: Except I dont think it is structured for what actual people will do, but for what may happen if nigh on 99% of participants absolutely agree with it all.
I don't think 99% need to agree, I think at least we simply need sufficient mass so that others resign themsleves to inevitability, and comply, and a tiny few resists, and will fail because they are simply outnumbered.
: I can well imagine that in a utopian sense but but not as an actuallity. The existence of a post revolutionary global socialism would not mean everyone will always agree to it, its stability is no more assured than any other 'system' of rules. It requires the absolute acquiescence of virtually all participants all the time to all the 'rules' (ie no hoarding, no selecting beneficiaries of effort) to remain remotely stable.
No, because it eliminates the desire for hording outright- why horde when the shops shelves are plentifully stocked? Its like going down to yer mam's kitchen and hording the food from there- no need. Privateising of wealth and beneficiaries s prevented by abolishing money and property rights in general. because it is in everyones interest to have food, water, clothes and goods, it means that the condition of failure, is the reason for its success, people won't try and break the system, because they ahve no gain from it.
: I assume that saying 'per se' is accounting for your previous remarks that people buy a groovy car in order to display it over others.
Thats right, because we currently live in a cultural semiotic system whererecogntion is tied to material wealth- I am what I consume. It is not an eternal law of humanity.
: By whose standard? Not if everyone decides to have a luxury yacht it isnt.
By the standard of reality, which would emerge from the social dialectic of discussion.
: But unstable, the larger and less homogenous the group the more unstable.
The group is rendered homogeneous by the shared interest. Much like shareholders.
: There is no reason to expect uniform access to violence in socialism where one group may be larger than another, or where one group has within it a better tactician, better engineer etc.
But the great disparities available to wealth (ie. hiring the SAS inc. to take out Asshole Indiana's Sherrif dept.) would not be available, likewise, neither would the incentive. Capitalism is war. its an ongoing war, its a class war, its a war between capitalists themselves, violence is the inevitable result, socialism contains no such war.
: And as I pointed out there is nothing to stop socialism going the same way save the unending will of almost all its participants, an unlikely scenario.
But there is no structured Úlite, no one privileged and able to simply take control, there is no incentive structured in- you'e the public choice theorist, will people expend a lot of effort for little marginal gain? Don't think so. Capitalism offers large amounts of marginal gain for little effort.
: And this is discussing post revolution. I do not even foresee sufficient agreement to faciliatte anything remotely similar to a genuine socialist revolution.
Thats coz you seem to think there are as many argumentative positions as are humans...