maybe in few hundred years

I don't know much about it

I kinda assumed from the name of it

its not bad, unless you want a world where smartest person has under 200IQ to use it

Is it cutthroat capitalism?

brb, need afk

nope its not cutthroat capitalism

Just looked it up and I think I get the idea of it. It is like the inverse of anarcho-syndicalism where instead of the dissolution of the state for the sake of the worker it is for the sake of the consumer. While anarcho-syndicalism values solidarity anarcho-capitalism values individuality.

yes those are not full anarchies, full anarchy is in next millenia if we dont kill ourselves

I think such a system could only come into fruition if the innate nature of humans is changed from technological advancements. Because humans are innately neither fully individualistic or fully interdependent, and for either of those two systems to occur human nature would need to be modified to accommodate them.

For anarcho-capitalism to occur the individual person would need to become a fully independent creature in order for it to succeed. That means they would never *need* to have to interact with other humans. Technically speaking, a very capable person could be able to do this like you mentioned earlier, but even then it is not really preferable to living socially.

that is why i said, not yet

But is it desirable? For me it isn't.

I think moving either too close to full interdependency or full independency would be destructive to human nature as we know it.

it doesnt matter if it is desirable, it will happen as part of evolution

So you believe it be inevitable progression?

yes of course

its not too soon

An anarcho-syndicalist or socialist would say the same thing just at the other end of the spectrum.

Technological development would make us all completely interdependent rather than fully independent.

you look at it in a wrong way

some ideas are bad, some good, some for future and some for past

the issue is, if we kill this civilization we will begin from

0

socialism is one of the ideas to reach other state of development

I think that is a Western-Centric viewpoint.

communism is anarchic systme

look at economic theories from problem solving point

They are similar but communism still believe in there being a state.

nope

you see

people like own shit turf so much any deviation from original idea gains new name, so communism split into communism with minimal state and anarcho-communism

which is dumb

because one is subset of another, an optional corollary and not a new completely different set of systems

Communism is a state ruled by the workers though, while Anarchism is the absolute abolishment of the state.

its same thing in its essence

It is, but still a distinction.

read onw statement its right there

onw statement?

its a distinction for those wish to gain name in history for "coming up" with "new ideas"

own*