• Madison420@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    All of which developed heirarchy because all of society has heirarchy as heirarchy is a natural offshoot of society.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia

    Controlled by a generaltariat and lasted less than a year.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symon_Petliura

    Directed by Symon Petliura also lasted less than a year.

    Famously named after Emiliano Zapata and lead by same who also specifically and repeatedly have stated they are not anarchist.

    Native tribes are almost all communes lead by tribal counsel, I’m native so…

    As for the hadza, maybe just maybe though I don’t actually believe it myself I would have to see it in action but I can pretty much guarantee “conflict is rare” doesn’t mean absent. “pygmy” aren’t a thing, that’s Dutch colonial nonsense which actually refers to any number of people distributed throughout the world.

    Not at all, your example is junk. Who do you default to in dnd when there is a dispute? The dm because the dm is the authority and thus on top with players below, amusingly the dm guides are a higher authority.

    • Prunebutt@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      All of which developed heirarchy because all of society has heirarchy as heirarchy is a natural offshoot of society.

      Why do you think I always specify “command and control”, when talking about hierarchies? What do you consider a hierarchy? Anarchists specifically focus on hierarchies of decision making power.

      Controlled by a generaltariat

      A delegate body that coordinates processes and that can be revoked if the community chooses to do so is something else than a boss who can fire you. Also: you probably skipped the part about "workers’ self-management.

      and lasted less than a year. Why is that relevant? Do you know why it lasted for such a short period? Is “being able to win against fashists on several fronts” now something we want to require every social system to have, because I have some bad news about parlamentary democracy concerning Weimar Germany.

      Directed by Symon Petliura also lasted less than a year.

      Lol, Petliura was a nationalist and opposed to the anarchist movement. (granted: I might have gotten the year wrong)

      who also specifically and repeatedly have stated they are not anarchist.

      They refuse to follow the european tradition, since “anarchism” is a mostly western political movement. The way they act in practice is however de facto anarchist as in bottom-up basic democratic.

      Native tribes are almost all communes lead by tribal counsel

      Again: I don’t think we use the same definitions of hierarchy.

      As for the hadza, maybe just maybe though I don’t actually believe it myself I would have to see it in action but I can pretty much guarantee “conflict is rare” doesn’t mean absent

      Never claimed anything about conflicts being absent. I was making a claim of an egalitarian society.

      “pygmy” aren’t a thing, that’s Dutch colonial nonsense which actually refers to any number of people distributed throughout the world.

      Ok, didn’t know that. Anthropology is not my main field, so please excuse me. However, virtually all immediate return hunter-gatherer societies are egalitarian.

      Who do you default to in dnd when there is a dispute? The dm because the dm is the authority and thus on top with players below

      What happens when a dm is such a dick that people don’t want to play with them anymore?

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because to explain anarchism you have to continually hedge because the system does not work.

        That’s heirarchy. “a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority.” I didn’t miss it, it doesn’t matter a union is either self management and yet still utilize a heirarchical structure.

        It’s relevant because a system that routinely fails in less than a year can’t exactly be called a legitimate method of governance. Yes every new government is resisted to some extent, the success of a government against those odds is what determines how effective it actually is.

        I imagine you did.

        Nope. They say they aren’t what you claim them to be, take their word.

        : the classification of a group of people according to ability or to economic, social, or professional standing : a graded or ranked series

        By either definition there is heirarchy in all but one of your examples and it is in effect a pre industrial society.

        Conflict is unlikely to happen without a heirarchical structure.

        Arguably yes, in practice rarely if ever.

        Then the group leaves, because if the person at the top across in bad faith they people below have the choice of violent revolution or to simply leave same as any other government.

        • Prunebutt@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sorry, can’t porperly parse your comment anymore without further structure.

          We disagree on fundamental definitions. Furthermoree you accuse me of bad faith by “hedging”, so I see less and less reason to carry on arguing with you.

          If you want, you can think that you “won” by slam-dunking some anarkiddie on the internet. Have a pleasant day.

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It doesn’t seem to be that you ever properly parsed my comments.

            I didn’t say you, I said in general defending anarchism is largely hedging.

            I didn’t start the conversation with you so save the snark.

    • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Small-scale hunting and gathering societies do have a hierarchy, but the difference is that it’s not imposed and because they are egalitarian, anyone can opt out of the hierarchy by simply leaving. Because private property doesn’t really exist in nomadic hunting and gathering societies --you only really own what you can carry-- influence over the group is determined by merit rather than by control of private property and resources.

      This is the system that humanity evolved to live in over hundreds of thousands of years, and that’s why we like it so much and why you never see people deliberately leaving small egalitarian societies for larger hierarchical societies, though we do have hundreds of historical examples of people doing the opposite.

      That said, agriculture is a trap in the sense that once we adopted it, we could and can never go back for a set of reasons that should be obvious. The task then is to most nearly recreate the system we lived in for 99.9 percent of our existence as a species, while still accounting for the fact that we live under a new set of parameters and can never go back to those that existed before.

      As I understand it, this is the puzzle that some forms of anarchy set out to solve.