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.
The problem with citing dictionary is because they are based on current status quo. When I used it as a reference I got “Let’s not let liberals define the words we use” and I agree with that. We need an anarchist dictionary that’s wildly used to solve these problem. Every anarchist has their own path, and they have different words. We should try and consolidate as much as possible to a dictionary.
🤦♀️ reread my🧵.
Both dictionaries use the same meaning for “leadership.”
Septimaeus just wants to change his definition when we already have better vernaculars for his desired “laymen” diction.
I’m not sure what you mean. My definition has remained constant.
The top definition in your link directly above describes leadership as exhibiting the qualities and characteristics of a leader. It’s not an authority-oriented definition at all. In fact it sounds like a virtue-oriented one.
I said “layperson.” But re: said “vernaculars” versus my “desired diction“ maybe you’re right. Maybe the word leadership is just too damn confusing for the commoner to use responsibly. Perhaps they need smarter people like you to tell them which words are correct and which are forbidden. Let me know how it goes.