Anarchism and leadership...?

[AnarchicSaint]

Me being pretty new to Anarchism, I still have some pretty basic but simple questions. Anyways, I just recently found out that Anarchy isn't necessarily opposed to leaders but is obviously opposed to rulers, which I guess is where my question comes in...

At what point do leaders become tyrants? I mean, I guess to be more specific: What is it about leadership that makes it acceptable in an Anarchist organization or society?

My guess would be that as long as the 'leader' doesn't view himself as higher, doesn't try to rule his/her comrades, and is in that position with everyone's consent, then it's okay?


I guess I'm just a little confused because starting out, I thought Anarchism was opposed to all forms of leadership/rulers.... but then again, I guess I didn't take enough time to differentiate the two... since there is always the 'go to guy' and the more experienced in almost every organization.

Sorry for the ranting but I'm a little mixed up when it comes to this question. And if I wasn't specific or clear enough, please let me know. I'd appreciate any help. Kinda been bugging me lately. :unsure:

[daft punk]

ISR Issue 53, May–June 2007
Anarchists in the Russian Revolution

The Makhno Myth By JASON YANOWITZ


http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml


Spanish Revolution 75th anniversary. Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory

22/07/2011
This week is the 75th anniversary of the start of the Spanish Civil War, on 18 July 18. We mark this hugely important event in world history with an article first published on socialistworld.net in 2009.
Hannah Sell, Socialist Party (CWI in England & Wales)


http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5201

crucial reading on anarchist leaders in action in Russia and Spain. Note that they are quite different so read both. Let me know what you think.

[bricolage]

it's usually based around to what extent things are accountable, it's not strictly an anarchist text but the end bit of the tyranny of structurelessness is a good attempt to spell it out:

1) Delegation of specific authority to specific individuals for specific tasks by democratic procedures. Letting people assume jobs or tasks only by default means they are not dependably done. If people are selected to do a task, preferably after expressing an interest or willingness to do it, they have made a commitment which cannot so easily be ignored.
2) Requiring all those to whom authority has been delegated to be responsible to those who selected them. This is how the group has control over people in positions of authority. Individuals may exercise power, but it is the group that has ultimate say over how the power is exercised.
3) Distribution of authority among as many people as is reasonably possible. This prevents monopoly of power and requires those in positions of authority to consult with many others in the process of exercising it. It also gives many people the opportunity to have responsibility for specific tasks and thereby to learn different skills.
4) Rotation of tasks among individuals. Responsibilities which are held too long by one person, formally or informally, come to be seen as that person's "property" and are not easily relinquished or controlled by the group. Conversely, if tasks are rotated too frequently the individual does not have time to learn her job well and acquire the sense of satisfaction of doing a good job.
5) Allocation of tasks along rational criteria. Selecting someone for a position because they are liked by the group or giving them hard work because they are disliked serves neither the group nor the person in the long run. Ability, interest, and responsibility have got to be the major concerns in such selection. People should be given an opportunity to learn skills they do not have, but this is best done through some sort of "apprenticeship" program rather than the "sink or swim" method. Having a responsibility one can't handle well is demoralizing. Conversely, being blacklisted from doing what one can do well does not encourage one to develop one's skills. Women have been punished for being competent throughout most of human history; the movement does not need to repeat this process.
6) Diffusion of information to everyone as frequently as possible. Information is power. Access to information enhances one's power. When an informal network spreads new ideas and information among themselves outside the group, they are already engaged in the process of forming an opinion -- without the group participating. The more one knows about how things work and what is happening, the more politically effective one can be.
7) Equal access to resources needed by the group. This is not always perfectly possible, but should be striven for. A member who maintains a monopoly over a needed resource (like a printing press owned by a husband, or a darkroom) can unduly influence the use of that resource. Skills and information are also resources. Members' skills can be equitably available only when members are willing to teach what they know to others.

I know the UK Anarchist Federation talk about things in terms of a 'leadership of ideas' but that's generally pretty vague.

[Sasha]

While its worth trying your hands at everything its a given that not everyone is comfortable doing everything and we should recognize that. If I look at the informal federations in the squat scene here its only logical that I, a fluent dutch speaker with over a decade of improv theatre training do the press and state contacts while the polish construction workers do the breaking and barricading and the german it kid does the Website etc etc.
unless there is a crisis where these experts are GIVEN leadership on their own field of expertise we still work by consensus, its the media and police etc that keep insisting that the most public face is always a defacto leader.

[Revolution starts with U]

The moment it becomes institutionalized, that is to say binding and non-voluntary, a leader becomes a ruler. That actually seems pretty self-evident to me.

[daft punk]

The moment it becomes institutionalized, that is to say binding and non-voluntary, a leader becomes a ruler. That actually seems pretty self-evident to me.

Well, Makhno had conscription!

[Ostrinski]

Not all anarchists uphold the Makhnovists.

[StalinFanboy]

there is nothing wrong with someone taking initiative, and indeed there are almost always going to be some people that have more knowledge and/or skills in certain things. the problem arises when these people 1) try to place themselves above other people through coercion and 2) (and this isn't really all that separate from number 1) they try to keep their knowledge and skills to themselves in order to maintain their special position.

[Aflameoffreedom]

I have been an Anarchist all my life. I hope I have remained one. I should consider it very sad indeed, had I to turn into a general and rule the men with a military rod. They have come to me voluntarily, they are ready to stake their lives in our antifascist fight. I believe, as I always have, in freedom. The freedom which rests on the sense of responsibility. I consider discipline indispensable, but it must be inner discipline, motivated by a common purpose and a strong feeling of comradeship. - Buenaventura Durruti

Anarchists have no rulers and no leaders, for we are all the leader who rules over no one but ourselves. We cooperate and work together with other free 'leaders', suggesting ideas, with the most popular ones coming into effect.