Schmoo

It seems like you're going down the Silicon Valley Techno-Libertarian rabbit hole, so I highly recommend looking into some Anarchist critiques of Libertarianism and reflecting a bit. This is a trap you're stumbling into.

Name a more iconic duo than Marxists and Anarchist-erasure.

You seem to think that Anarchism is just the extreme/pure form of Libertarianism, and that it's just about more/less government, which couldn't be further from the truth.

I'll acknowledge my bias upfront, I consider myself an Anarchist, so keep that in mind as you read my comment.

American Libertarianism presents itself as being about "small government," which makes it sound appealing to people who are skeptical of authority but have a very shallow understanding of politics. In truth, it's an ideology that holds individual property rights as superior to all others. To an American Libertarian, any infringement on their property rights is the most egregious possible violation of their freedom.

Anarchism means "without rulers." Anarchists oppose all forms of exploitation and oppression, which is described as any arrangement in which one person or group exerts authority over another person or group, usually by force. They favor organizing society via "voluntary free association," which is when people make decisions together on the basis of general consent. To an Anarchist, private property (as opposed to personal property, there is a distinction) is just another way for someone to exploit another, such as when a landlord collects rent.

This text explains what anarchism is pretty well.

Put those monkeys underwater and you might conclude that drowning is in their nature. I know of the studies you're referencing regarding monkeys being taught to use money and I'm aware that they were done with monkeys in captivity. In the same vein, the debunked study about "alpha" wolves was done on wolves in captivity and observations of wolves in their natural environment countered the study's findings. Our actions are a result of the context and material conditions that we are in.

People dominate others for personal gain because they live in a system that rewards them for doing so. Place those people in a system that rewards them for helping others and the very same selfish impulse will make them saints. The "tragedy of the commons" is enlightenment era defeatist bullshit. The commons existed and were managed by people for thousands of years before capitalists enclosed them and dared to claim that it was the inevitable result of human nature.

If that's something they need then that's something they should get. No one will be happy doing nothing forever, in that year they will likely find something that makes them happy, especially if opportunities are made available to them.

These kinds of movements are a consequence of over-exploitation. The "lie down" movement - also "let it rot" - is similar to the "quiet quitting" movement in the US. People will not be motivated to contribute when they are struggling and do not see any benefit to trying harder. If these people were fairly compensated for their labor and had greater autonomy over how to contribute they would not lose motivation. Alienation from the result of their labor is also a huge contributor; feeling rewarded for your work can be as simple as seeing the result (a teacher seeing their students find their passions, for example).

Communism envisions a society where there are no haves and have nots (classless) and socialism is put forward as the economic system that will get us there eventually. There are criticisms to be made about the method but the vision is good.

Capitalism does what you're doing here, snarkily talk down to anyone who dares suggest such a society might be possible and is worth working towards, and puts forward instead that there must be haves taking advantage of have nots for society to function and that no other way is possible.

The US government stores over a billion pounds of cheese in enormous caves. I think we can probably get away with reducing production quite a bit.

historically humans aren't usually burning down libraries on purpose.

How on earth have you come to this conclusion.

The corporations that took control of the Internet don't want us to remember.

Pantheon.

Really thoughtful and smart sci-fi animation. Don't want to spoil it so I'll be vague, it has the most realistic depiction of modern tech and how people interact with it than any other show I've seen. Really great commentary on big tech corporations and even a bit of geopolitics. Super ambitious yet it somehow pulls it off.

There is also a scene that still gives me nightmares (not even joking, I still dream about that shit) which is more than any horror movies or shows have done for me. Anyone who has watched it knows exactly what scene I'm talking about.

his solution (for a class of "intellectuals" like him to take charge) however, are just neoliberal swill

This is such a common pitfall that even self-described communists fall into it as well. When you hear people talk about a "dictatorship of the proletariat," what they're describing tends to devolve into "a class of intellectuals needs to guide the working class to the correct decisions" when questioned about what a "dictatorship of the proletariat" actually entails. Often they'll try to justify it by saying it's only temporary, but we all know how that pans out (see the USSR). This is why I consider myself an anarchist rather than a communist and regularly critique marxism-leninism.