Do you guys realize that GA is literally exactly, 100%, the Hobbesian argument dressed up in mammoth-speak?
Two starving men will fight over a loaf of bread without us having to assume mimetic rivalry. But if one of them gets the bread and eats it, and then the other sneaks up behind him later and kills him out of revenge, or a sense of injustice, that's only explicable in terms of mimesis. And that's the kind of conflict that really threatens any social order. The two men could have shared the bread, even if one was stronger than the other. That lesson can only be learned as a result of the specifically mimetic violence unique to humans. And so that order could only have been formed in the first place so as to defer that kind of violence.
---
An insistence on eclectic, multi-causal analysis is epistemological liberalism. Everyone throws in their two cents.
"Not sure why..."=I don't really want to think about it. Give some thought to "envy," "pride," "honor," "anger," "jealousy" and some other "higher emotions"--where, exactly, do they come from? Why would someone be "insulted" by an "offense"?
What in the world accounts for "political fanaticism" if not resentment that the social order is not arranged to your liking? And what is the source of that "higher emotion," resentment?
No, I didn't use "reason" to explain the possibility of sharing so as to avoid resentment and defer violence. What "reason" arrives at will depend upon the "inputs" processed through language. Dividing something up is possible because of language, and language is possible because we can defer appropriation of an object deemed to be "sacred."
---
Yes, that's a complex mode of thought you've got.
---
I wish you luck in forging a personal ideology for yourself.