First of all, I don't really think that "self-determination coupled with a desire for solidarity and cooperation" would be the basis of an anarchist society. I was just providing a somewhat analogous summary to the somewhat misleading "hard work and deserving what you get" credo. Neither is the really the reason those societies work the way they do. While every society is strongly influenced by the personalities and ethics of the individual members of them, no one would claim that the two above mission statements can explain or summarize any cohesive society.
I don't know much about pre-historical societies, but it makes sense to me that many, if not all of these societies would be strongly hierarchical. That doesn't necessarily mean that I think that humans have a strong tendency towards authoritarianism (or in this case, it seems more accurate to equate it with totalitarianism). I think it is entirely appropriate to dismiss those societies as unenlightened, because there are quite a few technological, cultural, and scientific advancements we've made since them, and the many more that we can make in the future. Much of the "social laws" you mentioned seem to have stemmed more from a lack of understanding about the world, and the particular methods people used to try to bridge the gap. I'm not just referring to stuff like rain and earthquakes, but also social behavior and agriculture. They all seem like rookie mistakes to me. However, this analysis doesn't explain why the hierarchical character of societies pretty much continues to this day.
I also think it is a silly mistake to use current and past societies as benchmarks for the capabilities of humanity. Many people naturally fall into the "end of history" mentality, where they assume that we are at the most advanced society possible. People seem to forget that this has been pretty much the mentality ever since human beings started recording history. It’s understandable that most people would naturally have difficulty imagining alternative societies (particularly ones that either haven’t happened or are conveniently left out of history books). However, that’s no excuse, because it’s really easy to escape from the idea that our paradigm is the one true way, particularly for people who make a point of examining the political philosophy and (to a lesser extent) economics.
I completely agree that physical violence is not the only form of coercion. In fact, I think the most pervasive forms of violence in the world do not result from the direct physical harm of people at all. I also think that most of the violence done by the government isn't physical as well. So abolishment of the government is not simply abolishment of the physical violence it does. However, it would be naVve to say that abolishment of the government and it's co-conspirators (the military, capitalists, the police, etc…) would be an elimination of all violence. I think a lot of radicals mistakenly attribute all the harm in the world to a certain group of people, and then posit that getting rid of them would also get rid of the problems. Then again on the other hand, the rest of the world generally does the same thing with a different group of people.
I do think that your reference to the two experiments is kind of misleading. In the Milgram's, people were placed in a specific situation and expected them to behave a certain way. If you place people within the context of a hierarchical relationship (not to mention people who live their entire lives in a hierarchical society) then it makes sense that they assume their roles diligently. In that way, it is kind of like the Stanford Prison Experiment, which I’m sure you’re aware of. Disposition and environment are both very important in influencing one's actions. It is very possible that I am selectively stressing the importance of certain data and causes, but it's pretty hard to avoid that without a more rigorous examination.
The other experiment seems to me to be a much graver threat to human progress. I’m not really sure what causes conformity in the first place, and I can’t really see any evolutionary benefits for it. If there are potential good things that come out of conformity, it is very clear that there are many more problems with the propensity of human beings to conform than there are benefits. First of all, it stifles individuality, which can lead to the adaptation that is so essential to progress. Second of all, it can be bad when people have a tradition that is damaging to someone, whether because of malicious designs or of (for lack of a better word) stupidity. In the case of the Asch line studies it is clearly malicious intent that causes this conformity blunder. I’d like to talk more about the causes and dangers of conformity, but I actually don’t know that much about it, so I’ll leave it at that right now.
Although you claim to acknowledge the difference between communism and anarchism, you are treating anarchism as if it is fundamentally similar to communism. You seem to have fallen into the trap that many people I talk to have (particularly pro-capitalists). A couple of months ago, I told a friend of mine that I was taking a class entitled "Individual Freedom vs. Authority", and he replied (without a hint of sarcasm or humor), "You mean communism versus democracy?" Although he was a child of the Cold War era who cited one of his favorite books of all time as Atlas Shrugged, he still represents a pretty good majority of the American populace. The point is that people condense the entire spectrum of political possibilities into a simple linear continuum (and the "acceptable" political possibilities into an even smaller range, one which usually spans between the democrat and republican parties). The tradeoff you're referring to seems almost entirely fictional. I'd be really interesting in reading Durkheim's book to see his (your?) perspective on this. I don't see exactly what you believe is the reason for this incompatibility between intellectual and social freedom and equity (on a side note, I think there's a difference between equity and equality, and I'm not sure whether you're trying to use them as synonyms).
The basic assumption you're making it attributing certain detriments to human beings as products of capital, and certain detriments as products of government (I know I'm over-generalizing, but I think I have the gist of it), but it's pretty easy to see that the state can take over some of the nastier aspects of capital, and vice versa. The last two centuries is peppered with examples of this occuring, including the few examples I listed above. The USSR is an example of the other side of the coin, which had a socioeconomic system that many have referred to as "state capitalism". Furthermore, examples from pre-capitalist societies show examples of very limited freedom of though as well as serious inequity. To posit the give and take scenario you seem to be suggesting is not only easy to dismantle intellectually, but also historically innaccurate.
Also, it's pretty obvious to see that capitalism (even in it's most libertarian form) has the potential for as many limitations of social and intellectual freedom as even the most authoritarian regime. For example, intellectual property rights, biased news reporting (yes, companies do have a vested interest in making sure a specific viewpoint is expressed in the media), an almost totalitarian respect for satisfying mainstream sensibilities (aka corporate censorship), the need for an intellectual lower class to provide cheap labor, the social penalties for poverty, etc… I could go on an on. Not to mention the very real and anti-democratic policies in the name of liberalization of trade in the form of MAI, NAFTA, GATT, WTO and others. Much of what I'm referring to is not just potentially a problem, but an actual danger that has serious ramifications for the integrity of our "freedom".
I probably agree with your assessment of the relative importance of intellectual/social freedom versus economic freedom, depending on what the minimum acceptable economic conditions are. However in this case, I think you can have your cake and eat it too, so it's not that big of an issue.
For some reason, I've never studied that much on highly authoritarian societies, so I don't know much about their history. However, I do know that the most famous fascist society of all time was Nazi Germany, which had a pretty strong antipathy to equality. Furthermore, as far as I know, it actually sprung from a liberal democracy much like our own. It is my understanding that the rhetoric of equality is more of a symptom of a larger cause of fascism, rather than the cause itself. It seems more like social decay and extreme poverty are more substantive causes of fascism and coincidentally calls for egalitarianism. Also, most anarchists more or less agree with the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" not "equal work, equal pay". Equality for equality's sake is just a bad idea, and it's not only most likely impossible to enforce, the mere attempt to do so would cause serious repression on a grand scale, much like that of the USSR. I personally think the world should strive for freedom from oppression, exploitation, and coercive hierarchy rather than absolute equality ( more reasonable halfway point would be some kind of equity).
A more determined version of myself could write an entire book on the absurdity of the current tendency to posit almost magical powers to the free market. The mechanism by which "fluid market forces... allocate people to necessary socioeconomic roles" is shrouded in a creepy kind of mystery, in a manner that is completely unreasonable. I've read of dozens of examples of capitalist apologists achieving variations of what you've described, but no actual in depth analyses of how they occur, and not even a cursory description of how it does it. It's mostly in the vein of "the market [magically] accomplishes this". On the other hand, I've seen even more examples of the market (magically) allocating resources to the huge multinational corporations, and very detailed analyses of why this is inevitable.
