My arguments against the "anarchist leadership" problem

[BIXX]

So, when I am discussing anarchist theory with non-anarchists (particularly liberals), they ask me a question about leadership: how would organization work without leaders? And how would you get things done without leaders?

I tend to answer in this way:

There is a difference between a leader and a ruler. A leader does not have power over others, a leader simply gives suggestions, and people will follow them if they feel it is appropriate. However, the people can choose not to listen to the leader. Essentially, a leader is more similar to a consultant. A ruler, on the other hand, cannot be defied. If you disagree with the ruler, too bad. Anarchism only would oppose rulers under this definition.

Plus, leaders are required in many less ways than you really think. For example, you don't need someone to lead you to start a garden if you don't have enough food. You don't need someone to lead you to dig a well. You may need help, but not leadershit.

Now, if you needed a leader for a march or some militant action or whatever, you can begin to organize as a leader, but not a ruler. People will consult you as to how to proceed, but they are not required to listen if they are not convinced of your advice.


How does this sound to all of you?

[tuwix]

Quite good. Leader in such case is only man or woman who is influential in terms of opinion, but not one who imposes opinions on organisation.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Leaders are the rational experts in a certain subject. You'll have them lead you because they are the best for the given situation. Once in a different situation, the same leader no longer need play a part if someone else can adapt to the new situation better.

[Skyhilist]

It's a good and logically sound argument. The problem is that people look up anarchism in the dictionary and it's often says (wrongly) "without a leader" because the dictionaries have poor definitions usually for what leftists believe, and that makes people think anarchists hate leadership.

[The Feral Underclass]

So, when I am discussing anarchist theory with non-anarchists (particularly liberals), they ask me a question about leadership: how would organization work without leaders? And how would you get things done without leaders?

I tend to answer in this way:

There is a difference between a leader and a ruler. A leader does not have power over others, a leader simply gives suggestions, and people will follow them if they feel it is appropriate. However, the people can choose not to listen to the leader. Essentially, a leader is more similar to a consultant. A ruler, on the other hand, cannot be defied. If you disagree with the ruler, too bad. Anarchism only would oppose rulers under this definition.

Plus, leaders are required in many less ways than you really think. For example, you don't need someone to lead you to start a garden if you don't have enough food. You don't need someone to lead you to dig a well. You may need help, but not leadershit.

Now, if you needed a leader for a march or some militant action or whatever, you can begin to organize as a leader, but not a ruler. People will consult you as to how to proceed, but they are not required to listen if they are not convinced of your advice.


How does this sound to all of you?

You may benefit from reading this: What is Authority? By Mikhail Bakunin. (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/authrty.htm)