>Hierarchies are the exception in nature, not the norm

Hierarchies exist all over nature. In all social animals, in food chains, etc.

>To frame horizontal structures as unrealistic is to claim that reality is unrealistic.

You've lost me, I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.

>You mean like the specialization of Aristotle, who did philosophy, physics, metaphysics, and other subjects? Or do you mean the mathematician, philosopher, and scientist that was Isaac Newton?

Both of those guys lived in advanced hierarchical societies where they could specialize in studying. They didn't have to split time between learning and hunting for food each day. They didn't have to make their own clothing, a specialist (tailor) made them. They didn't have to build their own home, specialists (carpenters and builders) did. Specialization and division of labor is something a society can only do if it organizes. Anarchism doesn't allow for this.

>This is based on the idea that because you observe capitalist behavior under capitalism that this means that capitalist behavior is "human nature"

Did greed and ambition not exist in humans before capitalism?

>And criticism from the right of feminism is that it's a utopian fantasy about putting women in charge. Criticism from the same towards environmentalism is that it's a utopian fantasy that nature above humans. How is your critique different from this?

Well, mainly that feminism and environmentalism exist and function. A successful modern anarchist society does not.

>All of these are frameworks which approach problems from a particular lens. Feminism from power relations between men and women. Environmentalism from power relations between humans and non-humans. Marxism from power relations between owners and workers. Anarchism from power relations between the government and the governed.

Indeed, I'm glad to see that we can agree that anarchism is purely a fun theoretical framework and little more. Good thought experiment, terrible real life idea.

>The untold thousands of years of primitive communism

Reddit anarchists have the strangest obsession with hunter gatherer societies as some sort of aspirational mod for society which I don't think I'll ever truly understand. Even taking into account the problem of having a small group of unspecialized individuals (no doctors, engineers, etc, as all members of the group have to work towards the survival of the group), even in its best case scenario it would only work for 20-50 people in a polity. It doesn't scale and so isn't really workable in the modern world where we need systems that account for millions of people at a time.

>I like to use science as a good example of a cooperative free exchange that betters humanity, and contributes one of the greatest successes of the human race

Science is a great example of something a tribal communist/anarchist society could not have. Science requires allowing for specialization, which means one less person working towards the survival of the group. It requires equipment and material that also calls for specialists somewhere to produce; otherwise what you can do with science is limited to stuff we have long since mastered.

>This is an overly simplistic understanding of what people mean by communism. You might be thinking specifically of the USSR, which was not structured as a communist (or even socialist) society, but an attempt to eventually evolve into one.

Communism is impossible, not because every society who's tried it failed, it's impossible because it fails to account for human nature. Communism can only work if everyone always buys into the shared collective efforts of the group. But there will always be people who seek to take advantage of situations to gain advantages for themselves over the group, which is exactly what happened every single time it's been tried. Power loves a vacuum, and communism by definition is a sustained power vacuum. As long as greed or ambition are human traits, communism (beyond a small tight knit group of 20-50) is impossible. History supports this.

>It does demonstrate the difficulty in taking a feudal society and trying to make it communist in a capitalist world, but it does not prove that communism is impossible.

If communism cannot exist unless every society everywhere is also communist, then it fails because it can't compete. Democracy and capitalism were able to be born and thrive in a mostly autocratic feudal world precisely because they were preferable and competitive models; such resilience is a prerequisite for a desirable and effective economic model. Because it is neither resilient nor particularly appealing, communism fails.

>Socialism is not capitalist as it doesn't have capital.

Methinks you should brush up on your Marx. Socialism is explicitly the end-state of capitalism; a model that Marx agreed with. His gripe was merely with who owned the capital, a small class of owners or the workers themselves. But a socialist world is still essentially a capitalist one.

>Socialism abolishes capital

Again, incorrect. It gives ownership of capital to those who work it rather than those who own it. It does not remove the factory or the value that factory creates. You're thinking of communism.

>Anarchism isn't a hypothetical utopian fantasy.

It is quite simply nothing more and nothing less than a hypothetical utopian fantasy. An interesting thought experiment perhaps, but certainly nothing to actually take seriously. Unlike environmentalism and feminism, which can and do exist.

>Other than historical societies, which offer a wealth of alternatives to capitalism or destitution. None of this is any more "wishful thinking" than trying to be good or truthful.

What are some examples of successful ones?

>The focus here isn't on some fantasy of everyone being perfectly equal and having exactly the same outcome. It's about control vs. autonomy. A self-governing society would be just that; a collection of autonomous agents collectively forming a community.

It looks like you're describing Communism, which we tried and doesn't work.

>We're currently experiencing the decline of capitalism and the rise in the potential for alternatives - which will either move in the direction of a more egalitarian society such as in socialism or an even more stratified economy such as in fascism.

But see both socialism and fascism (which isn't an economic model, but I understand what you're trying to say) are both extensions of capitalism, not new systems entirely. Marx himself saw socialism as a desirable end-state of capitalism, not an alternative. It wouldn't fundamentally change much in terms of societal stratification or environmental degradation, it would just mean worker shared ownership of capital, not the end of a system where capital is the key driving force of an economic system. Whatever follows capitalism would be something completely different. UBI is a closer approximation of what a post-capitalist society would look like (though it's also problematic).

>By ignoring the anarchist (and other) critiques, we only increase the risk of descending into something worse.

I think discussing it as an interesting thought experiment can be fun and informative, but it isn't terribly useful because it is neither practical nor desirable. It isn't accurate to say that we are doomed to back pedal as a direct result of not engaging with a hypothetical utopian fantasy.

>I think you're presenting a false dichotomy here. Be unequal and wealthy or equal and poor.

>In our extremely stratified and wasteful society, I think it is entirely reasonable to be equal without being poor.

Ah, but therein lies the rub; how does one achieve that? What if that really is the dichotomy? So far it always has been, and every effort to change it has been unsuccessful, or indeed just reinforced the nature of that dichotomy. Besides wishful thinking and theoretical ideas, there is nothing tangible to suggest that this isn't just the way things will always be in one form or another.

We can hope it won't be, and we can make progress to that end (as I said, we are far closer to that ideal today than ever before, regardless of what reddit memes suggest), but ultimately it may be the case that some amount of inequality and stratification is an inevitable part of a functional, organized society. Someone will always have to deal with cleaning up, disposing waste, digging ditches, and working agriculture, and those will always be tasks/roles that people would prefer not to have compared to other potential options, like those that involve sitting in soft chairs in air-conditioned offices. An organized productive society will need people to do both, and it's not clear how you could dole those roles out without someone getting something "better" than someone else. How would such a division of labor be equitably organized in our hypothetical utopia?

>I would argue that it's pretty clear at this point that continuing the capitalist mode of production is an existential threat to life on Earth, and so the choice ends up being between preserving whatever life we have now at the cost of an early death or looking for an alternative which allows us to continue to survive long term.

Moving on from the current capitalist model may indeed be inevitable, even desirable, but I think it's unreasonable to just assume that moving on from capitalism will automatically lead to a more equitable or environmentally balanced system. It was an upgrade to move from feudalistic serfdom to capitalism; it made things more equal and made life better. It follows then that whatever follows capitalism may be "better" in some or many ways, but just as capitalism has failed so many and done so much damage, in spite of being an objectively better, more efficient, more equitable system than feudalism, the next system may too fall short of utopia. Which isn't a reason not to move forward, but it's something to keep in mind as we do so.

>I think it would be very hard to make the case that a historical tyrant would look at the average retail or office worker with any degree of envy.

I would rather work 8 hours a day in retail and enjoy all the trappings of modern life than spend every hour of every day managing a realm while shitting in cold holes, drinking water filled with parasites, watching my children die young with alarming regularity, face a constant threat of assassination and power play resulting from primitive succession systems, confront the cold and dark of winter in a visceral even from within a gold studded palace, endure disease and injury without any real form of medicine, etc. Even the relatively modern history of 18th century Britain, from an aristocratic point of view, sounds boring AF from the literature describing it at the time.

But I get it. We are all subject to envy in some way; for example you envy the rich and powerful for their material comforts to such a degree that you aren't even a little satisfied with all the incredible things you do have, simply on the basis that a handful of people have more of it than you. Such relative comparisons would not be absent in an anarchist society, they would just follow different parameters. Someone will always have more than you.

The real question is, right now, would you be willing to give up everything you currently have to be more equal with someone who has much less than you? Would you accept living at the same standards as the poorest humans in the slums of Cairo or New Delhi in the name of egalitarianism?

>They would look on today's billionaires with an envy the rest of us couldn't imagine. Today's wealthy and powerful are like gods compared to history's tyrants.

By this logic, the wealthiest medieval emperor of all time would look on at a lower middle class American with intense envy; indoor plumbing, electricity, central air and heating year round, high quality food always available nearby, a combustion engine vehicle capable of speeds far in excess of any horse or carriage; but the distance between that emperor and the peasants of the day vs a modern billionaire and a middle class person, outside of the dollar amount of wealth, isn't nearly as great. Regular people have access to basically all the same comforts as a billionaire, it's just that the billionaire has more of those things and nicer versions.

>Anarchy in its most extreme theoretical form isn't possible.

Exactly. It's a fun thought experiment, but is equally as implausible in real life as it would be undesirable.

>And yet wealth and power remain extremely concentrated - more so than in any point in history.

Wealth and power were far more concentrated when the world was ruled by absolute monarchs, emperors, and warlords. It's actually far more dispersed now than for most of human history. It's still very concentrated, but it's much better now than it used to be.

>An anarchist society is not one without structures of governance, but one which radically distributes wealth and power to the individual by critiquing and eliminating unjustified forms of dominance.

Until someone who wanted power seizes it and imposes their will. Power loves a vacuum, and an anarchist society would invite far greater concentrations of wealth and power because any regulatory institutions or guardrails would be gone. Power would just go to whoever was most willing to seize it by whatever means. You can't have both a government and a lack of hierarchy; who enforces the rules, if there are any?

You can't "eliminate unjustified forms of dominance" and also have no hierarchical system to enforce it. What's stopping me from gathering a handful of droogs and coming over to your house and taking your stuff? If I didn't have the stuff you have, why wouldn't I do this if it meant that my own family/community would love more comfortably and securely?

That's why we've moved away from systems of government where a person rules, and into systems of government where institutions and laws rule, and the people running those institutions cycle through.

This is precisely and deliberately because people paradoxically need to be governed to some degree but also cannot reliably self-govern without mucking it all up.

>I see anarchism as being an ideal standard of living. I don't think we'll ever get to that standard

Seeing how people reacted to a completely manageable crisis like COVID selfishly and counterproductively proved to me without a reasonable doubt that people as a group cannot be trusted to act rationally without guardrails or hierarchical structure.

A person is smart, rational. People are dumb panicky animals. You or I might be able to live capably in an anarchical society, but the vast majority could not, and there would always be some minority of people who would impose their own hierarchy upon their immediate area, with coercion or charisma, and then BOOM, you have warlords and cults. And now you and your neighbors need to organize a way to protect yourselves from those warlords and cults. BOOM, now you have an organized society that demands specialization and organization, and now you aren't anarchical so what was the point of all that in the first place.

Anarchism, even in its most optimistic and ideal form is inferior to organized society in every way save for an individual's desire to be unconstrained. Life is better with infrastructure and logistics. Paved roads, grocery stores, supply chains, libraries, electricity, bridges, transportation, etc are awesome and none of those would exist without large scale organization and regulation.

If you like this sort of thing, there is a game called Factorio. You're welcome.

Society breaking down? Come on.

Sometimes I feel like this sub exists entirely separate from the real world.

People probably shouldn't be running into the street where there isnt a crosswalk

People on bikes should probably stop at red lights

98% of the posts on this sub are just people complaining about cars. Meanwhile I'm just trying to dodge all the reckless people running across the street without a walk signal or bikers blowing through red lights and stop signs.

Reminds of Valkyia the Bloody from Warhammer Fantasy.

"That's nice honey" -The Entire World, again