evolved in Europe. I´m no friend of primitivism, and i am not sure if these societies were really as egalitarian as it is sometimes claimed, but if i would have lived in those times i would have preferred north america pre-columbus before europe any day.
There is enough money spent on the the iraqi war effort to make every human being a millionaire. So in what way are we not living in a abundant world? The only reason there is scarcity, is because thats good business.
Okay, english is not my first language but if you agree that your needs are finite, then they are limited, yes? And you realise that your needs is not connected to your wants in the sense of nutrition and so on, its regulated by nature and not will, its not something you choose or are responsible for? You may think that you dont need vitamin C and that you will adapt to a life whitout fruit, but you will suffer malnutrition and death. Equally, you need shelter, you need clothes, you need people, you need hygiene, you need health care, you need medicine and so on. These are very different from wants, because when people dont fulfill their needs they suffer and die.
In other words, there is already enough resources to satisfy everybodies needs, but since needs does not equal profits, is capitalism not capable to achieve this. Or put another way, AIDS vaccine is developed when people with purchasing power gets AIDS. If only poor africans get it, is there no incentive for private business to invent it.