When i say that there were sages in tribes, I don’t mean that there was just a wise guy. I mean that an elder would basically rule the tribe, because everyone would ask him for advice, and there could be consequences if that “advice” wasn’t followed.
This is a waste of my time. You aren’t interested or wanting to learn, you have a cartoon definition of anarchy in your head, you’ve made no study of human culture and society, you know nothing of the nuanced differences between various cultural groups that have all been lumped under “tribal” and the complex obligations therein, you have not made a study of anything.
Obviously a chief is a chief is a chief, and obviously these structures existed for hundreds of thousands of years. Yep, completel trivial to explain the fascinating details of the egalitarian and not so egalitarian burial traditions we’ve found, the decorated disables bodies, sites like Çatalhöyük showing stable and identical houses for thousands of years.
If you at least tried to explain why I’m wrong instead of “you’re wrong, read a book”, maybe I could use your definition of anarchy instead of mine.
The definition I got from this post is “anarchy is when people do the work that they love and they don’t have to worry about being paid enough for that work”. And I don’t think that would result in a stable society, since the demand for some kinds of labor is very different to the amount of people that “love” to do that work.
The reason I say read a book is because you will not learn anything structured and thoughtful in an internet comment section. Too many voices, different levels of academic education, ages, experience, or seriousness.
The foundation for learning about anything is to go to authoratitative sources, to look up terminology etc. It seems very silly, to the degree that it seems bad faith, to form opinions on an ideology without experiencing it in action or reading anything.
It would be like me criticising the standard model of physics, or the power grid, or whatever. I don’t have an opinion on whether we could do better with the power grid because I have never studied it.
Talking about human nature or historical societies, having never engaged with anthology is like talking about the function of the spleen having never opened an anatomy textbook.
I mean straight up underneath that silly wikipedia page fragment you linked is a high level discussion of the flaws of the “tribe” or “tribal stage” as a lens for analysing societies and history and how it’s not taken super seriously anymore because it doesn’t translate well. You’re apparently confident that you know what a chief is - universally - but you can’t give concrete examples or explain why you think a chief is a small king in the style of absolutist or legalist monarchs with evidence their concrete social roles and privileges.
I mean even in recent history, let alone 10s of thousands of years ago, multiple distinct societies were well documented in the Americas with vastly different structures and degrees of privilege among “chiefs” with some acting more like centralised resource distributors and advisors and some as the small kings you imagine.
Anarchy is the absense of hierarchy, there are many schools of anarchy but generally they all agree that involuntary relations wherein one person is elevated above another in terms or access to goods, participation in society, and often fundamentally (as in how these privileges are preserved) the ability to use coercive violence on others.
A well functioning family is anarchic, a friend group is often anarchic, community organisation are frequently anarchic. It is not stupid, it often works. In times of disaster it is almost always people’s fucking rad ability to self organise voluntarily that steps in and saves the day.
Rapidly formed hierarchies huh? miiight wanna read about early human history.
Hundreds of thousands of years passed before tyrants became the norm
You don’t need tyrants for hierarchies. Tribes had sages and leaders.
Hierarchy is not when you are convinced someone is wise lol. Please read a book
When i say that there were sages in tribes, I don’t mean that there was just a wise guy. I mean that an elder would basically rule the tribe, because everyone would ask him for advice, and there could be consequences if that “advice” wasn’t followed.
Supply evidence for your claim. Modern anthropology basically disagrees with you utterly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe
Under “classifications” plenty of kinds of tribes. Many of them with leaders and hierarchies.
This is a waste of my time. You aren’t interested or wanting to learn, you have a cartoon definition of anarchy in your head, you’ve made no study of human culture and society, you know nothing of the nuanced differences between various cultural groups that have all been lumped under “tribal” and the complex obligations therein, you have not made a study of anything.
Obviously a chief is a chief is a chief, and obviously these structures existed for hundreds of thousands of years. Yep, completel trivial to explain the fascinating details of the egalitarian and not so egalitarian burial traditions we’ve found, the decorated disables bodies, sites like Çatalhöyük showing stable and identical houses for thousands of years.
If you at least tried to explain why I’m wrong instead of “you’re wrong, read a book”, maybe I could use your definition of anarchy instead of mine.
The definition I got from this post is “anarchy is when people do the work that they love and they don’t have to worry about being paid enough for that work”. And I don’t think that would result in a stable society, since the demand for some kinds of labor is very different to the amount of people that “love” to do that work.
The reason I say read a book is because you will not learn anything structured and thoughtful in an internet comment section. Too many voices, different levels of academic education, ages, experience, or seriousness.
The foundation for learning about anything is to go to authoratitative sources, to look up terminology etc. It seems very silly, to the degree that it seems bad faith, to form opinions on an ideology without experiencing it in action or reading anything.
It would be like me criticising the standard model of physics, or the power grid, or whatever. I don’t have an opinion on whether we could do better with the power grid because I have never studied it.
Talking about human nature or historical societies, having never engaged with anthology is like talking about the function of the spleen having never opened an anatomy textbook.
I mean straight up underneath that silly wikipedia page fragment you linked is a high level discussion of the flaws of the “tribe” or “tribal stage” as a lens for analysing societies and history and how it’s not taken super seriously anymore because it doesn’t translate well. You’re apparently confident that you know what a chief is - universally - but you can’t give concrete examples or explain why you think a chief is a small king in the style of absolutist or legalist monarchs with evidence their concrete social roles and privileges.
I mean even in recent history, let alone 10s of thousands of years ago, multiple distinct societies were well documented in the Americas with vastly different structures and degrees of privilege among “chiefs” with some acting more like centralised resource distributors and advisors and some as the small kings you imagine.
Anarchy is the absense of hierarchy, there are many schools of anarchy but generally they all agree that involuntary relations wherein one person is elevated above another in terms or access to goods, participation in society, and often fundamentally (as in how these privileges are preserved) the ability to use coercive violence on others.
A well functioning family is anarchic, a friend group is often anarchic, community organisation are frequently anarchic. It is not stupid, it often works. In times of disaster it is almost always people’s fucking rad ability to self organise voluntarily that steps in and saves the day.