: 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.
A sufficient mass will be an overwhelming majority, it must overwhelm to succeed. To overwhelm it needs to leave few people unturned.
: No, because it eliminates the desire for hording outright- why horde when the shops shelves are plentifully stocked?
Wishful thinking, the assumption of plenty just because 'its possible'. I thought you were against possiblism. And why not horde even more?
: 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.
Previously it was tied to a combination of physical and mental ability to acquire survival resources and lead others to achieve the same end (according to current scientific thinking, and study of similar animals). A link? Sounds most reasonable. I know socialists hate 'naturalistic' approaches to analysing human behaviour, gets in the way.
: By the standard of reality, which would emerge from the social dialectic of discussion.
Ofcourse, reality already is reality. a "social dialectic of discussion." wont change gravity, nor the yield of a farm poorly sown.
: The group is rendered homogeneous by the shared interest. Much like shareholders.
As I have previously noted this 'shared interest' is not free of conflict and division. This is also true of shareholders who have different goals with the same shares (eg capital value vs dividends)
: But the great disparities available to wealth (ie. hiring the SAS inc. to take out Asshole Indiana's Sherrif dept.) would not be available,
Group A: "my boys know some of that SAS shit, they'll do what we ask coz they agree with us"
Group B: "run!"
: likewise, neither would the incentive.
Note previous comments that incentives are legion and material wealth controlled by some is more potent to them than than that left to all.
: 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.
Socialism offers gain too, in the form of undue influence over decisions regarding resource and actions. Its a great environment for potential dictatorships and requires 'constant vigilance' of all the people to nip it in the bud. American liberty required 'eternal vigilance' and look what happened to that.
: Thats coz you seem to think there are as many argumentative positions as are humans...