underneath image of leadership

[peaccenicked]

"leadership'' .
The idea really hase fairly been through the washing machine on a che-lives over the years.
The clean version is that is an an elitist concept that demands blind faith. The trouble is that is bs.
There is much more to it than that..the trouble is that part of the clean version is the transposition of all definitions of 'leadership' into elitist folly.
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:leadership


This definition...''The process of influencing people while operating to meet organizational requirements and improving the organization through change. ''
is probably the one most in touch with common sense.
The idea that blind faith is a demand of revolutionary leadership is to take away it revolutionary content and replace it with counter-revolution.
However the concrete examples of bureaucratic ''leninist'' leadership maybe, it does not take 'leadership' as a varied concept out of the vocabulary of the English speaking world.
No should try to try in high handed manner enforce the own definition of leadership
in an authoritarian manner on the movement.

[redstar2000]

Here is a nice clean definition of "leadership"...

To provide leadership is to conceive and publicize useful ideas for the political direction of a revolutionary movement, and to persuade by rational argument other people of the utility of those ideas. :)

That's it. The Leninist conflation of "leadership" with the power of command is totally unacceptable from a communist standpoint!

The autonomous self-determination of the working class is the central dogma of communism as a system of ideas; any attack on that dogma -- regardless of the "excuse" -- is nothing but capitulation to bourgeois theories of "the inevitability of hierarchy".

All bosses are bad...even "red" ones!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[peaccenicked]

To provide leadership is to conceive and publicize useful ideas for the political direction of a revolutionary movement, and to persuade by rational argument other people of the utility of those ideas

That is brilliant, but should we describe people engaged in this activity as leaders or
is there a cleaner way to describe these people who by implication think they know better. A difference enough that it ought to be expressed because it has been deemed more useful than what has gone before.


Lenin's theory and practice where somewhat different and conditioned on the given historical situation, despite your villification of him, when he says nice things like ''democracy is indispensible to socialism". I think that is a publically useful idea and I can think of nothing rational to say against it, perhaps lenin was anti leninist at times.

[redstar2000]

...should we describe people engaged in this activity as leaders or is there a cleaner way to describe these people who by implication think they know better? A difference enough that it ought to be expressed because it has been deemed more useful than what has gone before.

Well, the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain called them "influential militants".

Then there's that letter that Engels wrote to Kautsky: "Stop calling me teacher! My name is Engels."

The history of language suggests that people sometimes take an old word and give it an entirely new meaning...and sometimes they invent an entirely new word to describe something that has no evident precedent.

I would certainly like an entirely new word...but lack the linguistic ability to construct one. Perhaps someone with a background in Latin and/or Greek could "coin a phrase" that would catch on.

As in many things, we may well just have to wait and see.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[peaccenicked]

How about calling a spade a spade. Leaders sometimes lead, teachers some times teach. The led and the taught have their own minds to make up.
Villifying the term, 'Leaders 'is quite frankly pathetic. It only confuses things.

[El Che]

The question is the type and nature of leadership. Leadership can be good or it can be bad, it depends on how it works in practice. History has shown that mistakes in the matter and illusion on the nature of power will be paid dearly. Its time to once and for all be clear on this, to establish the ground rules for the rebuild of the international socialist movement in such terms that ensure leadership will not turn on its own class and become counter-revolutionary. This is the fundamental question that must be addressed once and for all to lift the idea of socialism from the slum it is in, in terms of popular acceptablity and credibility.

[peaccenicked]

The centrality of the leadership question within the movement is another problem.
In many ways it is the left navel gazing. El che you have summed up in real terms how the problem of leadership should be addressed better than anyone, I have came accross.
A consensus on these issues would be a real bonus for the left.

"From the Communist Manifesto.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:


(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.
(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.


The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat. "


I think what is needed is for theoretical struggle to develop, is for us to clarify what our theoretical problems are. What are our theoretical needs.
How much do we need to look at what is happening on the ground, how much do we need to confront the mass media? Should we target the most militant workers,
or should we address the whole of society. Is Stalinism such an enemy as it was, has its memory faded? How much does Us military might hold back revolutionary development in the third world?
How should communists take advantage of modern technology?
We have not seemed to have a consistent consensual oreintation to the modern world apart from on the main the simplistic norms of the politically correct agenda, which is at least some sort of unifying bond.

In terms of political economy, we should ask what is the nature of capitalist decline in terms of how it affects the modern day class struggle?

These questions and many more have to posed and consensus developed, so that the left in general have a strong counterweight to all variants of bourgeois ideology.
So as to create a reliable pole of rich debate that has the potential to attract millions. To leave all sects and cults behind.

[redstar2000]

Vilifying the term, 'Leaders' is quite frankly pathetic. It only confuses things.

Perhaps it seems "pathetic" and "confusing" to you because you don't grasp the purpose of my attempts to vilify that term.

I don't think that you will dispute the fact that capitalism presents itself as a "meritocracy" -- those who are in positions of authority "deserve" to be there because they "really are superior".

The Leninist paradigm offers the same rationale: it proclaims itself composed of the "most advanced" workers and its own leadership is, necessarily, "the most advanced of the most advanced"...truly "superior" in every respect.

All this is, of course, utter mysticism. There is nothing remarkably "superior" in any objective sense about the bourgeoisie or the Leninists. An occasional capitalist and an occasional Leninist may demonstrate an unusual degree of competence. But in general, no, they are not "truly superior".

Thus, when I heap scorn on the concept of "leaders", I am attacking an illusion...and thus, in Marx's words, "a world that requires illusions".

Those who believe, for whatever reasons, that there are "superior" and "inferior" people and that authority should be placed in the hands of the "superior" (however defined) are suffering under the delusion of "leadership".

For liberation from class society to be possible, this delusion must be smashed. Waiting for a "redeemer" will gain us nothing but perpetual slavery.

We will not be free until we finally realize that we are the only ones who can free us.

No one will do it "for us"...no matter what they call themselves.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[peaccenicked]

To deny that an anti racist,anti sexist , anti phobic, anti capitalist, anti imperialist, worker is more advanced politically than a fascist worker or a politically backward worker who has reactionary bourgeos tendencies, is to live in a fairy tail world of formal equality.
Sometimes we have to fight these people and if an anti fascist leader wants to show me where the battle field is I will follow him or her.

The villification of the term 'leader' serves no rational purpose but to undermine the confidence and initiative of people willing to have a go at ending the whole gammet of injustices that the oppressed recieve.

Leadership that turns out to be self serving and opportunist deserve much criticism,
but in my experience they are not always completely useless to the cause if they have any conscience left at all.
The problems of leadership are also problems of the political culture of the working class.
A philistine approach to leadership only makes matters worse and plays into the hands of the worst sort of leaders who in turn accomodate to popularism and its base prejudices.

[redstar2000]

To deny that an anti racist, anti sexist, anti phobic, anti capitalist, anti imperialist, worker is more advanced politically than a fascist worker or a politically backward worker who has reactionary bourgeois tendencies, is to live in a fairy tale world of formal equality.

Well, truth is, I'd like to know some more about these folks you're labeling...their specific views on specific questions, for example.

I do not live in the "fairy tale" world of formal equality; there's no question that some folks are, indeed, more "politically advanced" than others.

My point is that rigorous skepticism should always be aroused when someone advances the claim that they "are more politically advanced than others" and "therefore" should be granted decision-making authority.

Suppose that on this board I decided it was too much work to actually respond to what people wrote and instead just posted a "boiler-plate" post over and over again:

"I am more politically advanced than you people are and therefore you should just agree with me or shut up!"

Such arrogance would be greeted with contempt and Malte would give me the boot for spamming.

How much more outrageous is it for a party to act in this fashion? To brazenly declare that "we" are the "anointed saviors" of the proletariat? "Follow us or land in the shit"?

And you know very well that that is what Leninist parties say about themselves...even if in somewhat less colorful language.

They use a lot of metaphors, but the central contention is that the party (their particular party) is "indispensable" to the proletarian revolution and to the administration of post-revolutionary society.

And people call me "arrogant"?


The vilification of the term 'leader' serves no rational purpose but to undermine the confidence and initiative of people willing to have a go at ending the whole gamut of injustices that the oppressed receive.

It most certainly does nothing of the sort. What it does do is undermine the whole idea of social change as a consequence of "picking the right leader".

Since there's no such thing as "the right leader", it strengthens the initiative of the people. It says in a very straightforward way: if you want your freedom, go and take it!


The problems of leadership are also problems of the political culture of the working class.

A philistine approach to leadership only makes matters worse and plays into the hands of the worst sort of leaders who in turn accommodate to popularism and its base prejudices.

This is rather obscure. My attack on the concept of leadership applies to all who seek to "rise to power" on the backs of the workers.

If you are suggesting that "workers will follow leaders" because "it's part of their culture" and "therefore" we have to support or provide "good" leaders and oppose "bad" leaders, I can only reply that they will not be free until they flush that shit out of their brains.

The person who says "the Leader of my party knows best" is no better off than the person who says "the Prime Minister knows best".

A slave remains a slave, regardless of the color of his chains.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[dark fairy]

leadership has changed through out the years... corruption has not let us have good leaders... :unsure: <_<

[peaccenicked]

Dark Fairy. On the whole that is true. However to paraphrase Marx.
The point is not to inerpretate the world but to change it.

[peaccenicked]

If you are suggesting that "workers will follow leaders" because "it&#39;s part of their culture" and "therefore" we have to support or provide "good" leaders and oppose "bad" leaders, I can only reply that they will not be free until they flush that shit out of their brains.

No I am not sugesting that at all. I am also suggesting that leaders will follow workers because it is part of their popularism.
The villification of Leaders takes on a new contemptuous form that anyone involved with it is stupid and backward and ignorant .Leaders either provide good ideas or bad ideas.
They tend to be the most active for some cause or another.
I dont have any hang ups with them at all. If they come accross with a bad idea just because they take on board a leadersip role does not mean a damn thing when it comes to the quality of their ideas.

Now I am hearing that workers blindly follow them. Surely that is a criticism of toadying not of leaders.
Maybe you should be villyfying toadies rather than leaders. As a self appointed critic of such matters.

[The Feral Underclass]

The definition of the role of leadership is not principally wrong. It is the leaders that we must watch out for.

I agree and accept that organization, agitation and development are all things needed in order to build a revolutionary movement. But who does it? A central committee? An inidividual? Leadership of this kind must be done by rank and file members on federative, mutually co-operative and democractic way. If someone from a local group must take on responsability it must be that only, and they must be elected by the local group. A workers revolutionary movement can not be built by "intellectuals" barking out orders, it leads no where.

[Guest1]

Right, blame the slaves, not the slave owner.

I don&#39;t like the term leader either, I think that there is a need for the separation of legitimate "leadership" and hierarchical leadership. Usually I simply call legitimate leaders activists and leave it at that. It implies nothing more thant he obvious, that they are active in the movement. It does not imply that they are better or more educated than the rest of the movement, or that they have some sort of power or control over it as the term "influential" does.

Their only power is temporary and based on their ability to convince.

I think I like that, and I think I&#39;ll stick to it. Activists, hehe.

As for leaders, you can&#39;t abolish hierarchy by building it.

[El Che]

TAT is on to what I, also, believe is the core issue. Leadership is necessary but it stands to reason that the conditions for its existence should, in and of themselves, ensure that leadership leads for the benefit of those it is leading. The surest way to ensure this is to make leadership accountable to its constituency.

[peaccenicked]

How on earth is there a property can a property relationship be established between leaders and those who are supposed to pay attention to them. It is a pure voluntary thing.

EL Che,I have met intellectuals barking out orders, I part company usually at that point or that is the point of origin.
However I tend to agree with Gramsci that all men are intellectuals. Sometimes they dont use that blessing very well.
Sometimes I have met rank and filers who bark out orders.
It is perhaps only me but I have tendency to be obliging to folk in general,if it is not unreasonable or if its within my capabilities but I expect manners from those
who represent the most public face of an organisation or group.
Leaders who are not accountable should be left behind.
Whatever group one is in should have high standards of public conduct and even higher standards of reaching a consensus internally on a possible course of action.
One of the problems I have came across is that people talk more, and even get more things arranged in the pub afterwords. It could be a cultural thing.
Another thing I have found is that when someone who is elected to office or is there due to supposed experience as a founding member that when they resign, it is usually difficult to find a volunteer replacement or that the most likely candidate proposes someone else.
I have come to the conclusion that most people dont like having &#39;power&#39; thrust apon them but most of the time they give way to public pressure.
Perhaps that is because we have a self effacing culture in Scotland but I am not sure.
I have also been involved in removing the leading member of an organisation in Scotland. The majority at the meeting agreed that he was a meglamaniac.
Accountability is not merely a theoretical possibility.

[El Che]

I don&#39;t know about &#39;property relationship&#39; but there is a power relationship, which you can not escape either way. If leadership is invested in its mandate by delegation then it makes sense that it should be scrutinized, if it is not then its subordinates are objectively powerless. To argue trust seems like dangerous idealism to me.

[peaccenicked]

From Moa On contradiction.
"In studying the particularity of contradiction, unless we examine these two facets — the principal and the non-principal contradictions in a process, and the principal and the non-principal aspects of a contradiction — that is, unless we examine the distinctive character of these two facets of contradiction, we shall get bogged down in abstractions, be unable to understand contradiction concretely and consequently be unable to find the correct method of resolving it. The distinctive character or particularity of these two facets of contradiction represents the unevenness of the forces that are in contradiction. Nothing in this world develops absolutely evenly; we must oppose the theory of even development or the theory of equilibrium. Moreover, it is these concrete features of a contradiction and the changes in the principal and non-principal aspects of a contradiction in the course of its development that manifest the force of the new superseding the old. The study of the various states of unevenness in contradictions, of the principal and non-principal contradictions and of the principal and the non-principal aspects of a contradiction constitutes an essential method by which a revolutionary political party correctly determines its strategic and tactical policies both in political and in military affairs. All Communists must give it attention. "

The meaning of this passage may not be immediately apparent but what I believe is that when terms like power come into interpersonal relations of a voluntary nature, or when notions of leadership are posited from a few historical examples.
I believe the discusion gets bogged down in abstractions.
What concrete use these abstractions have, becomes problematic. How to generalise from a bad experience, how to generalise from a good experience, to come to a reductionist conclusion that fits all.
Trust leaders, dont trust leader. When does accountability exist, when does it not exist, how can conclusions be drawn for all cases.
Simplistic equations of leadership and power, leaders and subordination that match all condition of the process where by information originates, or is imparted, plans discussed.
Does leadership = giving orders, none of the google search definitions I give in the first post suggest that leadership demands such compliance.

Leadership can be spontaneous, someone can lead a walkout from an organisation.
Will that organisation or the new organisation be any different?
If we are not defending the particular practices of a concrete organisation in the area of leadership anarchist or socialist. What are we talking about.
I am not as yet a member of any party organisation or group that pretents do be an alternative to a party.
A discussion on leadership which does not deal with concrete issues might be useless, if it was not that anarchists link the question of leaders to statelessness.
The capitalist state transits to communism, through a workers state.
This workers state is preset with criticisms in advance of the fact.
That in plain language is called fear mongering.
Who says that a Workers State will not be run by the workers themselves or more precisely a majority of them.
Who are the Leninists addressing this question?Where are they?
The question is being directed at no one outside of che-lives.

[El Che]

The meaning of this passage may not be immediately apparent but what I believe is that when terms like power come into interpersonal relations of a voluntary nature, or when notions of leadership are posited from a few historical examples.
I believe the discusion gets bogged down in abstractions.
What concrete use these abstractions have, becomes problematic. How to generalise from a bad experience, how to generalise from a good experience, to come to a reductionist conclusion that fits all.


I&#39;m not trying to extrapolate reductionist conclusions. I&#39;m not trying to strickly limit, or set in stone, concrete forms of acceptable leadership. What I believe is important, though, is to keep present objective truths when looking at specific forms of leadership. If something is black it can not be white, if it is broken it can not be whole. It is a simple statement. Statement that does not say more than it does, and I am not trying to put more in it. What I believe is that it is not justified to deny, or forget, these truths though I&#39;m not rejecting further consideratons a priori. If you want to discuss specifics then by all means. What I must reject is the suggestion that I am already drawing in broad strokes when indeed that is not what I am doing.

Another issue is "when terms like power come into interpersonal relations of a voluntary nature". There is a qualitative difference between voluntary and in voluntary &#39;relations&#39; but if there is something specific you want to say about it, relating to my statements, you&#39;re just going to have to go ahead and say it because I can not guess it. Secondly, it is not merely of voluntary relations that we are speaking here so how does that enter into things?


Does leadership = giving orders, none of the google search definitions I give in the first post suggest that leadership demands such compliance.


Not necessarily. Leadership is your word. I thought it was implicit here that we are discussing a leadership with power over, power to decide. We are in effect not discussing &#39;leadership&#39; but power.


If we are not defending the particular practices of a concrete organisation in the area of leadership anarchist or socialist. What are we talking about.


We are talking about concrete facts against which to measure up organisation in the area of leadership anarchist or socialist.


I am not as yet a member of any party organisation or group that pretents do be an alternative to a party.


Nither am I. I am not against parties as organisational entities but all parties do not function in the same way internally or externally.


A discussion on leadership which does not deal with concrete issues might be useless, if it was not that anarchists link the question of leaders to statelessness.


Statelessness is not the issue here at all. Anarchists also go on, at great lengths, on the nature of power and ways to approach it. Chomsky is a good example of this, saying, among other things, that power must continually justify its self as a matter of principal. This has absolutely nothing to do with statelessness but infact with its opposite.


The capitalist state transits to communism, through a workers state.
This workers state is preset with criticisms in advance of the fact.
That in plain language is called fear mongering.
Who says that a Workers State will not be run by the workers themselves or more precisely a majority of them.

Not me. Again you are reading more into my words than is contained in them. I am not criticising the workers state, merely, at the most, criticising some forms it might take by pointing to some objective facts. I believe this criticism is healthy and necessary, should be allowed and we should not be afraid to dabble in it.


Who are the Leninists addressing this question?Where are they?
The question is being directed at no one outside of che-lives.

I&#39;m not sure what you&#39;re saying here.

[peaccenicked]

El Che.

I think I have no problems with that really. Towards the end I was getting bogged down by abstractions myself and drifting into my &#39;polemic&#39; with Redstar2000.

[El Che]

It was a nice polemic to follow. I hope you didnt get too upset, Redstar&#39;s style can be a bit unsettling but hes not all bad.