Ape hierarchies, at least within the troops, are mostly about mating not resource distribution. It’s not like the alpha male gets first pick of the fruit and all the other chimps wait until he’s done and then go in hierarchical order, they just disperse and grab what they can.

If you want to go down an essentialist path most pre-agricultural societies were anarchic. There may be a chief but they “ruled” at the discretion of the tribe. The chief, or anyone really, couldn’t hoard resources because

1. they couldnt monopolize violence and coerce people since there’s no specialization in anything much less violence so violence becomes a numbers game.

2. There’s only so much you can carry. Pre agricultural tribes were nomadic mostly and when the tribe moves camps you have to carry everything with you. So even if you were able to hoard enough food that won’t rot you won’t be able to carry it to the next camp.

3. Because of the above, wealth isn’t really a thing. This forces cooperation because without wealth, the individual can’t protect themselves from hardship. Selfish individualism only works if you’re able to build up some wealth to act as a buffer for leaner times. If you don’t have that wealth then you’re reliant on your social connections so you tend to cooperate and redistribute because it’s in your best interest to stay in good standing with the group so they will help you in harsher times.

All this changes with agriculture and the invention of wealth, first in grain then in gold and then stocks etc. Now your dependence on society is directly porportional to how much wealth you have, to the point where really rich people can fuck off to a cabin or island and never work or contribute to society ever again.

Violence specialization also becomes more or less a thing, increasing up until the invention of firearms at which point it becomes more of a numbers game and the hierarchies lessen.

All of this is to say that hierarchy is not natural, but the result of the ability to accumulate wealth combined with violence specialization and monopolization. If we get rid of those two concepts then anarchy may take over, how we do that in the modern world is another question.

It is anticapitalist by nature in that capitalism is a system where a person can own the means of production and use that ownership to acquire profits. That ownership is a form of domination and creates an arbitrary hierarchy, who makes all the decisions: the owner, why do they make all the decisons: because they had the wealth to buy the company.

You can have organization and markets though without capitalism, such as with anarcho-syndaclism. Basically you have a bunch of coops that are run and controlled by elected workers councils that can trade with each other voluntarily.

From what I hear the greens are pretty centrist. Like the democrats in the u.s. but with more of an emphasis on sustainability, but slowly and progressively. They tend to want to preserve the existing social safety net but not expand it like a more left wing party would, or substantially raise taxes on the wealthy. Foreign policy they’re pro Israel and pro Ukraine, as opposed to a lot of left parties that are split on Ukraine but more solidly pro palestine.

They cater to the educated middle to upper middle class urban liberals who want to see some progress on climate changes, which is less of a radical stance outside the u.s., but don’t want a radical shake up in the economic system.

You can check out there German Wikipedia page, most browsers will translate enough to understand these days.

Here’s an interactive map so you can see the percentages better. They are only winning the eastern cities with 21-25% while in the western cities they’re getting 12-15% , so it’s not like there killing it in Berlin and doing nothing in hamburg. If you compare it to 2021, they’ve made just as much gains in the western cities as they did in the east.

I’d say it’s more about the poorer areas wanting a change either with the afd or linke/bsw. Most of the tankie elements of der linke have signed onto the bsw, so pining for the good old days of the gdr isn’t really their selling point anymore. Unless you were just pining for the higher social security and not the authoritarian state or russian domination, which is a lot of people in the east. This split is also part of the reason for their gains in the West as more left leaning people who are hesitant to be associated with the old school communist now have a party.

Reuters has an interactive map where you can see the percentages for each district

Shows a bit more of a positive view in the sense if your looking at this as an American and think AFD got a majority in all east Germany, they didn’t, the bluest areas are 40-44% percent while most are at around the 32-36%, but they got the plurality. A bit depressing though in that all of west Germany they’re taking 15-20% which this map doesn’t show well

Yeah, if you repeated this test with the person having access to a stack exchange or not you’d see the same results. Not much difference between someone mindlessly copying an answer from stack overflow vs copying it from AI. Both lead to more homogeneous answers and lower critical thinking skills.

How does that compare to microk8s? I have been using that for a while and like the plugins.

Arms without organization are useless. If you’re thinking about getting a gun for defense against the government first figure out who you’re going to use that gun with.

Individually owning a gun for the sake of owning a gun does nothing for the cause and is just posturing.

but I have to buy one now because there gonna stop selling them

That is gun industry propaganda to get you to buy more guns.

They may not be more effective, how many consultants, contractors etc. are on the payroll since then?

A lot of time with these budget cuts some politician will come in and fire a bunch of people or a department, realize they actually do need that work done and then hire a contractor or a consultancy company to do the same work often for more . So the amount of people directly working for the federal government may be down but the amount of people who are working for the government through some middle man goes up to compensate.