Feudalism: you work to be able to eat and have a place to sleep...

Sadly, most psychologist would not since they understand IQ to be primarily genetic.

What does anthropology have to do with it?

There are tons of recorded examples of existing societal structures with very little institutionalized hierarchy. People who say dumb shit about how hierarchy is natural or that it has always existed have never read an anthropology book.

But can you give one example of a society with none?

Nice post faggot.

Some people will always try to restore it because of muh tradishun.

That's a cop out.

greanvillepost.com/2015/05/23/left-anticommunism-the-unkindest-cut/

All hunter-gatherer societies. Most Native American societies. Some pre-Roman European tribes.

...

Do you have any evidence that there was no hierarchy?

Native americans had chief/shaman>warrior>homemakers

...

...

fuck off m8, pretending that the USSR did nothing wrong is a terrible way to move forward. You can acknowledge that the soviets were progressive in some ways but also admit they completely failed to establish worker's ownership of the means of production.

States (insofar as they are a system that people adhere to) are not spooks, and money definitely is not a spook.

So if "traditional family values" is a system that people adhere to it is de-spooked?

How is money not a spook? It literally has no power but the oe given to it. It is not a means of production after all

...

Not the same guy you are talking to.

I don't know much about the topic , but from the little I have read about anthropology is that "primitive" societies had a different notion of hierarchy than that of the one that became entrenched with the agricultural revolution, that resembled a pyramid like structure.

For example the "chief" in most such societies is not a hereditary position, neither was his authority absolute but some form of direct democracy in the form of Confederacies like that of the Iroquois that were not unlike the democracy of Ancient Athens.

Other examples would be the "big man" in Micronesia, were the chief was the re-distributor of the gift-economy, and it was a prestige position,not one of direct power.

Another example would be the practice of Potlatch, where power was measured not in acquiring material wealth but in it's destruction, by eliminating the exchange for profit through gifts.

That still sounds an awful lot like hierarchy, not as we know it but I'm still looking for an example of a primitive society with no hierarchy.

Hey, wanna be a slave? You can work to be able to eat and have a place to sleep, a small elite will take your surplus, so it's just like what we have today. That isn't so bad, is it?

no hierarchy is pretty far fetched, however it was most likely a hierarchy of status and not of class.

And "it's just naychur" isn't?

feudalism: you most likely possess the materials necessary for producing the goods to keep you and your family/community alive; a landlord or local political figure extracts from you enough of your product to keep you from ever producing more than is necessary for normal times and times of need; sometimes this relationship of appropriation oversteps its bounds and endangers your ability to continue normal production; the relationship between your labour and the lord is external for the most part, you carry on your labour in the way you've always done it and just the surplus is taken as rent

capitalism: you possess no materials necessary for producing goods; the only product you have is your labour-power which you sell in return for a share of your product in the form of wages; production is from the outset oriented towards surplus production and as such, every aspect of labour is disciplined to become as productive as possible; your conditions of reproduction are such that you have almost zero possibility of not being beholden to a waged-relationship to stay alive; surplus production is carried on in such a way that makes cyclical overproduction an overriding tendency and contracts the number of connections in wage-labour that are available for people to reproduce their lives; production is oriented towards monetary gain, not natural reproduction in any way–the latter only being a secondary determinant

socialism: conditions of labor are possessed in common, property being abolished; production has been rationalized to provide as much necessary goods as possible with as little labor as possible; surplus is still produced but accumulated only for expanding/improving production or in case of less than expected production figures; wage-labour is abolished, money is abolished; all necessary goods are accessible to all; you work but work much less/work under better conditions/have ability to engage in work that you consider manageable/engage in productive social activity that doesn't create a false divide between the economic and the social, between your "on" time and your "rest" time

That's my point

I haven't said that once. I am just arguing that hierarchy is a demonstrable fact throughout the animal kingdom and a society without it is so far and beyond where we are at now.

Papua New Guinean tribe. Forgot its name, its on wiki somewhere cba to search

This is a consequence of Human being a primate mammal. These mammals like many other are known for their tendency to form hierarchies.

For example in wolves alpha males/females excrete special pheromones that inhibit beta individuals surrounding them. In humans this may be primarily behavior/look-based (though humans have pheromones too..).

My opinions on this subject:
1) Humane political/social (self-)control is not sufficient to abolish innate hierarchical tendency of human primate
2) One possible way of abolishing hierarchy is making each individual self-sufficient and protected (i.e. jack in everybody into VR on life support OR creating a comprehensive machine-mass-surveilled society where crimes and physical intimidation are impossible by design)
3) Another possible way of abolishing hierarchy is to re-engineer the human primate, getting rid of hierarchy bias in the brain.

So jungle dwelling primitives have a society without hierarchy therefore you conclude a complex civilization can exist without hierarchy?

Hmm…

Never said that. Just posted it to refute the argument that hierarchy is an inevitable feature of human society.