I’m simply asking this question because of Lemmygrad.ml existing, and that there isn’t a far-right equivalent of it yet. If Lemmygrad has any standing for its right to exist under free speech, where is the line drawn for other extremist political ideologies? If Holodomor skepticism is allowed, then what stops Holocaust skepticism? (as it is generally accepted the Holodomor was man-made). I’m simply wondering what gives far-left politics a right to promote such extremist views in the Fediverse, when their far-right counterparts would be Defederated in minutes.
An anarchistic society will be immediately destroyed and replaced with an authority-driven one, with violence if necessary, by someone who wants power over everyone else. Since there is no central authority with an army to resist him, he’ll win. Your own example of the United States, if it were true, would prove this point.
However, your example is not true. The Articles of Confederation gave sovereignty to the governments of the 13 colonies, not to their people. It was by no means a horizontal society, merely a loose alliance of 13 vertical ones.
The “anarchy works” article touches on the problem of horizontal societies being taken over and verticalized, but responds with, “[s]ocieties that do allow a bossy, more talented or stronger man to have more influence typically ignore him or kill him if he becomes too authoritarian, and the Big Man is unable to extend his influence very far, geographically or temporally.” This is clearly false. Vladimir Putin has dominated Russia for over a decade and no one is killing or ignoring him. A “Big Man” taking power is the whole reason tyranny exists at all.
This is really bad logic. One instance doesn’t prove that something is always true, no. And there are more horizontal societies that have persisted for thousands of years. They are generally the rule throughout the history of humanity, in fact. I pointed you at an excellent book that gives lots of examples, but you continue in ignorance while ignoring it by cherry picking some (“typically”) statement and an example which—once again—doesn’t prove what you think it proves. Why don’t you actually read it and educate yourself instead? Peter Gelderloos knows a shit ton more about this than you do, guaranteed.
I didn’t say it did. I said there were more horizontal systems that the Constitution was drafted in order to quash, and that it was crafted to consolidate and enhance a hierarchy of power. Nowhere did I imply there was anarchy under the Articles of Confederation. Again, I pointed you at an excellent educational video that goes into detail about it, but you continue in ignorance and bad faith by completely ignoring it.
I’m going to go ahead and make this my last response before blocking you, as I don’t particularly want to start a flame war with a reactionary liberal here. I hope other leftists continue to call you on your shit. Take care.