>>6564
I have to say, your assessment of my "higher gear" mode is very accurate. I did draw a sigil in my mind once lately, and also 'shut myself down' after a while. This feedback is invaluable. So I guess were I to just draw a supersigil in my head, then it would kick me into higher gear.

>>6565
I think in the case of Anarcho-Communism, like many things, Anarchy makes the presupposition that humanity is inherently good. While in the case of Hobbesianism, it makes the case that humanity is inherently bad. I propose a different approach, where it is assumed that humanity has more variation within it than the entire animal kingdom, in the mind: therefore, to make sweeping generalizations on the nature of humanity is to err.

Furthermore, how would an Anarcho-Communist commune function anyhow? Also, why are we limited to the permutations of a handful of ideologies and philosophies? For the first question, it is necessary to note that Anarchy is inchoate at this present stage. It seeks to remove the State, but what then? Perhaps it would be a good idea to look into Islam, where 'kufr bi al taghut' is a concept: or, the 'disbelief' in 'man-made law', taken here to be politics except where Islamically ordained, which would be a theocratic, Islamic state. Perhaps an adaptation of this could be used, where a new religion/cult is created with a rejection of the State being a core tenet.

Let's take a cursory look at Anarcho-Communism itself: it seeks to abolish all hierarchy. I fail to see how this is possible, at least not without replacing it another structure with some sort of vertical distribution of members on perhaps another metric. Perhaps a holarchy can be considered: a throwback to the concept of the circle societies of old, as contrasted to pyramid societies such as our own. In closing, I deem Anarcho-Communism to be a failed attempt at realizing an alternative to the pyramid society.