• LemmysMum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Here’s the simplified scenario.

    There is 100% of resource, I take it all, you have none. I have exploited your weakness and incapacity for survival. You die.

    This is the selfish survival model.

    There is 100% of resource, I take it all, you have none. I give you 50% of the resources despite exploiting your weakness and incapacity for survival. We both live.

    This is the selfless survival model.

    These are the two base conditions for the continuation of life.

    • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      The essence of your scenario is the protection of private property.

      I identified as the overarching objective the abolition of private property.

      Scarcity of natural resources is intractable, yet we still seek, for the social systems through which they are managed, those that best support our shared objectives.

      • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        But you can’t abolish private property. I take ergo you cannot. Private ownership is inherent to the consumption of limited resources.

        • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Private property is a social construct, and no more.

          Some societies hold the construct, others lack it.

          Interaction with the natural environment requires simply agency and activity, not any particular social construct or system.

          Some system of management is required for members of society to benefit collectively from the same resources, but private property is not required.

            • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              No. Sorry.

              Private property is not a concept that coherently describes the behaviors of rats.

              Private property is a social construct that occurs in some but not all human societies.

              Modern society, organized by the capitalist mode of production, produces the class disparity through private property.

              Socialists seek the abolition of private property, and thereby, the eradication of the class disparity.

                • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  Sharing is a general description of a robust, essentially universal, human behavior.

                  As a general tendency, it also appears within the behavior of many other species.

                  You have been invoking unconventional terminology, and now have descended essentially into incoherence.

                  • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    If dictionary terminology is unconventional then yes, we have descended into incoherence.