During a discussion I was responded to me with:
There is NO such thing as “leaderless” organisation amongst humans - period.
and I don’t know what to make of it. I don’t have enough first-hand experience with anarchist organizations to refute it but I have read and watched enough anarchist media to doubt this claim.
(Edit: probably should have mentioned: This was told to me by another anarchist who I’ve seen in this com. So I don’t think this was due to ignorance.)
My main inspiration for my own beliefs comes quite a lot from the youtuber andrewism. Because the way he describes anarchism speaks to me. It’s hopeful and constructive focusing on the things we can build instead of the things we must defeat, something that very much resonates with a naive pacifist like me.
He has made a video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYVWbj8naBM.
And he does a good job of listing all of the different ways of leadership, until ending with the idea that leadership could be used as a way to start enforcing authority, and that constant vigilance is needed to oppose it. He therefor argues to view leadership not as a position, but as a practice that is shared across everyone.
There is also this comment under the video that I think is relevant:
I think that calling it a “guide” instead of a “leader” would properly convey the idea. Why is a guide a guide? Because of their local (or niche) knowledge, e.g. somebody who guides you around a museum. There is no inherent authority caught in the word, as you are simply choosing to listen to them concerning a specific context.
There is also this text: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-all-cocoons-are-temporary
Which I remember really resonating with me but I can’t remember most of the specifics so I guess I’ll need to re-read it at some point.
In a purely intellectual discussion that has merit. But in general layman’s terms any one of those could be seen as leadership, by leaders. In a discussion, it’s a good idea to have an idea of the level of understanding of the participants. And trying to speak to their level. Otherwise you risk talking passed them and confusing them. Which is generally not what you want.
It’s a distinction between natural leadership and those formally empowered as an officer in a hierarchy of power.
You’re in an anarchist community. You are extremely familiar with our vernaculars, and that of “laymen.” Both use “leadership” to mean exactly what “laymen” dictionaries define.
I am not so sure why you keep sidetracking the leaderless organizations that emerge out of common interests and responsibilities that I listed.
We disavow leadership in praxis for necessities and demand. When something needs doing we act on it. Leaders need not exist.