Some of my friends use “yes them” jokingly to replace yes sir/yes ma’am. Certainly not correct in any grammatical way, but it does flow well enough and is kindof funny as long as the person being addressed doesnt mind.

Does every person not wish for the betterment of their lives and that of their community? When people’s needs are universally met, for what purpose would someone act out of greed or malice? And why do you suppose that a robust and flexible societal structure couldn’t handle such hypothetical bad actors appropriately? The practice of anarchic principles isnt some fictive utopia, but a process by which people (actual, real, living people right now) actively work to improve the lives of those around them.

Wtf? If that’s what you genuinely took away from my comment, I can only invite you to read theory. You clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of what we’re discussing.

But if that delegate (and the council itself) has no more authority than the people they represent, anyone who feels their position isn’t being represented can raise the issue and represent themselves or their point of view. These types of systems are reliant on civic engagement far exceeding what most people in the western world would consider possible.

This is also part of why many anarchists make the distinction of just vs unjust hierarchy. Just hierarchy is when the respected elder or community organizer in a neighborhood represents the neighborhoods interest in the council, and has regular meetings with the people they represent to ensure all views are represented. Unjust hierarchy is when 51% of the 20% of the population that actually voted puts the person who invested the most money into their campaign in charge.

The point is to structure your society in a horizontal way such that no person or group of people has any degree of power greater than any other, and has no method of gaining greater power. As I’ve said elsewhere, there are miriad ways of accomplishing this, and each community tends to have solutions that work for them even if that solution wouldn’t work for another community.

Not necessarily. Councils can be an effective form of consensus decision making without those councils having any greater authority than the people they represent. Militaries can also operate (effectively) without top-down hierarchical structures. I’ve heard the term “leaderful” (as opposed to leaderless) used to describe these types of organized-yet-nonhierarchical structures.

I mentioned my library on the subject to indicate that there is no simple answer to that question, and probably not even a single answer for all situations/locations/peoples. The theory of non-hierarchical societal structures is an entire field of study, and the practice of it, like all anticapitalist movements, is always stamped out to the greatest extent possible by those in power. There are however existing examples of anarchist or pseudo-anarchist communities.

The EZLN of the Chiapas region of mexico has largely maintained autonomy since the early 90s, and the Kurdish resistance movement in Rojava (inspired by the writings of Abdullah Öcalan) has established similar autonomy despite the ongoing war efforts.

On a smaller scale, you’ll find “intentional communities” around the world, most of them taking elements of Libertarian Socialism in the ways that are most feasible and useful to them.

I have a library full of books on the subject, but you can start at https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/anarchism

Hierarchy is the problem. Any social system that allows for it will be corrupted eventually.

I find the suggestions on Seerr not always very relevant, but it definitely functions as a “what to watch?” service for my needs.