Leaders in Anarchism

[Redhead]

I just wondered, would a anarchist society have some form of powerless leaders? A sort of leader which is chosen democraticly which gives some sort of guideance, but dont got any power? And in an armed revolution, or in militia protecting the anarchist society... wouldnt there be some form of military leader? A totally leaderless army must be chaotic, as democracy is hard to issue during a battle.

[The Idler]

I suppose what you really want to do some reading on is the army of Nester Makhno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno
and maybe the Zapatistas

[tuwix]

I just wondered, would a anarchist society have some form of powerless leaders? A sort of leader which is chosen democraticly which gives some sort of guideance, but dont got any power? And in an armed revolution, or in militia protecting the anarchist society... wouldnt there be some form of military leader? A totally leaderless army must be chaotic, as democracy is hard to issue during a battle.

Army is only needed for a state to fight another state. Thus, there is no place for it in anarchist society. Militia is different thing. And yes, there are needed commanders there. The ideology of anarchism assumes authority only there where it is unequivocally needed. Militia structure is such place.

[Bala Perdida]

I would say army democracy exists only when not being shot at.

[AnaRchic]

I would agree. Its unfortunate, but sometimes hierarchy is needed. If you face a situation like the soviets did, facing 21 invading armies and a massive civil war, you must build an Army. Depending on the threat, measures from centralized command to conscription and execution of deserters can all become necessary. Social revolution is a horrible and bloody mess, and reality will often fall short of our ideals.

Yes, leaders emerge even in an Anarchist movement, as was obvious from the experience of Mahkno and the black army. We ought to study revolutionary history and figure out how to minimize authoritarian means and guard against unnecessary centralization of power, rather than dogmatically rejecting it out of hand as some anarchists do.

[Sasha]

Anarchism isn't opposed to all authority. It just questions it.
Why would I would find out how to bake a bread through trial and error if I can ask a baker to teach me or even do it for me if I can serve the commune better elsewhere?
The problem would come only if the baker was the only person allowed to bake bread, would not share his knowledge and wouldn't be able to be removed from his position by the people if he gives them shitty bread.
Anarchism always had intellectual, tactical and military leaders.
But they assume their authority FROM the people not ABOVE the people.

[BIXX]

Anarchism isn't opposed to all authority. It just questions it.
Why would I would find out how to bake a bread through trial and error if I can ask a baker to teach me or even do it for me if I can serve the commune better elsewhere?
The problem would come only if the baker was the only person allowed to bake bread, would not share his knowledge and wouldn't be able to be removed from his position by the people if he gives them shitty bread.
Anarchism always had intellectual, tactical and military leaders.
But they assume their authority FROM the people not ABOVE the people.


I just fail to see why the baker has any authority- I mean, I don't really consider it authority that they know how to do something. Rather I think it is a peculiarity of our language that we say "so and so I'd an authority on baking bread". I don't think they constitute an actual authority.

[Sasha]

If i would want to bake bread i would let him tell me what to do..
But I meant it obviously as an analogy, anarchists would, in the case of military and all kinds of other matters, elect capable people to organize these matters for the community.
They would just be completely accountable and recallable if they are proven to be not acting in the intrest of the commune.

[Thirsty Crow]

If i would want to bake bread i would let him tell me what to do..

You don't need to, with the home bread baking machines we can do it as we please as the manual has very specific and informative instructions.

The conquest of bread it is.

[BIXX]

If i would want to bake bread i would let him tell me what to do..
But I meant it obviously as an analogy, anarchists would, in the case of military and all kinds of other matters, elect capable people to organize these matters for the community.
They would just be completely accountable and recallable if they are proven to be not acting in the intrest of the commune.


I fail to see how a militia advisor advising a militia constitutes an authority. I fail to see how a boot maker advising one on the art of making boots constitutes an authority. I fail to see how the baker advising you on matters concerning baking constitutes an authority. You see where I'm going? I don't feel that someone teaching you or advising you is an authority, as it doesn't chime with other instances of authority unless your definition of authority is so broad as to be meaningless.

I again, think that usage of the word "authority", as in referring to someone who is an expert on something, is an anomaly of language. Most languages, I am willing to bet, contain the same anomaly (maybe it's primarily in Eurocentric languages). However, that anomaly has led many to see a parent stopping their child from running into the street as an authority. However that action isn't authoritative- would it be authoritative to prevent your friend from falling off of a cliff?

This is my personal definition of authority: a crystallized form of particular power-dynamics that are invariably unequal.

[Sasha]

Fair enough, though I think this insistence on "all authority equals oppression" by anarchists is one of the contributing factors to the "why don't you fuck off to Somalia, anarchist wonderland" etc often levied against us.
And for years organising in the autonomous scene i got really fed up with people thinking that its bad for people to specialize in stuff they like and are good at. Obviously skills and knowledge shouldn't be mmonopolized but this insistence by some "anarchists" that everyone should do everything has led to often bizarre situations (really small inexperienced people being angry that someone big and very experienced broke the door of a brothel we where squatting where the neighbor was threatening us with a gun or non dutch speakers demanding that they should negotiate with the cops)

[PhoenixAsh]

Discussions about the "bread baking class" vicious domination and exploitation of the "breadless class" aside...

Authority falls in two categories derived from the words original meaning and use:

Authority through knowledge and expertise gained by experience and study
Authority through force and political/social hierarchy...usually given by the government/state and therefore the elite

It should be noted that anarchists obviously have a serious problem with the last form of authority and not the first form of authority.

However. In some communities there is some serious confusion between the two meanings and there seems to be some sort of notion and, imo, perversion of the concept of homo universalis. They seem to think that just about anybody can become, but more often, should be considered an expert or at leas given the chance to prove they are. This is not a problem when it comes to non vital tasks (or tasks which can be fucked up without much problems) but it becomes a huge issue when it comes to tasks that are vital in some way and where there is little to no margin for errors (you know....like building that tunnel or bridge). Like Sasha mentions...in these communities...people seem to think that somebody with huge experience and knowledge is trying to dominate the group by exploiting their knowledge and experience in order to gain status.

[AnaRchic]

I have a question for those who would consider themselves anarchists. Is hierarchy justifiable in a revolutionary situation, such as a revolutionary war, if it is the only means by which to effectively coordinate the suppression of class enemies?

In other words, if it came down to utilizing a hierarchically organized armed force (such as an army) or being defeated by the force of reaction, would anarchists embrace such hierarchy? If so, how can you reconcile this with a principled rejection of coercive authority? If not, doesn't such absolutist adherence to principle become in and of itself a reactionary force?

Anarchism is a beautiful revolutionary tendency, it really is, but I'm afraid it will always fail the test of reality.

[BIXX]

I have a question for those who would consider themselves anarchists. Is hierarchy justifiable in a revolutionary situation, such as a revolutionary war, if it is the only means by which to effectively coordinate the suppression of class enemies?

In other words, if it came down to utilizing a hierarchically organized armed force (such as an army) or being defeated by the force of reaction, would anarchists embrace such hierarchy? If so, how can you reconcile this with a principled rejection of coercive authority? If not, doesn't such absolutist adherence to principle become in and of itself a reactionary force?

Anarchism is a beautiful revolutionary tendency, it really is, but I'm afraid it will always fail the test of reality.


Depends on your anarchism.

I will allow no one to dominate me, that is that.

Your question seems to be leveled at dismantling social anarchist ideas. But even then it falls short.

Social anarchists generally accept "non-coercive" authority, meaning they could elect a military leader or something.

[Sasha]

You don't need to, with the home bread baking machines we can do it as we please as the manual has very specific and informative instructions.

The conquest of bread it is.

Keep your technocracy/trans-humanism in science & environment you weirdo :lol:

[AnaRchic]

Social anarchists generally accept "non-coercive" authority, meaning they could elect a military leader or something.
Isn't a military leader, even an elected one, a coercive authority? Obviously such a leader cannot allow for some of his soldiers to run away in the face of a terrifying enemy right? Isn't this an example of using coercion to suppress the "freedom" of the individual? How can this be reconciled with anarchist ideas?


I will allow no one to dominate me, that is that.
So you would refuse to submit to an elected and recallable proletarian authority in the midst of civil war, even if the consequence of that would be to facilitate the rise of a fascist reactionary movement? If everyone thought like that a revolution could never succeed, you would just be paving the way for reactionaries, who do not have your aversion to authoritarian means.

[Thirsty Crow]

Isn't a military leader, even an elected one, a coercive authority? Obviously such a leader cannot allow for some of his soldiers to run away in the face of a terrifying enemy right? Isn't this an example of using coercion to suppress the "freedom" of the individual? How can this be reconciled with anarchist ideas?I would say that you've got it all wrong in your last question. It's really about how anarchist, and communist ideas in general are related to and rooted in the exigencies of the concrete conditions on the ground, and the imperatives arising out of them.


Keep your technocracy/trans-humanism in science & environment you weirdo :lol:
Call me names but I'm still master of my own bread :lol:

[BIXX]

Isn't a military leader, even an elected one, a coercive authority? Obviously such a leader cannot allow for some of his soldiers to run away in the face of a terrifying enemy right? Isn't this an example of using coercion to suppress the "freedom" of the individual? How can this be reconciled with anarchist ideas?

Now, I must clarify that I'm not a social anarchist so this response may be not entirely accurate, but I believe social anarchists would see this person just as an advisor, more accurately.

The black army might be a good example of other social anarchist variations of military.


So you would refuse to submit to an elected and recallable proletarian authority in the midst of civil war, even if the consequence of that would be to facilitate the rise of a fascist reactionary movement? If everyone thought like that a revolution could never succeed, you would just be paving the way for reactionaries, who do not have your aversion to authoritarian means.


First, I have no interest in the proles. They are unimportant to me.

Second, I would never SUBMIT to an authority, that doesn't mean I wouldn't work with a. Group to stop fascists.

If everyone thought like me there would be revolution, and it would be constant, permanent. It would be chaos.

[DOOM]

Well moral leaders or persons one can look up aren't exactly authoritarian. Authority is authoritarian when capital and power (state) work together.

[DOOM]

Discussions about the "bread baking class" vicious domination and exploitation of the "breadless class" aside...

Authority falls in two categories derived from the words original meaning and use:

Authority through knowledge and expertise gained by experience and study
Authority through force and political/social hierarchy...usually given by the government/state and therefore the elite

It should be noted that anarchists obviously have a serious problem with the last form of authority and not the first form of authority.


Yeah that's the way I try to explain to someone how anarchism is anti-authoritarian.

[exeexe]

The ideology of anarchism assumes authority only there where it is unequivocally needed. Militia structure is such place.
Not even in a militia will you find authority. What will you do if you see someone walking away from the enemy when you are attacking? Shoot him? No you let him go be cause you cant force anyone to fight.

... Hell he might even change his mind later and come back and save your live

But someone can say lets attack, and then you can see if people are willingly to follow you. When you do this at first it can be rather clumsy, but when you do it more and more and you begin to trust in your friends it becomes routine and you just do it instinctively and then its more effective than a conventional military top down command structure.

[PhoenixAsh]

I think it is perhaps wise if you would define your opinion of what authority means.

[Geiseric]

Army is only needed for a state to fight another state. Thus, there is no place for it in anarchist society. Militia is different thing. And yes, there are needed commanders there. The ideology of anarchism assumes authority only there where it is unequivocally needed. Militia structure is such place.

Lol what? That makes no sense. Admit it, anarchists aren't opposed to a state for the same reason as Marxists.

[Sinister Intents]

Lol what? That makes no sense. Admit it, anarchists aren't opposed to a state for the same reason as Marxists.

I had that time of cognitive dissonance where I thought the idea of the DotP and the Vanguard party could be utilized in anarchism to transition society to socialism. Then I read more and realized that the DotP and the Vanguard are just things that will go the same way the went in the beginnings in the Soviet Union. It'd become a de facto dictatorship over the proletariat. But I'm not opposed to military type leaders in a time of revolution or other leaders who would help lead and direct the struggles, but to me they're not authorities, but guides would be a better word I guess.

[Skyhilist]

Leaders are fine in anarchism, just not rulers. While everyone consents to a leader and has a choice on whether or not they listen to them, a ruler can force people below them to listen to them, even without consent.

Generally speaking, anarchists want decision making to be participatory within all parties involved, whenever possible. Many of us support sending delegates to represent communities or workers on a larger scale, however these people are there to convey the desires and needs of those they represent, not enforce their own viewpoints without consent.

However, it should be recognized that sometimes there isn't time to consult the group. For example, lets suppose there's an impending attack and action needs to be taken quickly. This is an instance under anarchism where the those representing the interests of everyone would need to act swiftly, even if it meant not consulting everyone - however, this, most anarchists would say, should still be done with what the group would most likely want in mind. If a military leader, for example, had all the enemies executed when it was expressed by the people this leader represented that executions should be avoided, then this person might immediately be removed from their leadership position and replaced as a result of intentionally misrepresenting the group.

Long story short, the point of anarchy is to minimize hierarchy as much as possible, and hopefully eliminate it entirely in the long run. This doesn't mean that there can't be leaders, and in fact most anarchists see leaders as necessary.

[Geiseric]

I had that time of cognitive dissonance where I thought the idea of the DotP and the Vanguard party could be utilized in anarchism to transition society to socialism. Then I read more and realized that the DotP and the Vanguard are just things that will go the same way the went in the beginnings in the Soviet Union. It'd become a de facto dictatorship over the proletariat. But I'm not opposed to military type leaders in a time of revolution or other leaders who would help lead and direct the struggles, but to me they're not authorities, but guides would be a better word I guess.

You believe an organized body of armed working class people will face the bourgeoisie militarily in order to abolish the class society. This idea originated with Marx. Whatever language you use makes no difference. Anarchists in practice have failed to prove how their tactics are in any way more useful than Marxists.

If we look at Catalonia they failed to even nationalize the financial industry, and joined the popular front. The Bolsheviks ran their revolution in a way that worked, which is why I study it. The working class gained power in the USSR and held onto it. It's isolation is why Stalinism rose, not any inherent flaw in Marxism.

[Ele'ill]

Lol what? That makes no sense. Admit it, anarchists aren't opposed to a state for the same reason as Marxists.

I briefly skimmed this page of this thread but it sounds like the user you quoted is illustrating otherwise. That the state won't be used, one won't be formed in its place, it isn't a tool, it will be destroyed.

[Geiseric]

I briefly skimmed this page of this thread but it sounds like the user you quoted is illustrating otherwise. That the state won't be used, one won't be formed in its place, it isn't a tool, it will be destroyed.

Destroyed by what? Anarchists asking the bourgeois to allow an egalitarian society to be created? Like in V for Vendetta?

[Ele'ill]

Destroyed by what? Anarchists asking the bourgeois to allow an egalitarian society to be created? Like in V for Vendetta?


I wouldn't really say 'anarchists' in the same way when someone asks me if I am an anarchist I generally say no but I am influenced by these theories and it is constantly evolving in an organic manner based on practicality and real-time ongoing situations. Perhaps anarchy, communization, etc.. as theories or as a dialogue, at some point in the future, will pose critical questions of the world and the workers and non-workers will begin to elaborate and there will be an evolution of sorts (or maybe not I dunno) and then there will be praxis based on necessity. I am not going to use the catch phrase desertion to refer to its common use but it does apply at that point where there is an acknowledgement by the workers and non-workers of their positions and of society and there is an active effort towards desertion away from current society, a deliberate break. I say this in light of what I think has been your position here and elsewhere that is 'lol what if we can't do it with a x-already-existing-societal-thing then there's just nooo way how else would we do it' or at least that is how I have perceived it (so sorry if I'm off with that)

[Sinister Intents]

You believe an organized body of armed working class people will face the bourgeoisie militarily in order to abolish the class society. This idea originated with Marx. Whatever language you use makes no difference. Anarchists in practice have failed to prove how their tactics are in any way more useful than Marxists.

If we look at Catalonia they failed to even nationalize the financial industry, and joined the popular front. The Bolsheviks ran their revolution in a way that worked, which is why I study it. The working class gained power in the USSR and held onto it. It's isolation is why Stalinism rose, not any inherent flaw in Marxism.

This organized and militant body will also destroy the state. I know it originated with Marx, and I like Marx and Engels, but I don't like those like Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin. (I like Lenin more than the latter two.) Anarchist Catalonia was fucked over by the Soviets was it not? Stalin helped in it's destruction, as for source I don't remember where and I'm not going to be arsed with searching for it. Also Marxists and anarchists should work together, after all we seek the same goals: Full Communism. Lenin and his friends helped destroy the Soviet Union by persecuting the anarchists and turning the soviets into the puppets of the state. There was no worker's control in Russia, and there was no socialism in Russia.

[Geiseric]

This organized and militant body will also destroy the state. I know it originated with Marx, and I like Marx and Engels, but I don't like those like Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin. (I like Lenin more than the latter two.) Anarchist Catalonia was fucked over by the Soviets was it not? Stalin helped in it's destruction, as for source I don't remember where and I'm not going to be arsed with searching for it. Also Marxists and anarchists should work together, after all we seek the same goals: Full Communism. Lenin and his friends helped destroy the Soviet Union by persecuting the anarchists and turning the soviets into the puppets of the state. There was no worker's control in Russia, and there was no socialism in Russia.

The Bolsheviks were the reason the Soviets were revolutionary. Without them the class traitors, including atm several or more Bolsheviks, would of wrested political control and capitulated to kerensky. The anarchists were nowhere in sight until the US anarchists denounced the Soviets after Kronstadt, falling completely into the imperialists camp. The entente were literally poised to invade St. Petersburg if the revolt continued any longer. You need to read actual literature about the Russian revolution if that is your opinion. Victor Serge even agreed with Trotsky about Kronstadt.

[PhoenixAsh]

The Bolsheviks were the reason the Soviets were revolutionary. Without them the class traitors, including atm several or more Bolsheviks, would of wrested political control and capitulated to kerensky. The anarchists were nowhere in sight until the US anarchists denounced the Soviets after Kronstadt, falling completely into the imperialists camp. The entente were literally poised to invade St. Petersburg if the revolt continued any longer. You need to read actual literature about the Russian revolution if that is your opinion. Victor Serge even agreed with Trotsky about Kronstadt.

The Boslsheviks were the class traitors and reactionaries. So I don't really see your point of citing a former Anarchist turned authoritarian years before Kronstadt...who didn't by the way "agree with Trotsky". In fact their disagreement over Kronstadt is one of the reasons why Serge didn't align with Trotsky after he fled the USSR. Interesting though you leave out his continued extensive criticism of repression by the Bolsheviks and his analysis that that Boslhevik blundering handling of Kronstadt effectively led to its resolution which by then was the only solution. And what did Serge say about the betrayal and lies by the Bolshevik in outlawing Mensheviks and Anarchists again?? hmmm. O and didn't he call Leninism Bonapartism. ;) Seems you need to read up before you cite sources.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/serge/1945/memoirs/ch04x.htm#h3
https://www.marxists.org/archive/serge/1938/04/kronstadt.htm

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Makhno, yes.

Kinda funny though that noone has mentioned Durruti yet.
Read my friend:

http://libcom.org/history/articles/1896-1936-buenaventura-durruti

http://libcom.org/history/barcelona-meeting-durruti-taking-sietamo-%E2%80%93-pierre-van-paassen