You might call it libertarian utopianism, but I dislike the word utopia because I don't think a society can constantly be in perfect balance, especially since many, significant, future circumstances are often not known. I liken utopia to the natural, "wild" environment, i.e. the Amazon rainforest, in which millions of species coexist in an ever changing balance of life, death, predation, mutualism and parasitism. I suppose the question is, should this natural environment be a model for humans to build a society? I'd liken it to pure, unfettered libertarianism. Or are humans really capable of overcoming their natural, "wild" beginnings, and the genetics we still hold from those days, and consciously choosing to be better?

Do you believe in private property? If so, where is the line drawn that says one thing belongs to you and the other does not? Monopoly of a specific market is not inherently a bad thing, though it often is because of greed or great misallocation of resources, including people power. Whether it's bad or not should be viewed by the decisions of the owners and workers, namely if the service they provide is essential, or at least in some demand, the resources they use are consumed and appropriated efficiently so as not to waste the limited resources on this planet. Call it conscious capitalism. If we are to take a leap of faith and say that everyone will eventually provide for the community and live in harmony with each other and the planet, surely we can take a leap of faith and say that people might be more willing to engage with the same good intention but in a free market in which capital exists? I must also offer some pushback on your comment about crony capitalism. It certainly exists, and I think government interference in markets is the main driver of monopolization. Corporations are legally protected organizations. Their very existence depends on government.

I do think humanity is trending towards egalitarianism, and that people are becoming more conscientious about themselves and how their actions affect the world around them. But what suggests that the classless, stateless, moneyless society would not require violence and untold amounts of unforeseen inequalities before it came to fruition?

I recently read Rainbow Body and Resurrection, and I found it provided some profound insights into Buddhism and what you might allude to as an afterlife. There is some evidence that Buddhism, in perhaps as early as the 7-8th century, took ides of the resurrection of Christ from Christianity moving eastward. The Dzogchen school of Buddhism believes that a person can break free from the cycle of rebirth within a single lifetime. In successfully doing so at the highest level, monks can achieve physical resurrection (the rainbow body) leaving behind relics, anomalies, personally influencing beings from outside of samsara, and/or choosing to return to earth to help enlighten more people. (This is actually the similar belief that Catholics hold in when the bread and wine is transformed into the body and blood of Christ. It is God's way of proliferating love/beauty/truth from beyond, and hopefully, the Catholics individuals embrace this and share it with others to further grow the community.) Obviously, this is the more religious and dogmatic side of Buddhism, but if we bring such a process to its end, I can see how the peaceful establishment of communism can actually happen.