Anarchist Leaders

[LebenIstKrieg]

I was thinking about Buenaventura Durruti, Nestor Makhno and Carlo Tresca and thinking about how they had such potential as leaders and hero's of the anarchist cause. but then I remember the general dislike of leaders within the anarchist cause, why is this?

[El Rojo]

sorry that this goes no way to answering the question, but i was thinking along these lines recently. do we need leaders? if not, then why have there been so many historically?

[revolution inaction]

sorry that this goes no way to answering the question, but i was thinking along these lines recently. do we need leaders? if not, then why have there been so many historically?

do we need capitalists? if not, then why have there been so many historically?

[revolution inaction]

I was thinking about Buenaventura Durruti, Nestor Makhno and Carlo Tresca and thinking about how they had such potential as leaders and hero's of the anarchist cause. but then I remember the general dislike of leaders within the anarchist cause, why is this?

i'm not really sure what your are asking, but leaders could mean people who tell others what to do, people who are particauly good at some thing or inspire others. anarchists are opposed to the first kind, not generaly the others.

[Broletariat]

do we need capitalists? if not, then why have there been so many historically?
Some would argue we did need the capitalists to revolutionise the means of production.

[LebenIstKrieg]

do we need capitalists? if not, then why have there been so many historically?
Well I was looking at the leaders of the world Mao, Stalin, Hitler these men changed the way we look at the world literally causing a social and cultural revolution in the psychosis, the caused the deaths of millions which is disgusting. but you have to admit without these ****s we wouldn't know what true Industrialist efficiency of killing was.

[Raúl Duke]

I was thinking about Buenaventura Durruti, Nestor Makhno and Carlo Tresca and thinking about how they had such potential as leaders and hero's of the anarchist cause. but then I remember the general dislike of leaders within the anarchist cause, why is this? In the case of Durruti, he wasn't much of a leader of anything outside the Durruti column and due to the effectiveness of this particular militia is why Durruti became known and famous. Due to his fame and reputation, I guess, is how he became a "leader" in a sense outside of the column but more like a spokes-person and influential character.

Makhno is a special case, he exercised more power than Durruti, by force.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that the critique of "leadership" as a concept and some of the more ominous conclusions that it sometimes brings about is an important part of anarchism, although moreso in philosophical anarchism than in "class struggle" anarchism. I'm not sure that we'll see a world where "leaders" are entirely gone, though, mostly because "leadership" at the most benign level is simply a recognition of experience...there are leaders in the fields of medicine and technology just as there are leaders who dominate military and political spheres of life.

In many ways it's similar to the concept of "authority" that anarchism has addressed quite effectively, I think.

[28350]

Personally, I don't entirely buy into the Trotskyist "Crisis of Leadership," but I do think that one of the biggest reasons the Left is in the ditch it's in today is because we have no leaders. We inherited none from the New Left - they were all killed.
Or something.

From what I understand, anarchists don't really have a problem with leaders per se, but coercive hierarchies and cults of personality.

[ContrarianLemming]

When it comes to leaders in anarchism, there usually more "spokespersons" for anarchism then actual authority figures, like Subcommadante Marcos of the Zapitistas - he is there "leader" but he is more a spokesperson and propagandaist then anything else.
After all, he didn't call himself the Zapitistas representitive, he called himself there delegate.

[Ele'ill]

Maybe we can break it down to a simple view rather than looking at an entire movement in time.

Take a spokes council meeting or farm collective. There will be people who have a lot of experience with organizing or experience with hands on processes. This does not mean they're a leader but a large majority of people, new and even experienced, will look to these individuals for support and ideas and I don't see anything wrong with this so long as decisions are not made solely by one person.

The goal of a farming (or whatever) collective would be to farm successfully or operate to achieve goals. There wouldn't likely be a vote by the larger group against the experienced individuals in regards to achieving a goal- especially if the majority is new or inexperienced and in the process of learning. It would be arguing against an experienced teacher that is demonstrating the process to do something and in turn the larger majority will see that this process, their learning, labor and time put into it, was successful and that their 'old-timer' or more experienced person(s) are dead on.

I suppose spokes councils are a bit different as affinity groups can ultimately do whatever the fuck they want. From my experience with spokes councils the people that are looked to the most are the mediators, record keepers, time keepers etc.. Generally the people in the group that have the best organizational skills and have proven they can dedicate time towards goals.

[AK]

i'm not really sure what your are asking, but leaders could mean people who tell others what to do, people who are particauly good at some thing or inspire others. anarchists are opposed to the first kind, not generaly the others.
We must distinguish between leaders and rulers.

A leader is a guide - who is typically passionate for their cause and has experience - with whom one identifies and follows through voluntary association.

A ruler is one who forcibly commands others and/or is at or near the top of a bureaucracy in a hierarchical system that controls and oversees society.

[LebenIstKrieg]

We must distinguish between leaders and rulers.

A leader is a guide - who is typically passionate for their cause and has experience - with whom one identifies and follows through voluntary association.

A ruler is one who forcibly commands others and/or is at or near the top of a bureaucracy in a hierarchical system that controls and oversees society.
I completely adhere to what you have just said THANKS!:thumbup1:

[Kléber]

Nestor Makhno, Kim Jwa-jin, and Buenaventura Durruti were leaders, they gave orders, they sent people to their deaths and had people killed. Saying they were military but not political leaders, or drawing ridiculous terminological distinctions to avoid the matter of discussion, is fallacious because first of all it is impossible to organize revolutionary soldiers without a political movement, and those three anarchists were active leaders of the Nabat' group, Korean Independence Movement, and Nosotros faction of the CNT/FAI, respectively. Besides, politics is class struggle, sometimes it takes the form of debates, demonstrations and strikes; sometimes it intensifies to the point of conventional warfare over positions and territory. There will be an active minority, an effective vanguard in any case, if the revolutionaries are not just assuring themselves of their own devout libertarianism but actually hope to win debates, organize rallies, victorious strikes, seize positions and hold territory. It is necessary to identify that, and acknowledge some degree of centralized authority as unavoidable, so that checks and balances can be placed on the exercise of power within the revolutionary movement. Otherwise the leadership roles will still be fulfilled, but they'll be hidden from the majority, and thus left unaccountable (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html). I am writing not as a trolltalitarian stalinist who always gives leaders the benefit of the doubt, but as someone who has been part of "non-hierarchical" anarchist organizations and seen the power dynamics play out behind the rhetoric of absolute equality. A balance has to be struck between the centralization required to accomplish political/military objectives and the democracy required to prevent betrayals by leading organizers and differentiation within any revolutionary organization.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Zapata.