That’s a very definitive sounding comment. I’m going to single out some stuff I don’t necessarily care for.

Therefore, we should aim to efficiently allocate our resources to meet the most of our desires.

Reader intended to infer that state capitalism accomplishes this despite ongoing evidence of looting of lower classes

If in a population of 1000, there are 100 fiction writers

Stop. You’re dismissing reality—people can organize without coercion; people grew and foraged and hunted more than enough for millennia—via a terrible hypothetical.

From my PoV, dreaming about anarchism makes no sense.

That’s a fine opinion to hold.

There were no CEOs nor governments.

There were no decision makers and nobody performed any disinterested administrative work or otherwise aided the public good?

the people that lived in that world rapidly formed societies that had hierarchies

Stop spitballing prehistory to back up your opinion of anarchism. Study some anthropology. For instance many archaeological digs show defined differences in construction at different times that show evidence of the overthrow of hierarchical rule, and great disparity of housing, in favor of more egalitarian organization and more egalitarian construction of homes and places of gathering.

because that is the most efficient way.

Money is most efficient when it circulates, because its purpose is to effectuate economic transactions, yes? Yet the current hierarchical world order is squeezing the lowest classes and ensuring they have nothing left to spend in their withering communities while amassing both real and virtual capital. The most efficient way to do what?

The only way to keep a non-stable state is by force.

I would put forward constant action and striving. I can choose to keep mixing the oil and the water. The ideal democracy is a process, not an endpoint.

All that aside, your original comment that I replied to is still very funny.

You think the issue with non authoritarian collectivization is that people don’t like making things?…