All of which developed heirarchy because all of society has heirarchy as heirarchy is a natural offshoot of society.

Why do you think I always specify “command and control”, when talking about hierarchies? What do you consider a hierarchy? Anarchists specifically focus on hierarchies of decision making power.

Controlled by a generaltariat

A delegate body that coordinates processes and that can be revoked if the community chooses to do so is something else than a boss who can fire you. Also: you probably skipped the part about "workers’ self-management.

and lasted less than a year. Why is that relevant? Do you know why it lasted for such a short period? Is “being able to win against fashists on several fronts” now something we want to require every social system to have, because I have some bad news about parlamentary democracy concerning Weimar Germany.

Directed by Symon Petliura also lasted less than a year.

Lol, Petliura was a nationalist and opposed to the anarchist movement. (granted: I might have gotten the year wrong)

who also specifically and repeatedly have stated they are not anarchist.

They refuse to follow the european tradition, since “anarchism” is a mostly western political movement. The way they act in practice is however de facto anarchist as in bottom-up basic democratic.

Native tribes are almost all communes lead by tribal counsel

Again: I don’t think we use the same definitions of hierarchy.

As for the hadza, maybe just maybe though I don’t actually believe it myself I would have to see it in action but I can pretty much guarantee “conflict is rare” doesn’t mean absent

Never claimed anything about conflicts being absent. I was making a claim of an egalitarian society.

“pygmy” aren’t a thing, that’s Dutch colonial nonsense which actually refers to any number of people distributed throughout the world.

Ok, didn’t know that. Anthropology is not my main field, so please excuse me. However, virtually all immediate return hunter-gatherer societies are egalitarian.

Who do you default to in dnd when there is a dispute? The dm because the dm is the authority and thus on top with players below

What happens when a dm is such a dick that people don’t want to play with them anymore?

Small-scale hunting and gathering societies do have a hierarchy, but the difference is that it’s not imposed and because they are egalitarian, anyone can opt out of the hierarchy by simply leaving. Because private property doesn’t really exist in nomadic hunting and gathering societies --you only really own what you can carry-- influence over the group is determined by merit rather than by control of private property and resources.

This is the system that humanity evolved to live in over hundreds of thousands of years, and that’s why we like it so much and why you never see people deliberately leaving small egalitarian societies for larger hierarchical societies, though we do have hundreds of historical examples of people doing the opposite.

That said, agriculture is a trap in the sense that once we adopted it, we could and can never go back for a set of reasons that should be obvious. The task then is to most nearly recreate the system we lived in for 99.9 percent of our existence as a species, while still accounting for the fact that we live under a new set of parameters and can never go back to those that existed before.

As I understand it, this is the puzzle that some forms of anarchy set out to solve.