: Wishful thinking, the assumption of plenty just because 'its possible'. I thought you were against possiblism. And why not horde even more?
Why horde at all though? Its not wishful thinking, i go down teh Super-market tehre is more than enough there to see Lancaster through bog-rolls and food for ages. People would only horde if they thought their supply might run out, or if supplies were restricted.
: 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.
it sounds reasonable, but does not account for a society of plenty- further, it relies on an instrumentalist pyschology of evolution, which is tenuous at best.
: Ofcourse, reality already is reality. a "social dialectic of discussion." wont change gravity, nor the yield of a farm poorly sown.
: 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)
And they vote when that happens.
: Group A: "my boys know some of that SAS shit, they'll do what we ask coz they agree with us"
: Group B: "run!"
Why? Where is the gain? Where is teh motivation to know that SAS shit? or build weapons for that matter?
: Note previous comments that incentives are legion and material wealth controlled by some is more potent to them than than that left to all.
1:You are abstracting motivations, that usually have a material cause (i.e. religious, take northern ireland where the allegedly religious confilct isn't).
2:Again, its marginal returns, its a lot of work to attain that sort of control, whereas it is easy under capitalism.
: 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.
No, because American Liberty had a structure inbaance of interests, you had big owners who found it worthwhile to subvert democracy (i.e. the effort involved was less than the potential losses they could incurr). the eternal vigilance would be supplied through teh day-to-day mechanics of ordinary life.