> But the stateless form of man is that of small networks of aligned people, and therein lies the check and balance. I don't think that will work, either. A co

> But the stateless form of man is that of small networks of aligned people, and therein lies the check and balance. I don't think that will work, either. A company like Intel couldn't exist based on small networks. It requires massive scale. Back in the 70's the car manufacturers British Leyland was handed over to the unions. They abolished management and made decisions collectively. In the end, they realised that that kind of system couldn't work, and brought in management. Checks and balances may work to some extent. Power structures usually emerge. There's always going to be an elite class. A great essay called "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" was written by Jo Freeman, a feminist no less. https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm I urge everyone to read it. It will really shape your perspective. It seems to me that pure anarchist societies are inherently fragile and that power structures will inevitably emerge.