No yea, you're obviously right. We can't just take forager social praxis and use it in our society, but we can absolutely learn from them. You have to understand that social pressure goes a lot further than just ostracizing an individual. Humans need eachother, more often than not. We feed eachother, fix eachothers plumbing, teach each-others children how to garden, how to fix stuff. Let's say there is a group of individuals causing destruction (using drones). Well we've acknowledged they're doing terrible shit, so we stop helping them and we make it clear to the rest of the community what these people are doing. In extreme cases we'd have to deal with the situation violently, but it's equally as important to recognize that when we're talking about bad actors in general, we're talking about bad actors in all of its spectrum. From pickpockets, to murders. And I think for each case there is a solution.

Does Joel dislike being the bin guy? He could just stop doing it.

Is Joel doing a shitty job with the bins? Anyone could start doing it, even if he protests.

I don't see the problem.

It's tough to do anti-hierarchical practices in a hierarchical world! I've seen organizations have rotating roles that make sure people don't get stuck.

To touch up on some of your questions you have at the bottom, and be warned that this will be somewhat anti-anarchistic:

After a successful revolution, bourgeoisie fall and people cheer in the streets. What now, do we go full horizontal hierarchy mode and decentralize? The truth of the matter is that post-revolutionary period is incredibly volatile (as seen by the fact that most revolutions happened in cascades) and faces a multitude of immediate issues, such as: 1. The previous ruling class trying to get themselves back into power again via counter-revolution or armed uprisings using their resources and connections, be it foreign or internal. 2. The need to overcome capitalist commodity production and reorganize it into planned production to satisfy human and economic needs (aka socialist mode of production). 3. Defense against foreign capitalist threats who would love to get more land/resources or major political influence via coup. 4. The need to spread the revolution internationally, as a country that doesn’t operate under capitalist mode of production simply cannot survive in a global capitalist world (can elaborate on this if anyone cares, don’t want this wall of text to be too long).

Decentralized horizontal systems are quite detrimental when it comes to solving these immediate issues - it fragments authority, decision making, delays responses to armed insurrections, foreign invasions and production reorganization. You need quick, decisive action during a revolutionary period or collapse follows even before “bad actors” become a problem.

The working class must seize state power - whether through a vanguard party, council republic, or equivalent to suppress the bourgeoisie, defend the revolution, and transition from capitalist commodity production towards planned economies to satisfy needs. Of course, the state must fulfill the immediate goals to no longer become necessary and for the state to wither away in a timely manner - else, and I agree with Anarchists here, the revolution will degenerate (into red bourgeois states) usually with the help of ‘bad actors’, as seen with USSR and China.

Also as a short addendum, comparing societies of today to primitive egalitarian horizontal societies is an error - these societies operated under radically different productive forces, population scales and social complexity, production was localized and individualistic. Today’s production is inherently social, large-scale and global, requiring entirely different forms of coordination and past forms simply cannot be revived or even be compared.

That is very interesting, what alternative do you propose?

Anarchists can have means of governing themselves -- it's not a big free-for all. The point is that there is no central hierarchy. For example, an anarchist collective could decide (via whatever method, that's a separate convo) that each community member gets to use a piece of equipment one week per year, or that the community as a whole will operate that equipment to satisfy the needs of people in a mutually-decided order. They could also decide that the 20 electrical engineers among them should as a group have operational control on a day-to-day basis of the power generating infrastructure, but only as long as they operate it according to the expressed needs of the community, in the community's interest, in a safe way.

None of that would be hierarchy or domination, as long as the underlying decision making process was democratic.

I personally don't think I'm very much in favor of a nightwatch state. I have to admit though, I'm not much learned in the field of "minarchism." I still strongly believe any centralized power is in danger of corruption.

You're making the exact same argument OP is talking about.

Do you have anywhere to do further reading?

Anarchism and anthropology go well together because anthropologists know that a society without a state is possible because so many exist.

David Graeber

That can be said about anything really. Except that anarchist explicitly recognise that and try to put up measures to prevent individual people to do too much damage, which is not something that can be said about our current system nor the (formerly) existing socialist states.