It's a simple world view

Not only capitalism entirely based on the hierarchy of ownership, but it also reinforces already existing social hierarchies as those in power receive more profits and capital, and thus more power and influence in a broader society. You cannot say hierarchy is bad and be pro capitalism. Leftist ideologies are ways to try to democratize the economy, which flattens hierarchy. Anarchism is inherently anti capitalist.

Capitalism is fundamentally hierarchy established in property rights. Doing away with hierarchy does away with Capitalism. Unless, of course, you're arguing for Anarcho-Communism or something.

Hierarchy is baked into capitalism. Your take is incorrect.

I think so too. If there is hierarchy someone will abuse it. But i also think that capitalism creates structures of hierarchy in itself.

Problems of hierarchy that we don’t have a solution for, unfortunately; and I say that honestly.

No system of society I have ever seen proposed truly eliminates the issues of power hierarchy. Sometimes, they even make them worse.

Wouldnt a communist society not have a hierarchy because its classless, moneyless and stateless
- It declares itself to be classless, moneyless, and stateless. Just like terrorists call themselves rebels, and dictatorships call themselves democracies.
  
  Ultimately, I’m looking for a lot more than a declaration or wish, a napkin blueprint that reads “This machine grants wishes!”. I’m looking for a proven track record of success.
  
  How does one design something that hasn't been built before?
  
  That's not the question. The question is "How does one BUILD something that hasn't been built before?"
  
  No matter how detailed the designs, any project manager can tell you that a plan ends up changing as it hits certain realities, and a system of governance, even for a small country, is going to be many times more complicated than anything most people have ever worked on. We've already seen several examples of the results, and they failed spectacularly. You don't get to look at them and say "They don't count" or "They're not TRUE scotsmen."
  
  I'm not doing a no true Scotsman, or saying things don't count. I'm saying that you cannot claim something to be a failure wholesale without analyzing what broke.
  
  If you have a plane, and it fails because the screws became loose on the wing, you know what went wrong and have an idea of how to fix it, even if the results were catastrophic. You cannot then say that planes cannot exist.
  
  I'm not claiming planes cannot exist. I'm saying that (assuming this is pre-wright-brothers) there's no proof yet (metaphorical) planes can exist, so it's foolish to criticize our current methods of travel via cars and horses. By deepening the critiques of capitalism (a system I know to have flaws), you're making the claim "It's SO stupid to drive from Ohio to New York, when you could FLY" in a world that hasn't yet established flying is even possible.
  
  It could be that the solution is "Tighten the wing screws a bit more", or it could be that the screws will always come apart from the tension, and it's simply a doomed invention. Ultimately, we'd still need a better proof of concept to devote ANY mental energy to it.
  
  Not quite analogous. We know many problems with Capitalism, and we know many aspects of leftist organization absolutely work. We know what parts historically did not, and we also know that these issues are far from necessary for building a leftist structure.
  
  You're arguing that there's no point in improving the plane and fixing what is broken when we still have cars and horses.
  
  For your point that it could be that the screws can never be tightened, or a solution without screws cannot be found, is not an argument against tightening the screws or coming up with an alternative method, despite pretending that's a valid reason alone. In fact, in Engineering, it can be known what forces will be applied to screws in flight and as such it can be predicted what is required.
  
  Essentially, you can use previous knowns to solve for unknowns, rather than assuming everything is simply a blind guess.
  
  we know many aspects of leftist organization absolutely work. We know what parts historically did not, and we also know that these issues are far from necessary for building a leftist structure.
  
  Facts not in evidence. Don’t invent assertions as truth.
  
  You're arguing that there's no point in improving the plane and fixing what is broken when we still have cars and horses.
  
  I’m going to expect an apology for deliberately putting words in my mouth. You know very well I didn’t say this.
  
  The Wright brothers did not pull commuters into their untested inventions. If you can test and refine without harming or harassing people, do so; otherwise, keep it to yourself.
  
  There are mountains of papers written on the success of Socialist and Socialist-adjacent structures. Worker Co-operatives are more stable and provide greater happiness to the Workers within, for example. Democracy within the workplace also has great levels of success when tried, and we've found that liberal democracy surrounding 2 party systems is far less democratic than multiparty, ranked choice systems.
  
  You deliberately argued that you must wait for something to exist before you are willing to adopt it, rather than change any given situation.
  
  Now we reach the pinnacle of your argument: "I'm personally okay in the given system, so I don't care if other people wish to change it." It's fine if everyone agrees with you, but what happens if you get out voted? Are you still going to argue for maintaining the status quo as disparity rises and climate change dooms us all?
Yes, we do. It's called anarchism. It's literally what it is for.
- Under anarchism, whoever holds the most guns and food, and is the most ruthless, holds the power. Try to create a vacuum by destroying government, and someone else will claim it.
  
  That is what anarcho capitalism is. But in this case some people, who hold the most gun and food, have more power than the others. So there is hierachy again. True Anarchism wants to prevent that. A lot of good explanations here :) https://www.anarchistfaq.org/afaq/
  
  I'm no Anarchist, but that's not what Anarchism is. Anarchism is a fully developed horizontal system, rather than vertical. The idea that Anarchism is simply "no rules" is an unfounded stereotype, there's lots of Anarchist theory.
  
  While I personally think it's very difficult to achieve, it wouldn't be for the reasons you've listed. Simply destroying government isn't an Anarchist ideal, building up parallel structures like networks of Mutual Aid to replace the state and make it redundant is Anarchist praxis.
  
  You just described neofeudalism and "anarcho"-capitalism. Those don't have anything to do with anarchism, just americans muddying the waters by trying to confuse semantics.