Anarchist Leaders?

[ClassWarMutualist]

hello! I'm having a bit of an internal conflict going on. I'm sort of the leader in my organization, I didn't think I was because I actively try to bring out the opinions and ideas of others but everyone seems to think of me that way. when I told my friend I'm moving and told him I hoped to have the organization stable by then he told me it'd fall apart immediately because "no one here has leadership skills like you, bro".
although this does stroke my ego it does nothing for the stability of my organization and it seems completely contradictory to my libertarian socialist tendencies. what do? :confused:

[Caj]

hello! I'm having a bit of an internal conflict going on. I'm sort of the leader in my organization, I didn't think I was because I actively try to bring out the opinions and ideas of others but everyone seems to think of me that way. when I told my friend I'm moving and told him I hoped to have the organization stable by then he told me it'd fall apart immediately because "no one here has leadership skills like you, bro".
although this does stroke my ego it does nothing for the stability of my organization and it seems completely contradictory to my libertarian socialist tendencies. what do? :confused:

I don't think the kind of leadership you are describing here is contrary to anarchist principles in any way. Anarchists don't oppose leadership roles when they are consensual but when they are imposed.

[Susurrus]

Regardless of anarchist ethics, that sort of situation is very bad practically. Try delegating more things, and make sure that you either have one or more replacements, or that everyone knows what exactly you do so they can fill in when you go.

[the desire to rebel]

The only leadership that is against anarchist principles is the one that is imposed and monolithical.
What I think your role in your organization is, is that of a representative, which is someone that guides but has no power over the choices other people make.

[ClassWarMutualist]

I try to delegate and involve them but the fact that I come up with the ideas that they choose between makes them view me like that.
example:
me: so we can use the Antifa tactic of targeting and recruiting the potential recruits of fascists or we can use the traditional tactic of targeting and recruiting those who are most oppressed by racism. what do you guys think?
*deliberation"
them: we should use the traditional tactic and once we expand out of our lower class neighborhoods we can focus on the Antifa tactic (I genuinely believe this is a good idea)
me: alright cool! guess that wraps that up
them: wait but what do you think?
me: it doesn't matter, I'd be outvoted if I disagreed anyway haha
them: but maybe your opinion is right, what is it man? is ours a good idea? what do you think?
me: ...yeah its a good idea...

I feel like a cult leader since they all look to me to check their ideas. I mean sure I started it and I'm one of the most active but they just seem so unconfident in their own judgement or super confident in mine. either way idk what to do.

[Q]

Leadership shouldn't be viewed as a hierarchical relationship. If leadership becomes vertical, bureaucracy ensues. If leadership is horizontal, it is just a normal, human function of any group.

You might have more experiences that most others or are able to bring out your ideas more clearly. Either way, politically, you are a leader.

However, leader roles can also shift. Surely, you don't know everything regarding anarchist politics, so when a certain topic is discussed that someone else knows better, then this person will probably take a leading position on said topic.

So, you are a leader, not the leader. You might want to dig a little into the subject of group dynamics.

I also agree with Susurrus, that the best practice is to delegate tasks as much as possible. This both prevents you from burning out and trains your fellow group members to become leaders in their own right, which adds to a more solid group.

[Binh]

A good leader trains the next layer of leaders to make him/herself unnecessary.

What builds people's confidence in their own abilities is projects that they do on their own without your input. Once people get experience on their own doing their thing there won't be such a big experience/confidence gap between you and them.

[Zav]

Does anyone think less of Durruti because he was a leader? No. Why? Because he was a strategist (a damn good one) and organizer, not a tyrant. His power was one based on respect, not on authority.

[Binh]

^-- The difference between a boss and a leader.

[ellipsis]

A ML comrade calls this anarchist guilt.

[The Douche]

The real problem is that the people you're working with aren't motivated and invested in the group.

[Decolonize The Left]

You could try to advocate dividing the group up into sub-groups whereby each group could enact various strategic goals on their own. This would effectively force several people into the position of 'leaders' within their own sub-group.

- August

[Enragé]

anarchism is against rulers, not against leaders.

and this "A good leader trains the next layer of leaders to make him/herself unnecessary."

I dont know if what cmoney said is true, though it could be. I dont see how he could deduce that from what you're saying though. It seems more likely the people around you are just inexperienced, and/or suffer from what bonanno called the 'religiosity of the masses' which causes people to always look for others to decide for them and to be insecure in taking matters into their own hands. The only way to solve this is to try and let other people do as much as possible. I dont know how you organise things exactly, but say you have a meeting for something, or a certain action, let someone else be the central person(s) in organising it and making sure every necessary detail gets done.

Its alright if they screw up, thats how people learn. Maybe (though again i cant deduce that from what you say) you have just been doing too many things being afraid that things would go wrong or not completely right if someone else did it. If other people are simply reluctant to do anything then what cmoney said might be true, or maybe they're just scared they'd fuck up.

Also, that things would fall apart without you doesnt necessarily mean you're the leader. You might just be the 'glue' which holds everyone together. Thats something i always try to do.

What August says is a possible course of action too, but relies heavily on the size of your group (dont split a group of 5 for instance).

Also you could just say you're sick for a few weeks or go on holiday or something, or say you're too busy for a month, and see what happens :P