Asklemmy

Over the short term (in an historical sense), that's certainly the case.

I just mentioned on another post that I liken it to individual growth. Just as individuals can and often do mature to the point that they no longer need or desire a mommy and daddy, so too can our species as a whole mature. And I believe that, if we don't destroy ourselves along the way, we not only can but will.

But even if we don't destroy ourselves along the way, yes - that's still many, many, MANY generations away.

All of that is the fruit of people living for generations under oppressive hierarchical power structures.

Just like we can’t say humans “naturally are greedy” we also can’t say they “naturally will give themselves over a ‘populist leader’”.

In less hierarchical societies, people naturally are more skeptic of authority and populism.

Like when the North American native peoples of the North East first encountered Europeans, and couldn’t possibly understand how the sailors had “bosses” who “told them what to do”. The idea of following a leader like that didn’t make much sense to them at all.

So to not have an institutionalized authority that coerces people to follow the rules, you first coerce (or even kill) the self-serving fuckwads.

No - you explicitly do not. It's impossible to get out of the trap of some claiming the power to nominally rightfully force the submission of others through some claiming the power to nominally rightfully force the submission of others.

The only way it can come about is if humanity evolves into it - grows the fuck up, collectively as well as individually.

It can never be achieved

Why not?

If an individual can outgrow a need for a mommy and daddy to watch over them and tell them what to do, then so can a species.

But yes - for the relatively short term (in the anthropological sense), such a system is effectively impossible, so yes - "the goal should be to get as close to it as possible."

And in fact, the only way that it can be achieved is incrementally, as ever more individuals reject the whole concept of institutionalized authority. Eventually, a point should be reached at which the view that it's illegitimate is so widespread that those who claim it will no longer be able to exercise their claim.

Or to put it in simplistic and not-really-accurate terms, the claim "I'm the President of the United States" will be as ludicrous as the claim "I'm the Emperor of the Universe," and will be treated with the same disdain.

We will never achieve total post scarcity.

I agree.

The extent of the universe as a whole might well be infinite, but the extent of the resources to which humans can have access most assuredly is not.

We can never eliminate institutions of authority

I disagree.

I not only think we can - I think that unless we destroy ourselves first, we inevitably will.

Again, it's akin to an individual outgrowing the need for a mommy and daddy, just on a broader scale.

For example, we can never eliminate the police force, as there still would be some sociopaths who we would need protection from.

Except that the police are ever more likely to BE sociopaths than to protect us from them.

That's the exact problem I mentioned in the last post - hierarchical authority effectively rewards and thus selects for sociopathy.

People with morals, principles, integrity and/or empathy will have things that they'll refuse to do.

Psychopaths don't have those constraints - if so inclined, they're willing to do absolutely whatever it takes to get what they want.

So all other things more or less equal, psychopaths actually have a competitive advantage in hierarchical systems.

Which is exactly how and why "power corrupts."

So in conclusion, am I right in considering the communist utopia as a singularity?

Roughly, though it would be more accurate, if less appropriate to this STEM-obsessed era, to call it an "ideal."

Technically, no - there has never been a truly communist society. They've all really been communist in name only.

In order for the society to be truly communist, property must be communal - that's the fundamental requirement.

And in order for property to be truly communal, all must have an exactly equal right to it, or more precisely, an exactly equal right to share in it.

The moment that hierarchical authority is introduced, control over the society and its property is tied to that authority. That means that for all intents and purposes, regardless of any claims to the contrary, all property is not owned by the people communally, but by the state. And that is not and cannot be communism.

When someone who owns the path to your house decides they won't let you use that path anymore. Or when the guy who owns the water works doesn't like you and decides that your house won't get any water any more?

This would be public property. No private ownership.

Or even more simple: what if you and your neighbour have a conflict that escalates further and further? Should you just duel? Or maybe shoot the neighbour in their sleep before they do it with you?

So this is how I understand it. Achieving the communist utopia in its purest form would be impossible. However, the goal should be to go as close to it as possible. In your scenario, your neighbor would just be "nice", thus stopping any escalation of your conflict. Again, as it's impossible for this to happen completely, we would still require the presence of SOME coercive entity. However, the scale of this entity would reduce over time, as people would tend to be less asshole-ey over time (consider how wars have reduced over time).

And lastly: To get to this state, you need to coerce the current coercive institutions out of said power. Is that not being coercive yourself?

It is. However, this isn't necessarily contradictory. Say you have an institution with 121 coercion points. You thus overthrow this institution, thus becoming worth say 70 coercion points. After the overthrowing is complete, you dissolve your own institution that did the coercion on the other coercive institution. Thus, 0 coercion achieved.

Another way to explain this: The Nazis started a war. The goal was to end this war. However, to end this war, the allies entered the war, thus expanding its scale. In the end however, the war ended.

People will have to be vigilant. But they have to be now as well - having a state does not provide safety against the rise of fascism or global corporations trashing our planet, as we can see.

That is of course something people must (re-)learn through practice. We can't just "abolish the state" and expect people to suddenly have all the skills needed for self-organizing.

From what they're trying to attempt, it looks like either they're striving for "good old days of slavery" or trying to create their own cult, like just like they do it in the movie The Other Lamb.

I can't imagine wanting to be ruled by corporations.