Leadership...

[Kurt Crover]

Anybody know where I can get some papers/essays on leadership please?

Thanks.

[The Feral Underclass]

You need to be more specific? What exactly do you want to discuss or understand?

[redstar2000]

A Brief Note on Gramsci and "Leaders" (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1125112584&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[drain.you]

I would google names such as Pareto, Mosca and C. Wright Mills. The latter of the three has a good book called 'The Power Elite' that is worth reading if you can find a copy. Also the guy comrade redstar2000 talks about there, Gramsci is worth looking at.

When looking at leadership you should also consider types of power and authority. A guy known as Weber could help here, think theres a page on wiki for him, he distinguishes between three types of authority, traditional, rational and charismatic.

If you want I could go into detail but I would take a google on this stuff first :)

[piet11111]

well its a very broad term so i use the authority on leadership niccolo machiavelli with il principe (the leader)
the book is from 1500-ish but since humans hardly change in behaviour its still relevant as ever.

pick up a copy if you find one it doesnt cost much at all.

[Comrade-Z]

It seems to me like the issue of leadership contains all (or most) of the kernels of the disputes between revolutionary leftists.

If your stance on leadership is that it is needed during and/or after the revolution, then that stance logically leads to using reformism to "coax the working class along," working with authorities, such as religious figures, in order to try to "coax the working class along," implementing the "democratic centralist" vanguard party, the party despotism, a prolongued transitional period needed to allow leaders to "train the working class to be communists," the professional police and military forces, one-man management in the workplaces, etc.

If your stance on leadership is that it can do no good whatsoever from this point in history forth, then that logically leads to an entirely different conception of the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat: ultra-democratic workers' councils running the show, networking based on mutual agreement and cooperation, democratic workers' militias, constant questioning and critical thinking from all individuals in society, constant participation in society's decision-making by all (revolutionary) individuals, etc.

Now, if only we could get people to settle on the latter stance concerning leadership.

[JC1]

If your stance on leadership is that it is needed during and/or after the revolution, then that stance logically leads to using reformism to "coax the working class along," working with authorities, such as religious figures, in order to try to "coax the working class along," implementing the "democratic centralist" vanguard party, the party despotism, a prolongued transitional period needed to allow leaders to "train the working class to be communists," the professional police and military forces, one-man management in the workplaces, etc.

See, this is the reason we can never have an honest debate. The only way that theses anti-worker, ultra-leftish fool's can garner suppourt for there argument is if they confuse things by putting "democratic centralist" and other buzzwords associated with leninism in the same sentence with concept's that have no association with bolshevism, like "one-man manegment".

The Leninist position on leadership is this; In the working class, some worker's are more counsincous than other's. These workers are the one's who will bulid institution's of working class power. This is an organic process and is going to happen wether petit-bourgoise socialists like comrade-z and redtsar like it or not.

The reason that the anarchist/petit-bougoise left fears effective methods of orginizing amongst worker's is becuase they fear workers actualy getting something done.

Worker's like me say; fuck anarchism !

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 07:14 PM
The reason that the anarchist/petit-bougoise left fears effective methods of orginizing amongst worker's is becuase they fear workers actualy getting something done.

Worker's like me say; fuck anarchism !
Im absolutely terrified of working class organisations, that&#39;s why im in one <_<

Please, your going to have to do better than this nonsense to convince me to follow great comrade lenin.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Comrade&#045;[email protected] 11 2006, 07:32 PM
Now, if only we could get people to settle on the latter stance concerning leadership.
And what if your stance is that leadership happens. Whether its desirable or not is beside the point. If we take Gramsci’s definition (those "endowed with greater ability and greater perspicacity") then its inevitable that the revolution will contain leaders in those that are more capable of organising and motivating. This will happen just as it has happened in every prior example of revolution.

[nickdlc]

I always thought that workers through their workers councils would be the form in which decisions were made. Since workers who were both on the "left and right" of the communist spectrum would be able to get their say people would just have to respect the decisions that workers made. Of course the most advanced workers or the "leaders" would be influential but only to small degree since the ultra democratic workers councils would vote on each and every topic that not all of the lenninist ideas would be voted for but neither would left communist ideas or all anarchist ideas. Identifying yourself as this type of communist or that type of anarchist would become useless after a while since only the best ideas would be voted for and not anyones dogma or party line.

[JC1]

Im absolutely terrified of working class organisations, that&#39;s why im in one

Obviously anarchist fears worker&#39;s orginizing, otherwise they would not oppose orginization as a matter of principal.

[Comrade-Z]

And what if your stance is that leadership happens. Whether its desirable or not is beside the point.

So people following orders without using their own reason is "human nature"?


those "endowed with greater ability and greater perspicacity

That&#39;s called being distinguished and respected. When dealing with such people, we don&#39;t abandon rationality and do whatever they say. We listen to their proposals, possibly with above-average frequency, but then evaluate their proposals on the merits of the proposals themselves, not on who gave the proposals, while using our own reason.


Obviously anarchist fears worker&#39;s orginizing, otherwise they would not oppose orginization as a matter of principal.

You know better than to put those words in our mouths. So now we "oppose orginization as a matter of principal"?

I don&#39;t oppose the idea of workers co-operating as they see fit, as long as all parties are contributing their own rational evaluations to the process. What I don&#39;t want is workers following others without using their rationality.


and other buzzwords associated with leninism in the same sentence with concept&#39;s that have no association with bolshevism, like "one-man manegment

Umm, it is a matter of historical fact that the Bolsheviks instituted (rather, brought back) one-man-management in many enterprises shortly after coming to power.


In the working class, some worker&#39;s are more counsincous than other&#39;s.

I agree with that.


These workers are the one&#39;s who will bulid institution&#39;s of working class power.

If that occurs, then little has been accomplished. As long as the vast majority of the workers fail to participate in the direction and construction of these organs of working class power, you don&#39;t have the working class as a whole directing things, but instead a small group of workers directing things.

These more advanced workers can offer up lots of proposals and be very active in that respect, and if their ideas are good, those ideas will be taken up by the other workers. And if the working class isn&#39;t knowledgable enough to take up these good ideas when they are presented with them, then the working class as a whole is clearly not ready and willing to be the ruling class. They&#39;re fucked, for the time being, until their class consciousness matures more, unfortunately.


Worker&#39;s like me say; fuck anarchism &#33;

Still waiting for that successful communist revolution. :P (As you are, likewise, with the anarchists and ultra-leftists.)

Who will have the last laugh? :)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

You want leadership? Look at George Washington. Although we hate his economic ideals, he was the one revolutionary who could&#39;ve had power but stepped down. Think about it just in terms of revolutionary organization

[EusebioScrib]

The working class is it&#39;s own leader. There is no organized hierarchy in a revolutionary movement, maybe a hierarchy of the deed or something (as in whoever does more may have more influence or respect).

Without autonomy the movement will go no where. When you have a centralized group you move at a snails pace. The only organizations which have success are groups like RAAN. Organizations with no success are any "Communist" Parties or MIM or whatever. Basically Leninists.

[Comrade-Z]

The only organizations which have success are groups like RAAN.

Whoa, just hold your horses for a second. RAAN hasn&#39;t exactly successfully ignited a communist revolution either.

That said, I think the RAAN model has more potential than the Leninist model as far as giving us what we want and being successful at the same time.

Leninist movements have, so far, only been successful in the sense that Hitler was "successful"--successful at giving us what we don&#39;t want.

[EusebioScrib]

Whoa, just hold your horses for a second. RAAN hasn&#39;t exactly successfully ignited a communist revolution either.

RAAN has mucho success. Or atleast a large amount of success in such a short time.



That said, I think the RAAN model has more potential than the Leninist model as far as giving us what we want and being successful at the same time.

Damn straight.


Leninist movements have, so far, only been successful in the sense that Hitler was "successful"--successful at giving us what we don&#39;t want.

True, Leninists have been very successful, at bringing capitalism (accomplishing their historic roles).

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Comrade&#045;[email protected] 19 2006, 03:53 AM
So people following orders without using their own reason is "human nature"?
Oddly enough I can’t find those words or anything remotely like them in my post. Read it again and then put forward an argument not made of straw.


That&#39;s called being distinguished and respected. When dealing with such people, we don&#39;t abandon rationality and do whatever they say. We listen to their proposals, possibly with above-average frequency, but then evaluate their proposals on the merits of the proposals themselves, not on who gave the proposals, while using our own reason.
Well… duh. I know it must be nice and comfortable to knock your head against the a century old stereotype but eventually you’re going to have to respond to what people actually say. Note the lack of terminology such as “mindless drones”, “obeying without reason” or “Great Leader” in my next line.

Come revolution some people will be better at organising and motivating, agreed? People will recognise this (using “their own reason”) and respect them for it. That’s all there is to it. No one is suggesting that these leaders - or “organisers” if you prefer :rolleyes: - will be capable of acting without, or removed from, the approval of the workers.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 05:50 AM
The working class is it&#39;s own leader. There is no organized hierarchy in a revolutionary movement, maybe a hierarchy of the deed or something (as in whoever does more may have more influence or respect).

Without autonomy the movement will go no where. When you have a centralized group you move at a snails pace. The only organizations which have success are groups like RAAN. Organizations with no success are any "Communist" Parties or MIM or whatever. Basically Leninists.
the idea of everyone working together and magically defeating the beourgious is a litle optimistic considering they have tanks.

That said, what are you talking about RAAN being very successful? I never even heard of them before I came here and saw it in peoples signatures.

[Comrade-Z]

Come revolution some people will be better at organising and motivating, agreed? People will recognise this (using “their own reason”) and respect them for it. That’s all there is to it. No one is suggesting that these leaders - or “organisers” if you prefer - will be capable of acting without, or removed from, the approval of the workers.

Okay, that sounds fine.

To be consistent, though, I think you would have to re-evaluate the democratic centralist model of organization. Some questions to ask would be: in practice, are the leaderships of these organizations subject to this kind of scrutiny, potential of being removed by the lower ranks, etc.? In history, when democratic centralist parties have come to power, did they allow public criticism of their leadership and/or popular attempts to unseat their leaderships and institute new leaderships and/or entirely new workers&#39; organizations altogether?

[An archist]

I&#39;d like to join in and specify &#39;leadership&#39; because I see a difference between leaders and bosses/commanders/...
In every society you will ahve leaders, even in an anarchist society. A leader is the person who has influence because of personal values, they appear spontaneously and don&#39;t need to be elected in any way. e.g. You want to build a house, one person comes up and says: "I have quite some experience in that area" it&#39;s only logic that his/her opinion will be most valuable when making decisions about the construction, though people can disagree and argue and explain why they would do thing any other way. If you would use a boss in the same example you would go voting. The same person who knew about building houses would probably become boss, but in this case, if people disagreed, the boss might get fed up argumenting why things need to be this or that way and at a certain moment would most likely say: "No you don&#39;t do it that way, you do it that way, I&#39;m the boss, I have the authority&#33;"
In the first example work would probably be done quiker, but in the second case, everyone would feel more satisfied, because the all had a say in the construction.

So, in a war-case (in an anarchist &#39;army&#39;), it would be best to appoint some sort of commander to make decisions in critical situations and take group decisions when all is quiet.

[An archist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 12:19 AM

Obviously anarchist fears worker&#39;s orginizing, otherwise they would not oppose orginization as a matter of principal.
Anarchists do NOT oppose organization. They oppose hierarchical organisation, in fact, many anarchist organisations are very well organised.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by An archist+Jun 19 2006, 04:33 PM--> (An archist &#064; Jun 19 2006, 04:33 PM)
[email protected] 19 2006, 12:19 AM

Obviously anarchist fears worker&#39;s orginizing, otherwise they would not oppose orginization as a matter of principal.
Anarchists do NOT oppose organization. They oppose hierarchical organisation, in fact, many anarchist organisations are very well organised. [/b]
anarchists are not organized well. They don&#39;t do crap. I never heard of RAAN before I came here yet I&#39;d heard of the CL, YCL, and SWP long before I came here. They don&#39;t get anything out and spend 90% of their time bashing leninists.

Anarchists are scared of workers coming together as a unit, as a strong clenched fist which is why they support decentralization and affinity.

[Janus]

So, in a war-case (in an anarchist &#39;army&#39;), it would be best to appoint some sort of commander to make decisions in critical situations and take group decisions when all is quiet.
Most anarchists seem to oppose that as well as the idea of commanders.


In every society you will ahve leaders, even in an anarchist society.
Depeding on one&#39;s definition of leader, if your defintion of a leader is similar to that of a guide, then yes.