"I think it is Yoshie's and Carrol's position, as amply documented by recent exchanges."
I haven't said _anything_ about economics in recent posts. And in the post you were responding to I wrote:
It (Joanna's statement about war) affirms that certain extreme social relations (Kenneth Burke noted that war, looked at from a distance, appeared as a special case of cooperation between the contending armies) bring out human potentials that don't appear under ordinary circumstances.
I deliberately used the generalized phrase "human potentials" to abstract from arguments (important in their own right) as to how those potentials are best described, in part because we really don't know how best to describe them. Doug for example denies the existence of particular desires in particular instances because he sees them as only imitations or emanations of an abstract Platonic Desire, not real in themselves.
Joanna had written: "Perhaps there is something about war that is NOT historical but mythic/psychological ...something that is separate from evil intent, but kicks in when people are put in a schizophrenic position"
What she seems to say is that certain human potentials (psychological reactions, emotions, feelings, instincts, whatever) appear only in war. She does _not_ claim that those feelings _cause_ war but that they accompany or are generated by war. (If I've misconstrued Joanna I presume she will let me know.) That is, that human social activity of a certain kind (war) determines (better, constrains, in the sense both of limiting and of positively channeling) certain psychological responses. That seems reasonable. (Doesn't Clausewitz make similar claims?)
At least I don't recognize my position in your description of it.
Carrol