Lol, poor people have been there for a very long time.
Rich people have had the means long before this guy organized it into his particular form.
Nobody can read it all.
I draw the line at forced compliance.
If your utopia needs armed thugs to persist, it sucks.
In every conflict micro/macro, minor/huge there is always some form of forced compliance. Whether you create it, or you are the receiver of it. Can be physical or mental.
However, I don't agree with utopia's. When we band towards equality then the more equal we become the more those in charge have to force us to comply.
Lol, you would turn down a good management system?
One that doesn't have 'those in charge' forcing anything?
You a statist?
No, just talking about human interaction. If you break it down to interactions between humans at the base level -- if there is disagreement then at least one of you will be forced into submission.
Shared consensus us Communism -- and from your username you don't like that :P
I'd suggest persuasive logic, but that is just me, I guess.
I don't embrace the inevitability of violence.
What you think of as communism is likely not this, nor this.
Socialusts use violence to attain their political goals.
And, are not shy about it.
Anarchists in general, and an-coms specifically, broke away from Marx, and the 'popular definition' of 'communism', here.
This is an on the spot report of what a lady that would know found when she went to check out the 'communism' in Russia in the soviet era.
So, yes, against socialism.
When society enslaves you antisocialism is duty.
Persuasive logic is only useful when someone is listening to you. I for example am clicking on all your links and noting them for later, and attentively taking on what you say.
A radical feminist for example would not entertain these words at all - so in conflict resolution, for example in a workplace, one would be forced to submit to the other, or both would be forced to submit to the manager that tells them to shut the fuck up and get back to work lol.
But most ideas look good on paper -- I've found application of these ideas are brutal.
Anarchy is great on paper for example. Until someone decides to take by force through violence.
This has all been worked out, in practice.
That you think that humans can't live in peace with each other is a function of the consent engineers.
An attack on one is an attack on all.
Group endeavors require leaders.
If the leader leads, all's well and good.
But, if the 'leader' bosses, it will fail, in time.
If you submit to the group to gain from their group endeavor, you do so at the pleasure of those that allowed you to join.
You can leave, or you can be asked to leave.
If asked to leave, you forfeit any group duty to protect you.
There are more ways to skin a cat than you have been programmed to believe.
Not just you, the majority of folks that were excluded from knowing the knowledge I have pointed out to you as existing.
You live in a secret society that requires something most folks can't supply to escape.
Knowledge from outside what has been programmed intentionally into them.
Generationally.
For thousands of years.
Before you take these as some sort of dogma, let me say that these ideas shape mine, not circumscribe them.
If these authors of old had succeeded with their ideas they would be validated, that they didn't succeed doesn't invalidate them, just necessitates some tweaks.
I mean, If Emma Goldman and Alex Berkman could speak to the workers at the big box stores today, we could live in a cooperative world rather than killing each other for 'resources', imo.
That's too much to read lol!
But your ideas about groups hold. I lead the mancave, most, if not all submit to the group. I lead and don't boss.