I believe that at all times everyone acts in their own perceived self interest.
Even this would be a great improvement from how things actually are. As it is, many people act in ways they know to be self-destructive. Besides, how can one perceive one's own self-interests if one has never stopped to ask what constitutes them? A great many people act for their own short term pleasure, but as this has nothing whatsoever to do with their self-interests, such people should be described as hedonistic, not selfish.
From a utilitarian perspective hoarding wealth is extremely inefficient.
Only if you take a certain view of wealth, which I don't.
Someone could buy a new TV for thousands of dollars in order to get a little bit more mild entertainment in their lives or they could be feeding a family of three for 4 or 5 months.
But in buying the TV, they provide employment for television manufactures, people who work for television manufacturers, and indirectly the miners who mine the raw materials necessary for television production. Spending money for one's own benefit is not therefore the same as hoarding wealth.
You can generate your own wealth, yes, but you must do it with limited resources.
There is some validity to this point. At some point, the population becomes large enough that the finite resources of the planet become spoken for. However, even now I don't think we've quite reached this point, and we certainly haven't been in such a state for most of our history. Moreover, just because resources have acquired by one person, that doesn't mean that no more wealth can be created off of them by others. A mining company that extracts iron from the ground turns the iron from useless stone to valuable resource, but others then purchase that iron, and make money off of it by adding value to it, by, say, shaping it into more complex products. Others come along and add value to it by combining these products into even more complex ones. Still others come up with more efficient designs for the products being produced. And, of course, depending upon what is produced, others may be able to create wealth by offering services related to the product.
Interestingly, I believe there may come a time, probably a brief one, where the limited view of wealth may, in a limited way and for a limited time, be true. However, once the resources of the planet have all been tapped, it then becomes highly worthwhile to head to space to harvest the resources available in the rest of our solar system, and so the scope of the system will soon increase to make it one in which resources are, for all practical purposes, infinite.
Ok so lets say that the gorilla got really smart and started planting banana trees
I think my above comments show why your analogy is wrong. Our "island" isn't small enough for that to be a concern, and we certainly don't live in a world in which there is only one commodity that constitutes wealth. A better analogy would be this -- imagine a large island populated by gorillas. Most of the gorillas get their food from banana trees populating the island. But, there aren't very many trees, and so often the gorillas are hungry, though most get enough to survive. Fights frequently break out over food. One day, a gorilla thinks to himself -- hmmm, I bet I could take some bananas, and grow more trees, so that I didn't have to fight all the time for whatever happened to be lying around. He therefore goes off to a remote area of the island and clears some land. It is backbreaking labor, moving the huge rocks in the soil, figuring out how to plow the land (since he first has to invent a plow) and trying to figure out what conditions are most hospitable to bananas. Then, he must plant the trees, haul water to them (or invent a system of irrigation) weed them, and generally tend to them. Eventually, though, the crop is ready for harvest. Then, he finds that he has plenty of bananas, more than the whole island usually produces. Then the other gorillas come to him and say,"you should share, why should you be rich, while the rest of us have barely enough?" To which the other gorilla might reply, "because I put in the effort to figure out how bananas could be grown, and to bring my project, literally, to fruition. While I worked hard to improve my circumstances, you fought amongst yourselves complaining that wealth was limited. Yet I have found a way to provide enough food for all of us, and I surely do not want to see the excess bananas that I cannot eat rot. So, what do you have that is of value that I might trade them for?"
Of course, in real life, not only would the other gorillas not have helped our hero, they probably would have mocked him and derided him for going against tradition and trying to plant banananas, and for neglecting his own particular gang of gorillas by laboring in the fields instead of preparing to defend one of the existing trees from rival gangs. Once he has proven successful, of course, they will adopt his technique, and because of his efforts, bananas will never again be scarce.
In any event, none of the other gorillas on the island have been hurt by the first gorilla's ingenuity, nor do they have any claim on the bananas he produced.
Words have set definitions and are not up for debate.
Now that's just silly and plain wrong. Words have many, many different definitions, and those tied to highly complex concepts, such as various ideologies, are very much up for debate, and are in fact constantly being altered and refined through discourse.
People have tried to get their but have always failed.
Which is my main point, that communism has to fail, because of the premises it is built on. It isn't that communism never gets there, it's that the "there" it promises is a lie. In the end, it always gets to the state logic predicts for it -- a totalitarian state.
There is enough to go around so why be a pill and dash other people's chances of living happy lives when it is of little consequence to you?
And again, being rich doesn't make it any harder for others to be happy. To prove it, why not ask your parents to give you your inheritance now (a la prodigal son) [I'm guessing you're not poor yourself -- you're too thoughtful and well-educated]. Then, go and walk through any large city, giving away five dollars to every person you meet who asks you for change. Do this every day until you have spent every last penny. Then, as you are standing on a street corner begging for change, ask yourself if you have made the world a substantially better place, by ridding a city of beggars, or a worse one by merely adding one more to their number.
Crap. Accidentally posted this, so now I can only edit, not quote. Oh well.
"If some bully is pushing you around should you just say to yourself, "It would be arrogant of me to oppose him and make my own, more just, rules because since he has more power he must be smarter than me.""
You're missing the point. There is no bully. There are only people who believe as you do, deciding that they will be more just with other people's wealth than nature has been. And yes, that is arrogant, as it involves stepping in to fill the role of bully yourself. You have no right to try to dispose of what belongs to other people, and trying to do so is unjust. An unjust act, howsoever noble its intent, remains unjust. The ends do not justify the means, and all the villainy in the world comes from believing otherwise.