[arrosenberg]

I think I get it, it's radical egalitarianism. It just turns out that hierarchical decision making works better for running complex organizations (e.g. an army), so anarchism (i.e. a vacuum of centralized power) nearly always leads to a warlord taking power. The US basically got lucky that Washington didn't want it and set a republican precedent for other colonial independence movements.

[AndyNemmity]

There is no evidence that hierarchical decision making works better for complex organizations.

It's possibly true, but there's no evidence it is.

I guess the question also depends on what is "better". Certainly it's better for those with authority, but it's very difficult to compare that with another structure.

[arrosenberg]

> It's possibly true, but there's no evidence it is.

I mean, which leftist revolutions lead to a radically egalitarian society instead of an authoritarian? If there is one, I'd love to read about it.

"Better" as in, more likely to prevail in real terms. You can obviously go too far with that and paralyze yourself within a hierarchy, but some is better than none.

[AndyNemmity]

>I mean, which leftist revolutions lead to a radically egalitarian society

The one referenced in the article. Although it was brief before it was crushed.

Would have been interesting to see how it developed. Since it didn't, we have no evidence it wouldn't have.

While it was active, it was a marvel of human effort.

[arrosenberg]

> Although it was brief before it was crushed.

Thus my point...