[DubiousDan]

Does all of this not make the creation of the state inevitable? are the elite not just a group serving its self interest?

if a group can attack an individual due to any reason, how will you prevent coercion?

Sorry, something went wrong. I tried to delete my post, but somehow, the original hung in there. My post was in error because it was based on a flawed concept. I'll try to explain it here.

I’m not really sure where you are coming from here. As for the Elites, they aren’t a problem in Anarchism because they can’t exist in an Anarchism. That’s why civilization has to destroy Anarchism. Most folks have it backward. They think of Anarchism destroying civilization, it’s the other way around. Civilization destroys Anarchisms.
The creation of the state isn’t inevitable as long as you are dealing with feral man. Civilization domesticates man. Once domesticated, they prefer civilization, that’s what they were trained for. Domesticated animals want their master, so if you have domesticated men, yeah, the state is pretty much inevitable. That’s what dooms the biosphere.
I suspect that somewhere in the agricultural process, some humans became domesticated. Civilization began with agricultural because it allowed for a surplus to create a warrior caste. It demanded that people stay in one place and till the soil. Regimentation and slavery, result domesticated man.
In the Americas, in the countries with a large amount of either indigenous peoples or mixed peoples, you had civilization before the Europeans arrived. These people were already domesticated, all they had to do was change masters. The uncivilized Amerindians weren’t domesticated, so they were exterminated. Of course, nobody wants to admit this, but if you go the countries were the Amerindians weren’t civilized, you don’t find many Amerindians or mixed Amerindians in the population. They weren’t slaughtered, they just committed suicide.
People like the Hadza or the Bushmen survive because they live were civilized men don’t want to live. That was true of the Polar Inuit for a long period of time. This is how a few hunter gatherer social orders survived. These are feral man. The original Humans.
Anarchism won’t work with domesticated Humans. They talk freedom but really want slavery. First you have to put humans through the wilding process to convert them back to feral men.
Once you have feral man, the rest is automatic. Feral men don’t want civilization. A wolf doesn’t want to be domesticated. A domesticated dog doesn’t want to be feral.
Anarchism won’t save the biosphere. Civilized men aren’t going to adopt Anarchism. Humans will have to organize to destroy civilization. Not likely but possible. Then they will have to find a wilding process or a third way. Not likely, but possible. Most likely, Humans will go extinct when Civilization self destructs in this century.
The only thing that has a reasonable likelihood of saving Humanity is for the machine to go sentient and decide to preserve the Human race. I can’t think of a reason for this, but I suppose anything is possible. Perhaps reasonable likelihood is stretching it a bit.

In my previous discussion of Anarchism, I was discussing Anarchism with feral Man. The only problem was, I don’t realize it until I got your reply. Then I realized that my arguments didn’t apply to domesticated man.

Anarcho-primitivism deals with this. I arrived at my conclusions independently but their beliefs are similar as far as the disease. Where we differ is on the cure.

[Suska]

are the elite not just a group serving its self interest?

Interesting observation.

I would say that in that case you're dealing with a group that requires a narrative that has embraced escalation. That is, this is no longer a group of people who live by a natural intuitive narrative, they must in that case justify the escalation usually as a matter of revenge. Escalation can take many forms (breeding as in China and India, engineering and wealth as in the west, chemical warfare as in Saddam's regime...so on.) but it's what you might call dishonorable or immoral. Breeding beyond the land's capacity, trapping the neighboring lands, genocide, the ultimate form of escalation is nuclear weapons. Once you start down that road, no matter how obvious the apocalyptic consequences of escalating may be, you must escalate because you've made everything especially security scarce. We need really durable narratives to excuse this sort of thing. Lies basically. There's may be a limit to it in that sense alone, probably you wind up talking so much bullshit that everyone becomes stupid and begins to think that the world will support only you and anything you want.

The world is a theater of narratives now, used to be that the stories we told each other were warm and natural. Tonight at dinner my Dad was going over his homework, a discussion of history of French royalty and my Mom was falling asleep. It occured to me that western history sort of requires a team attutude. You have to think, those are my people, that's my team and it's winning. Otherwise you fall asleep. It shares more in common with engineering than storytelling. We value precision so highly because everything we do is advantage-seeking behavior. Far from being something to be proud of (well it may have been different if we'd been talking about the American Revolution) it's really now something to reflect on and say, "how far we've fallen..."

The simplest form is

everyone knows who you are..?

[Melodramatic]

Suska, I'm sorry but my feeble mind didn't really understand a thing you wrote...

The rationale of Anarchism is to prevent coercion within its group, not without.

If you don't apply anarchism to society in general, regardless of any grouping, I have truly no idea what you seek to achieve.

If one bigger and stronger group decides to steal another group's product, is that alright and dandy with you? there is no difference real between that and the state, aside for the means of the exploitation being force rather than deception. and even that will eventually change if they wish to leach off well.

[Suska]

The modern materialist attitude toward human nature is asinine and impoverished. I mean, people do have feelings and intuition despite all our societal efforts to streamline individual needs into channels that serve society (or elites if you prefer). There are all sorts of things we could talk about here, conscience, love, happiness, friendship that bear heavily on what people do regardless of the system imposed on them.

I think what DD is saying is that those natural aspects of human nature work just fine until they are conditioned out of us deliberately.

My point is that the conditioning at one level takes the forms of stories (or lies if you prefer). These narratives could be considered a kind of psychological injury. A bit like pulling the horns off of livestock. An example or two is in order.

Manifest Destiny. Divine Right. White Supremacy. Free Market.

See?

edit: Escalation is an interesting term. The basic meaning is easy to grasp. If you build a longbow, I'll build a rifle. In this broad a context I mean that this is practically the only card societies play anymore. Arms race is the perfect example. Instead of utilizing our energies to build an economy that could have been by now enormous, diverse and friendly, what we did was rigidify society with fear and churn out nukes. It's easy to rationalize. Hell Tony Blair just wrote a book in which he very conscientiously outlines why the Iraq war was necessary - the risks are too high, after all Al Qaida might not have killed 3000 people if they could have killed 30,000 or 3 million. But which comes first, would be my question. This is why proactive war is frowned upon. There were other options. It hides these under fear and ruins future potential by generating resentment. You have to trust that other people have children too, and love life too. But that's been stripped from the narrative. We don't see ourselves as natural anymore. We see ourselves as monsters. We don't behave like we can create the world we want using positive even audacious or bizarre methods. We act like the only answer is cluster bombs and law. It's not human. It's not sustainable. The opposite of escalation is sustainability, negotiation, cultivation. Slow things that require trust and patience and vision. Instead what we got is 5000 uses for the word fuck.

[DubiousDan]

If you don't apply anarchism to society in general, regardless of any grouping, I have truly no idea what you seek to achieve.

If one bigger and stronger group decides to steal another group's product, is that alright and dandy with you? there is no difference real between that and the state, aside for the means of the exploitation being force rather than deception. and even that will eventually change if they wish to leach off well.

Sorry, I yanked the rug off from under you on this one. However, it brings up a good point.
The United States Constitution is for the United States, not the rest of the World.
Why would you assume that an Anarchist social order should have to mandate beyond its social order?

[Melodramatic]

Suska, while I understand some of what you are saying, I think, I don't see your point or how it relates to mine...

Sorry, I yanked the rug off from under you on this one.

edit: oh didn't quite see that, will read you post now.

The United States Constitution is for the United States, not the rest of the World.
Why would you assume that an Anarchist social order should have to mandate beyond its social order?

The way I see it (before you start talking down to me about not knowing the correct definitions), anarchism applies to the whole of society. When the state is destroyed the people become liberated, from which point it is clear that every attempt to resurrect the state is violence and coercion. Under anarchy, the lack of state, groups will be formed. if a group is violent, the others will defend themselves. But to prevent the recreation of the state, the will require the group itself to remain peaceful, not only defend itself. that is anarchism, the call the preserve anarchy but both defending yourself and remaining peaceful.

No man is external to anarchy, because anarchy is the basic state of affairs. states are simply violent beings that where created in the anarchic state (as in situation), due to aggressiveness of the groups or individual.

[Melodramatic]

hmm...

I am unconvinced that civilization is the core of the problem, although the form it has taken now is obviously obsolete. While doubtfully productive the move the farming was inevitable. I think the fact that the moment we had the option to steal and oppress, we did, is the real problem, not the fact that we had such an option.

As for the Elites, they aren’t a problem in Anarchism because they can’t exist in an Anarchism.

Indeed, you are correct. The problem is that with open aggression the recreation of both the state and elite is inevitable, unless people have no ability or need to enslave each other, something that I have no reason to believe will exist for long.

Anarchism won’t work with domesticated Humans.

Perhaps the core of my disagreement with you. I believe it can, if we are able to negate our internal violence.

I think I understand where you are coming from in general. I doubt I can agree with you. maybe because I am domesticated.

[Suska]

I think the fact that the moment we had the option to steal and oppress, we did, is the real problem, not the fact that we had such an option.

This is the we are monsters narrative that supplies justification for escalation. It was taught to you by elites. It isn't true. As for adopting agriculture, why would it be inevitable? I suspect the only reason is city walls. In other words escalation to warfare, not from brutality though, we were just like animals once, we had our lives and didn't bother ourselves about identity. Even though we do bother about a lot of things now, what we get is still a series of sensory experiences.

I am unconvinced that civilization is the core of the problem

How about I change your sig to say this. Stockpile Ammo, but I am unconvinced that civilization is the core of the problem.

[Melodramatic]

This is the we are monsters narrative

Are we not? we allowed for the state to be created in the first place.

It was taught to you by elites.

No the elite teach us we are doomed to stay monsters, so we will not try to become at peace once more.

As for adopting agriculture, why would it be inevitable?

Because it was an easy way to gain food, allowing to rapidly reproduce. Both seem pretty good to the common man.

How about I change your sig to say this. Stockpile Ammo, but I am unconvinced that civilization is the core of the problem.

I see no contradiction between my claim and my Sig.

[Suska]

Because it was an easy way to gain food, allowing to rapidly reproduce. Both seem pretty good to the common man.

Actually it's easier to just walk around and eat. Early agriculture (which is to say agriculture up to the use of chemical fertilizers, mass vegetable gardening, mass animal slaughter etc..) was far less palatable and nutritious.

No the elite teach us we are doomed to stay monsters, so we will not try to become at peace once more.

same thing. Our savior... Excuse me, our priest class will save us!

I see no contradiction between my claim and my Sig.

Because nuclear war is common among hunter gatherers?

[DubiousDan]

The way I see it (before you start talking down to me about not knowing the correct definitions), anarchism applies to the whole of society. When the state is destroyed the people become liberated, from which point it is clear that every attempt to resurrect the state is violence and coercion. Under anarchy, the lack of state, groups will be formed. if a group is violent, the others will defend themselves. But to prevent the recreation of the state, the will require the group itself to remain peaceful, not only defend itself. that is anarchism, the call the preserve anarchy but both defending yourself and remaining peaceful.

No man is external to anarchy, because anarchy is the basic state of affairs. states are simply violent beings that where created in the anarchic state (as in situation), due to aggressiveness of the groups or individual.

This is why I like to stay with the dictionary definition. You are talking about something that to me is not Anarchism. It’s your game. Fine, go play it.

[DubiousDan]

hmm...

I am unconvinced that civilization is the core of the problem, although the form it has taken now is obviously obsolete. While doubtfully productive the move the farming was inevitable. I think the fact that the moment we had the option to steal and oppress, we did, is the real problem, not the fact that we had such an option.

Man lived on Earth for over a hundred thousand years before he adopted civilization. During that time, he probably did a bit of stealing and oppressing. It was only very recently, after the adoption of agriculture that civilization came along.

DubiousDan: “As for the Elites, they aren’t a problem in Anarchism because they can’t exist in an Anarchism.”

Indeed, you are correct. The problem is that with open aggression the recreation of both the state and elite is inevitable, unless people have no ability or need to enslave each other, something that I have no reason to believe will exist for long.

For over a hundred thousand years the state didn’t show up. That’s because domesticated man didn’t exist. Feral man seems to get along quite nicely without the state. Even today, amongst the surviving feral men, they do without the state. Let’s face it, Domesticated men need a master, slavery is their native state.

DubiousDan: “Anarchism won’t work with domesticated Humans. “

Perhaps the core of my disagreement with you. I believe it can, if we are able to negate our internal violence.

I think I understand where you are coming from in general. I doubt I can agree with you. maybe because I am domesticated.

Maybe it can. I have a few ideas. However, up to now, it has never worked with domesticated man. The few so called Anarchisms were never real Anarchisms, and depended on states for their survival.
Most of the so called Anarchisms, the hyphenated this and that, are really dodges to evade the reality of Anarchism.
However, let’s face facts, how do you solve the problem of civilization? Civilization exists by coercion, and it doesn’t ask, it takes. You are just going to walk away from civilization? Right. Lots of luck.
As for negating our internal violence. In other words, change the nature of man. There are a lot of utopias out there just waiting for perfect people to populate them.
I think it would be a lot easier just to put Humans through the wilding process. At least you would end up with Humans, real Humans. Actually, civilization is an imposed thing, just as domestication is imposed. Feral man is the real man.
Feral man doesn’t have to renounce technology, just domestication. That’s where I part with most of the Anarcho-primitivists.

[DubiousDan]

Are we not? we allowed for the state to be created in the first place.

Who allowed? The choice was be a slave or die.

No the elite teach us we are doomed to stay monsters, so we will not try to become at peace once more.

BS! Where do they teach us that. They teach us we are noble freemen and lucky to be citizens of the glorious state.

Because it was an easy way to gain food, allowing to rapidly reproduce. Both seem pretty good to the common man.

Before you make absurd statements about the origin of agriculture, you should study a little, just a little, anthropology. Hunter gatherer social orders have better diets and expend less effort getting food than agricultural social orders.
Agriculture does allow for the stockpiling of food to feed soldiers. That’s a real advantage, especially if you want to use the soldiers to enslave people.

I might point out that even today, hunter gatherers live as hunter gatherers by preference right next to agricultural cultures. As a matter of fact, in times of famine, farmers join the Hadza to escape starvation. There has never been a recorded example of famine among the Hadza. Very few early agricultural civilizations could make that claim.

[Melodramatic]

Because nuclear war is common among hunter gatherers?

by god, suska, I think you are the person a understand the least of this forum... not disagree but just not understand...

This is why I like to stay with the dictionary definition. You are talking about something that to me is not Anarchism. It’s your game. Fine, go play it.

It is anarchism, because it follows the dictionary definition, while possibly extends it. It is my view of how an anarchist society can exist, and how it can exist fairly, without the state reemerging.

Let’s face it, Domesticated men need a master, slavery is their native state.

Perhaps. I would not give up without a fight.

However, let’s face facts, how do you solve the problem of civilization? Civilization exists by coercion, and it doesn’t ask, it takes.

I wish to create a different civilization. I have little hope for ours to change.

As for negating our internal violence. In other words, change the nature of man. There are a lot of utopias out there just waiting for perfect people to populate them.

I believe man can be peaceful. call it a utopia, but peace is a cause worth fighting for.

I think it would be a lot easier just to put Humans through the wilding process.

You said yourself, why would a domesticated man go feral? Civilization would have to fall for that, and even its ruins will be enough to recreate it. The civilized man will not die of easily.

Actually, civilization is an imposed thing, just as domestication is imposed.

Imposed? by who? there were only feral men in the beginning. it was these that caused this to begin with.

And how will this feral man prevent this form happening again? how do you suppose that civilization would not be recreated?

Feral man doesn’t have to renounce technology, just domestication.

I understand that distinction, an important one. but aside form the rejection of agriculture in what ways is this feral man different?

Who allowed? The choice was be a slave or die.

the feral man, there were no other men to begin with. it was the feral man who created the domesticated one.

BS! Where do they teach us that. They teach us we are noble freemen and lucky to be citizens of the glorious state.

I got myself confused in that discussion. forget what I wrote.

Before you make absurd statements about the origin of agriculture, you should study a little, just a little, anthropology. Hunter gatherer social orders have better diets and expend less effort getting food than agricultural social orders.

It was form a piece you posted I learned about this, while I mistakenly wrote easily without specifying that can gather more food easily. Remember that written quite simply, quantity over quality.

Agriculture does allow for the stockpiling of food to feed soldiers. That’s a real advantage, especially if you want to use the soldiers to enslave people.

was that the reason you think it adopted? to build armies? seems unlikely...

[DubiousDan]

It is anarchism, because it follows the dictionary definition, while possibly extends it. It is my view of how an anarchist society can exist, and how it can exist fairly, without the state reemerging.

Sorry, didn't make my meaning clear. it's utopian Anarchism. There's a lot out there. It's if this, and if that. That's why we've never had an Anarchism with domesticated man. That's what I meant when I said go play your game. You can play it, but I'll pass. Yes, it might work with feral men. Most of them are already living in a manner consistent with the definitions of Anarchism.

Perhaps. I would not give up without a fight.

The Hadza will probably let you join if you make a sincere effort. You might find the medical coverage a little lacking. Most domesticated men talk a good game. Right now, I admit that I couldn't hack it without civilization. When I was younger, I made a feeble effort to escape, but I was too gutless to really do it. Knowing what I know now, I would like to think I could pull it off if I were twenty again. However, that's talk.

I wish to create a different civilization. I have little hope for ours to change.

There’s been a lot of those around, all with their Harvesters and their Elites. Well, as I said, go play your game. I’ll pass.

I believe man can be peaceful. call it a utopia, but peace is a cause worth fighting for

That sounds like a good slogan for a nice bloody war.
I believe that man is man. He is peaceful at times. Given the right culture he can be very peaceful. That doesn’t help him too much when the violent men show up.

You said yourself, why would a domesticated man go feral? Civilization would have to fall for that, and even its ruins will be enough to recreate it. The civilized man will not die of easily.

Don’t remember asking that question. I don’t lock into dichotomies quite as easy as most folks. If the AIs wanted to do it, they could probably do it without too much trouble. After all, it was force that domesticated man, I imagine that force could change man back to the feral state. A cataclysm might pull it off, but I doubt it. However, that’s not what I had in mind. Civilization was the result of a cancer in hunter gatherer social orders. It spread and destroyed or domesticated most feral men. I envision a cancer within civilization that could destroy civilization. After the destruction, there would be a new social order, one with the capability to function with feral men. This social order would not be due to the absence of the state, but the mechanism of the cancer. This is not a likely solution. Given time, I feel it could be a natural evolutionary process to the next social order. We don’t have that much time. The technological acceleration is nearing the technological detonation. Most likely the machine will destroy man, but there is a faint possibility that it could save him. However, I’m not sure salvation would be all that nice.
As for dying off easily, it seems like the most probable outcome to me, and within this century.

Imposed? by who? there were only feral men in the beginning. it was these that caused this to begin with.

And how will this feral man prevent this form happening again? how do you suppose that civilization would not be recreated?

Cancer starts in normal cells. One group of feral men enslaved another group of feral men. I feel that this was due to agriculture. After agriculture appeared, civilization appeared in different discontinuous areas. The common factor was agriculture. It gives the means to feed soldiers. Yes, if you wilded humans and they returned to agriculture, it would almost certainly happen again. That is, if you returned the feral men to the same feral men that existed before.
That’s why I perceive of a societal process to take civilized man to another stage of feral man instead of returning him to the feral man of before. I have a social political mechanism in mind, however it is exceedingly improbable that it will be implemented before the extinction of Humanity. I have no capability to implement it. The only hope is that someone else with the capability arrives at the right time to implement it. Considering the rapidly narrowing window of opportunity, it seems exceedingly unlikely that that will happen.

I understand that distinction, an important one. but aside form the rejection of agriculture in what ways is this feral man different?

I didn’t say reject agriculture, I said reject domestication. That is all that is required. It’s not easy, but that’s all that’s required. Civilization is a social order that requires domestication. If you create a social order that rejects domestication, than you have rejected civilization, and the tendency to recreate it.

the feral man, there were no other men to begin with. it was the feral man who created the domesticated one.

Perhaps I misunderstood the question. Some feral men chose to become masters. The ones who became slaves had a choice, be enslaved or die.

It was form a piece you posted I learned about this, while I mistakenly wrote easily without specifying that can gather more food easily. Remember that written quite simply, quantity over quality.

I’m more than a little confused by this. However, I suggest you restudy the piece and maybe a little anthropology. It does so help to counter the propaganda. Hunter gatherers could get better food and they could get it easier. What they couldn’t do is carry a lot of it around with them.

was that the reason you think it adopted? to build armies? seems unlikely...

We aren’t too clear how cancer starts today. Nobody seems to know exactly why agriculture first appeared. It was an anomalous event because it took a lot of time for Humanity to reach that stage. However, once it appeared, it gave a clear military advantage because you didn’t have to carry surplus food with you, you could store it in one place. By working harder than feral man cared to work, Google Chayanov’s rule, agriculturists could accumulate a surplus and use it to feed soldiers. Then the soldiers could get more farmers and make them work harder than they cared to work. A vicious cycle where you end up with the mess we have today. Civilization won out because it had the military advantage. Civilization evolves by war. The civilized states that are dominate today are the result of war or the threat of war.
That’s why it’s not too smart to seek to destroy civilization by military means unless you have a very clear edge.

[Melodramatic]

sorry for the delayed replay, I haven't had the time or stable computer access to reply to threads I actually have to think about lately.

Sorry, didn't make my meaning clear. it's utopian Anarchism. There's a lot out there. It's if this, and if that. That's why we've never had an Anarchism with domesticated man. That's what I meant when I said go play your game. You can play it, but I'll pass. Yes, it might work with feral men. Most of them are already living in a manner consistent with the definitions of Anarchism.

I can except that.

The Hadza will probably let you join if you make a sincere effort. You might find the medical coverage a little lacking. Most domesticated men talk a good game. Right now, I admit that I couldn't hack it without civilization. When I was younger, I made a feeble effort to escape, but I was too gutless to really do it. Knowing what I know now, I would like to think I could pull it off if I were twenty again. However, that's talk.

Funny, when I first read that study you posted, I though to myself "maybe when I'm old and tired of western society", mainly because this is a study with no propaganda or self-interest involved. no one profits from it. but it makes sense that when I'll be old it will be impossible. maybe I'll take a look some day, but I have to many goals inside our civilization to give it up. both one personal level and a political one.

That sounds like a good slogan for a nice bloody war.

it is. A war we will all wage against ourselves, to have peace.

I believe that man is man. He is peaceful at times. Given the right culture he can be very peaceful. That doesn’t help him too much when the violent men show up.

Can a peaceful man not defend himself? I'd say there is no society that can defend itself better than a society that does not fight itself.

I envision a cancer within civilization that could destroy civilization. After the destruction, there would be a new social order, one with the capability to function with feral men. This social order would not be due to the absence of the state, but the mechanism of the cancer.

I'm not really understanding this... care to explain?

That’s why I perceive of a societal process to take civilized man to another stage of feral man instead of returning him to the feral man of before.

Now this is what I was searching for in your posts. what is this new order? a few words will suffice but the more the better..

I didn’t say reject agriculture, I said reject domestication. That is all that is required. It’s not easy, but that’s all that’s required. Civilization is a social order that requires domestication. If you create a social order that rejects domestication, than you have rejected civilization, and the tendency to recreate it.

You'll have to help me with definitions here. these can mean many things. I'd claim that my proposed social order rejects domestication in a way, so lets have some clear definitions.

However, I suggest you restudy the piece and maybe a little anthropology.

I shall. Although I now remember one fact, the increased birth rate was indeed not because of the food but the ease of staying in one place.

Hunter gatherers could get better food and they could get it easier.

the way I remember it is said that the time spent was about equal and there was a quality versus quantity thing going on. but I'll recheck soon.

It was an anomalous event because it took a lot of time for Humanity to reach that stage.

I was meaning to ask, do you think a feral society would have achieved the same scientific and cultural achievements of the civilized? why did they come in the same time of civilization came by then? was there some evolutionarily (not necessarily productive) step that would have created both?

[grassroots1]

You're an anarchist and the only problem you can come up with is that there won't be a drug war? Someone's going places...

[Melodramatic]

^

didn't even read the OP...

it is 3 years old and made by a user who wrote 9 posts...

[DubiousDan]

Can a peaceful man not defend himself? I'd say there is no society that can defend itself better than a society that does not fight itself.

Good point. Switzerland is a case in point. Maybe I didn’t understand where you were coming from.

I'm not really understanding this... care to explain?

It’s kind of pointless. I’ve been there with Suska. It’s Cellular Representative Democracy. It allows you to create a state which the Elites can’t control. It wouldn’t automatically turn to Anarchism, but it could evolve into it. Even if it didn’t, it would mean a new and different social order. It would effectively destroy civilization, and possibly without a lot of bloodshed. The bloodshed would be, or at least should be, self defense only. We really don’t have enough time for it. There seems to be almost zero interest in it, that is, beside Suska. I’m not sure that it’s compatible with the nature of Humanity. It may be like your version of Anarchism, totally unworkable with domesticated men, or even feral men for that matter. It could work, and easily, if Humans were suitable for it. That makes it sort of utopian.

Now this is what I was searching for in your posts. what is this new order? a few words will suffice but the more the better..

See above.

You'll have to help me with definitions here. these can mean many things. I'd claim that my proposed social order rejects domestication in a way, so lets have some clear definitions.

Cellular Representative Democracy (CRD), if it is implemented, destroys the power of the Elites to rule. Unlike your proposal, it just doesn’t depend on Humans to be different, it puts in place a mechanism which prevents the Elites from regaining control.
Of course, CRD might require that Humans be different, if so, it won’t work. After all, this is a something which has never been tried before. However, if it does work, well, then it’s a whole new ball game.

the way I remember it is said that the time spent was about equal and there was a quality versus quantity thing going on. but I'll recheck soon.

You should, you are way off.

I was meaning to ask, do you think a feral society would have achieved the same scientific and cultural achievements of the civilized? why did they come in the same time of civilization came by then? was there some evolutionarily (not necessarily productive) step that would have created both?

No, agriculture may have been just one trap. Technology would have evolved but very slowly. Remember, it took a hundred thousand years for man to reach civilization. However, the thing that is somewhat puzzling is that they seemed to reach it in disparate places at nearly the same time. It might be that there was more travel between the continents than we know about. If agriculture was the critical element, perhaps it was carried to America. There were legends that helped the Conquistadors when they arrived.
Australia seemed to have had man before the Americas, yet, they never developed agriculture. There are still a lot of things we don’t know.
However it is unlikely that feral man would have developed technology at the rate of domesticated man. Pressure flaking flint is technology, the Australian fire tube was technology. However, they came slowly, very slowly. Agriculture was technology, and it was a trap. There may have been other traps. The technoprimate may be a self destructive species.

[Suska]

I’ve been there with Suska. It’s Cellular Representative Democracy.

yup

Switzerland is a case in point

I still want to make an infographic on this point too.