The anarchist movement and leadership

[Edelweiss]

This is not one of the cheap polemics against anarchists, I'm interested in a serious discussion on this.
Anarchists do reject any form of leadership and authority. I do think that they are just rejecting it in theory. They do not elect leaders in their groups, but nevertheless in all anarchist I know, there actually are leaders, despite of what the group is claiming. It's just dishonest, and self-cheating IMO. I think that in all social groups, no matter how big they are, leaders do naturally develop and get accepted, either because of their knowlwdge, their charisma, their actions etc. As I said, even if they never would call themself that, there are members who are leadres in all anarchists groups, who have more influence on what the group id doing and going to, and who actually have authority over the group.

[redstar2000]

Spanish anarchists during the civil war called their leaders "influential militants".

I think there are several different ways to look at this matter.

In a practical sense, it's true that some people are "better" at revolutionary politics than others -- they know more (or appear to), they have a personality that appeals to many people, they project a "presence" when they speak in public, etc.

I think this is unavoidable; it will happen no matter what a group's political principles are.

What anarchists (and many others!) resist is the idea of institutions of command where "natural leaders" are permitted and even encouraged to acquire the conceit that giving orders is what they were "born to do".

The Spanish anarchists had the right idea, in my opinion. Let people be "influential" if they've earned people's respect for their revolutionary commitment and their innovative thinking -- but don't put them in a position where they (or anyone else) starts thinking that the sun shines out of their asses.

That's poison for the group and its leader. The followers become passive and "wait for their orders" -- they stop thinking politically except when they have to memorize the "new line".

The leader, of course, becomes an insufferable ego-maniac. After a while, he believes that he's "truly superior".

In the United States, one need only look at the "Revolutionary Communist Party", starring Bob Avakian as the "Precious Leader".

These people are not "dummies" -- they are intelligent, energetic, and really committed to revolution. They're one of the few groups in this country that makes a serious and sustained effort to organize among the most oppressed sections of the working class. There's probably not more than two or three hundred of them -- but they have an impact despite their tiny numbers.

And yet...there will never be more than a few hundred people who join or support them inspite of their intelligence, hard work, etc. They really believe that the sun shines out of Bob Avakian's ass -- and everyone else (with any sense) laughs and walks away.

Bob Avakian as an "influential militant" would probably make many positive contributions to a revolutionary movement in the U.S.

As a "Precious Leader", he is a figure of derision...as is, consequently, the RCP itself.

Contemporary anarchism has its problems -- it's "strong" in practice but terribly "weak" in theory.

Nevertheless, I think they got this one right: don't let one guy stand in the front of the room all the time...no matter how "good" he is. Rotate the "leadership roles" on a regular and frequent basis. Give as little power as possible to the "center" and as much as possible to the local collectives.

And keep the "praise" realistic. If Comrade So-and-so came up with a good idea that really worked, go ahead and give him/her credit.

But none of that "red sun in our hearts" shit!

:redstar2000:

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

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 12:16 PM
Anarchists do reject any form of leadership and authority.
The argument here is what constitutes leadership? Providing a theoretical basis or a source of inspiration can very easily be classed as leadership, but this is not what anarchists oppose, although I think there is always a danger with having this kind of position.

The leadership that anarchists oppose is the leadership which places one person above another in a position of authority that allows them to dictate political rules, regulations, dictate orders or sets social standards to other human beings. It is quite frankly, absurd to that we can live in a society where human beings have no control of decisions which concern their existence.

Authority over someone is counter-productive to achieving freedom. You cannot promote a society of freedom while allowing people to control others, the contradiction can't be reconciled and it leads to catastrophe.


I do think that they are just rejecting it in theory.

No Anarchist organisaiton that I am aware of has paid or full time members, which for me is taking the theory to practise in an overtly paranoid way. We have a National Secretary who is moved around periodically. I think this is the same, if not more extreme with many anarchist groups.


They do not elect leaders in their groups, but nevertheless in all anarchist I know, there actually are leaders

What is their responsability?


It's just dishonest, and self-cheating IMO

I think this is extremly harsh. You haven't actually clarified what their position as "leaders" is.

There have been instances in history where organisations such as the CNT had paid officials and even had seats in a central goverment, but look what happened there, this in itself symbolises a need to draw lessons from revising anarchist theory. Nestor Makhno was also considered a leader of the Ukrainian revolution, but I think that it is "out there" to claim that we are being dishonest or "self-cheating."


I think that in all social groups, no matter how big they are, leaders do naturally develop and get accepted

There will of course be people who have created a theoretical or inspirational basis I am sure, but that does not mean that these people should assume positions of leadership in the marxist-leninist sense of the word.

I also think it is important to ask yourself why would an anarchist want that position? It's a dangerous path and can ultimatly lead to revisions or outright [theoretical] defeat in a revolutionary situation.


As I said, even if they never would call themself that, there are members who are leadres in all anarchists groups, who have more influence on what the group id doing and going to, and who actually have authority over the group.

I have never experienced this, nor have I met an anarchist who wants that position.

[Edelweiss]

I think you haven't understood really what I meant. I'm aware of the theoretical position of anarchists about leadership and authority. Of course no anarchist group has paid members, or official leaders. But in practice they do have leaders. As redstar explained (I wasn't aware of that before, but that has proved my point), in the Spanish revolution the anarchists called those within the anarchists resistance who naturally developed into leaders "influential militants", same goes for just regular anarchists groups, they do not have official leaders, but there are always certain members who are more active than others, who can be more convincing than others, who have more charisma or personal presence than others etc. They in fact are just leaders, and actually have a form of authority over the group. As resdatr said as well, it is unavoidable; it will happen no matter what a group's political principles are. That is just what I meant with dishonest and self-cheating, it's just another word for the same thing. It's quiet absurd IMO. Of course it's not an insitutuinal leadership, and not remotely comparable with the leadership which is in Leninist sects for example. But still it is a form of leadership, despite of what many anarchists are claiming.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 04:17 PM
I think you haven't understood really what I meant.
No, I understand fine.


I'm aware of the theoretical position of anarchists about leadership and authority

So you are arguing that all forms of leadership are authoritative?


But in practice they do have leaders.

Within the relms of semantics yes, you're right, but being an inspirational basis or providing practical instructions is not a position of power dominance [authority].

Anarchists oppose authoritative leadership not practical responsability or education/understanding.


in the Spanish revolution the anarchists called those within the anarchists resistance who naturally developed into leaders "influential militants"

Where did they call them "Influential militants" and what is meant by it? All these are, are words. It is what they are in practice which is important. For this to amount to anything significant in your argument these "influential militants" must have had control over the anarchist movement and used their own instruction to organise activities.

That didn't happen.


regular anarchists groups, they do not have official leaders

Name one anarchist group that has an "offical leader."


there are always certain members who are more active than others, who can be more convincing than others, who have more charisma or personal presence than others etc

But that doesn't mean they're "incharge."


They in fact are just leaders, and actually have a form of authority over the group.

Again it's semantics. I don't agree that these people have authority over the group, but they may very well have authority within it.

I think the argument that your posing goes deeper. What you are saying is that; naturally, there will always be people who can assert their dominance, no matter how subtle, over other people who are less charismatic or less able to give their opinion. That may be true to a certain extent, but surely the anarchist movement, if not the entire [sane] revolutionary left, exists to counter that.

Anarchists should realise these subtle forms of "natural" dominance are dangerous. They need to understand what their "charisma" or "debating skills" can create, otherwise what's the point in them being an anarchist.


As resdatr said as well, it is unavoidable; it will happen no matter what a group's political principles are.

If we can build machines that fly through the air we can understand the politics of personal dominance. It is unavoidable if you want it to be.


But still it is a form of leadership, despite of what many anarchists are claiming.

Maybe it is a form of leadership, but it shouldn't be, and that's something anarchists need to keep a watchful eye on, otherwise our theories will mean as little as you are [apparently] making them out to be.

[PRC-UTE]

The problem I've run into with many anarchists is that they won't create any formal structure. Being a bit formless leads to cliques. However, this is probably the exception rather than the rule, but one of the things to watch out for.


Contemporary anarchism has its problems -- it's "strong" in practice but terribly "weak" in theory.

I agree with that very strongly. I've always thought of the relationship between anarchism/marxism being like two siblings. One is more emotional and prone to action; the other is more analytical and remote.

Anarchists are often very good at organising. In many countries they were instrumental in creating the labour movement, for example, but so bad at theory that it's just painful to hear them go on sometimes. It's like some of them are halfway expecting that people in occupations like Iraq will spontaneously become anarchists -- and then they'll be worthy of support, I suppose. Not till then of course, if they have 'statist' tendencies.

[Edelweiss]

Again it's semantics.

But that's exactly what I'm criticizing! I'm still not sure if you really got what I mean. I didn't meant to say that any anarchist group ever had any official leader, of course not! They didn't had an official leader, but there always are persons in all anarchist groups who do have a leader role, the only difference is they weren't chosen, or elected, they developed into it; the only difference is that their leadership is not institutionalized. There are hierarchies, also in anarchist groups, some members have more influence on the groups actions than others.
The Anarchists in the civil war called their leaders "influential militants", as you said, the difference limits on semantics. It is that kind of dishonesty I do criticize within the anarchist movement, despite of my heavy anarchist leaning I have myself, as you know.

I actually came to this conclusion when I heard of something which happened in a local anarchist group: It was just as I explained, there was a certain member who naturally developed into the leader of the group. It was very obvious for everyone. Some day he even realized it by himself, and actually left the group and went to another of the same syndicalist organization in an neighboring town (probably to again become the leader there...).

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Cliques are dangerous, but I think they spring up in any situation where a real movement hasn't evolved, and organizations are centered around a "Tight" core. I've seen them in both Anarchist and Leninist groups I've worked with. As effective movements are built, cliqueness tends to become less of a problem.

Reguarding leadership, the philosophy of anarchism tends to grow out of ideas of individualism and consent. Therefore, as long as "charasmatic" leaders power rests entirely on the consent of those s/he leads, there's nothing particularly wrong with it. The danger evolves when that power is institutionalized, and their power rests on some coercion, or that which is beyond the will of the lead.

My favorite example as it relates to anarchism and power is . . . SEX! But I'm too tired to elaborate now. I'm going to go take a nap. :P

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 09:47 PM

Again it's semantics.

But that's exactly what I'm criticizing! I'm still not sure if you really got what I mean. I didn't meant to say that any anarchist group ever had any official leader, of course not! They didn't had an official leader, but there always are persons in all anarchist groups who do have a leader role, the only difference is they weren't chosen, or elected, they developed into it; the only difference is that their leadership is not institutionalized. There are hierarchies, also in anarchist groups, some members have more influence on the groups actions than others.
The Anarchists in the civil war called their leaders "influential militants", as you said, the difference limits on semantics. It is that kind of dishonesty I do criticize within the anarchist movement, despite of my heavy anarchist leaning I have myself, as you know.

I actually came to this conclusion when I heard of something which happened in a local anarchist group: It was just as I explained, there was a certain member who naturally developed into the leader of the group. It was very obvious for everyone. Some day he even realized it by himself, and actually left the group and went to another of the same syndicalist organization in an neighboring town (probably to again become the leader there...).
I have already agreed in essence with what you are saying, to which I had replied:


Anarchists should realise that these subtle forms of "natural" dominance are dangerous. They need to understand what their "charisma" or "debating skills" can create, otherwise what's the point in them being an anarchist.

Also, it is unclear what your definitions of hierarchy and leadership is so it is hard to tell whether your critcisms are accurate.

[Edelweiss]

okay, thanks. :) I just was a bit confused before because of your "Name one anarchist group that has an "offical leader."" reply.

[redstar2000]

Here are some criticisms of "anti-authoritarian leadership" from an activist in New York City posted on another board...


Originally posted by Burningman
Anti-authoritarians, in my experience, deny their leaders so that they are totally unaccountable. This gives rise to leadership by class (those who can afford to travel and not work full time to earn an income), age (post-college graduates dominate leadership) and race (those who uphold these ideas tend to be disproportionately white). It also means that political line is often less important (or clear) than position in the "network" and control of communications....

Accountable leadership must be explicit. Informal leaders dragging people through four hour meetings to reach some mythical "consensus" of what the leaders already wanted to do is what gets my goat. (And what really gets it is the amount of self-censorship on the part of scores of activists who know perfectly well that this is true, but continue promoting the lines of anti-authoritarian decision-making for what can only be called opportunist reasons.)...

Without clear program, acknowledged leadership and agreed methods of work, the anarchy of "participatory democracy" is ALWAYS an informal tyranny. It just tends to be concealed, intentionally or not, by the implicit leadership and only recognized by those on the losing ends of arguments -- who leave, not being able to work in a minority position....

They [anti-authoritarians] use entirely informal means (personal ties, sexual relationships, casual meetings, creating pariahs, etc.) to enforce their agenda while charismatic "spokespeople" write books about participation, etc. Very clever, hard to pin down and still pretty obvious when non-participants look at it....

In participatory politics, meetings don't generally decide anything. People (generally resource brokers or "heavies") say what they are going to do anyway. There's little to decide -- and no unity of action (or action at all) if there is a disagreement. This is a weakness as minority positions can't [be] incorporated....

Leaders enable activity, and without them, there often is little more than sentiment. So movements that reject dynamic leadership tend to be subcultural and scene-y. Custom substitutes for direction....

So, what do you make of all those folks who make a distinction between leaders based on where they lead? And who find great liberation in collective, directed work? Are we all sheep?...

This fellow is not a Maoist...but he's "tempted" in that direction.

Naturally, I replied to his points at considerable length...but I thought his views to be relevant to this thread as an expression of the frustrations that some people feel in an anti-authoritarian context -- especially when the practice is not nearly as anti-authoritarian as the rhetoric.

:redstar2000:

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

[YKTMX]

The question is not whether you have a "leader" or not, it's whether you can things done or not.

For a revolutionary group to be successful it has to have a clear political doctrine so that members know how to appeal to the working class. I believe that a competent, democratically accountable Central Committe is the best way of ensuring that the party has coherence and discipline. That is "democratic centralism".

[redstar2000]

There are two criticisms of non-authoritarian decision-making (as practiced in the U.S.) which seem to me to have merit.

1. Consensus

I dislike this method a great deal. It needlessly prolongs meetings. It grants effective veto power to even the smallest minority. And it spreads responsibility for a decision so thinly that, effectively, "no one" is responsible for a bad idea. If you "consented", then you're just as much "on the hook" as the bozo who came up with the idea.

2. Spokes-councils

If not carefully constructed and maintained, they can be drastically unrepresentative of the movement for which they "speak".

That is, a delegate from an affinity group with six members will have one vote...and so will a delegate from a group with 100 or more members. (If consensus is used, then that delegate representing six people has the same "veto-power" as the delegate representing 100 people.)

Proportional representation would "fix" this problem...provided there were a method to make sure that the person who claimed to represent 100 people really did represent 100 people and not 50 or 75. I don't know of a method to do that.


What's my preference? Big assemblies...and the bigger the better. Matters are debated and discussed; clear decisions are made by voting; and majority committees are appointed right then and there (from volunteers) to work out the details and/or carry out the decisions and report back to the assembly. When the committees have done their job, they are dissolved.

Thus there is room for accountable leadership -- but no "permanent power" for such "gifted" folks. Each time something comes up, they have to persuade people that their idea is a good one. They never get any kind of "blanket authority" to do whatever they please about anything.

No matter how "good" they are.

:redstar2000:

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

[PRC-UTE]

I agree with your criticism of consensus and then some. I've had this conversation many times before and it's one of the big problems I have with contemporary anarchism. The logical outcome of consensus is that you would empower the minority view ( possibly reactionaries, middle class or capitalists ) and thus destroy the entire socialist project if carried too far. It's a middle class approach that has nothing to do with the communist idea.

I've never heard of spokes-councils. Is that some crazy east coast NY jargon? :lol: Is that the same as delegates in a direct democracy?

[redstar2000]

Here's a brief explanation of the spokes-council idea...

http://resistinc.org/newsletter/issues/200...escouncils.html (http://resistinc.org/newsletter/issues/2000/04/Spokescouncils.html)

It probably works well enough when all the groups involved in an action are very small...but runs into problems when some of the groups become larger than a dozen members or so.

:redstar2000:

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