> I'm curious to know what you would say are the necessary and sufficient conditions for any state of affairs to qualify as a social hierarchical relationship, if lopsided power dynamics do not.

An explicit organizational structure with a chain of command, often involving taxes & a locus of governing power with titles.

> I think you're mistaking authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. Authoritarian regimes (such as Russia or China) seek to create an environment of depoliticization and disengagement, allowing them to go about their domestic business without any opposition. Totalitarian regimes do the opposite: extreme political mobilization of the population toward a particular aim. The difference is readily apparent when these two regime types institute a draft: disengaged people flee, mobilized people sign up to fight.

I tend to delineate a given prescriptive title from the descriptive attributes of action. With that in mind, the West & Democratic processes can be Totalitarian. A 51% of the vote to institute totaltiarianism is a Totalitarian government in my opinion. A bureaucratic rule by experts, prevalent in the west, often avoids Democratic processes anyways, leading to a fascist structure of public/private partnerships where corporations, franchised by the state, wield enormous political control over the lives of the people. The scientific process itself becomes corrupted to work within the framework of funding potential instead of inquiry for knowledge. With that said, personal autonomy, freedom, & liberty are key principles to uphold to avoid Totalitarianism. This includes the freedom not to be imposed on by others. The application of these principles change over time as there are no absolutes.

Pyramid structures are inherently unstable as the importance of necessary work is deincentivized in favor of power grabbing. An example of the consequences is how planned obselecence & profit seeking has diminished the combat capacity of the West. Russia is very successful in the Ukraine war against NATO despite having a fraction of the military budget of NATO. Another example is the dissonance between elites & the working class.

> Who has the monopoly on organized violence is the primary question answered by any political philosophy. My main criticism of anarchism is that it doesn't offer a solution to this problem, it merely punts. Power naturally accrues to those most willing to use it, so a diffusion of power is a vacuum, and nature abhors a vacuum.

My take is that Anarchism is a reaction to the political & social climate. The attractor is distribution of power & force rather than a monopoly. The problem with monopolies is that the locus of power attracts the Psychopaths & Sociopaths who will eventually take over the seats of power & leverage the concentrations of power. If the structures of power were more distributed, then Psychopaths & Sociopaths have less leverage & are more incentivized to do work that benefits their communities. Human nature does not change & people work within a framework of incentives. Centralized power incentivizes grabbing power due to the benefits of being at the top of the Pyramid scheme without having to do work that benefits the community...If the pyramid schemes were less powerful & overarching, there would be less incentive & impact to climb to the top of the pyramid & more incentive to provide value to the community.

Nature abhors a vacuum, but with distributed power, there would be no vacuum. Violence is used to consolidate power & is a net loss, so measures to disincentivize violence can be created within the community...including non-cooperation, ostricization, & even ganging up on an actor harming others. Ganging up on people happens today in the political realm, where some people are deemed "enemies of the State" & "domestic terrorists" despite not being violent. In that case, the principles have been corrupted to suit political ambition, rallying the apparatus of the state to commit violence against people with a different worldview & opinion.