I agree 100%, but it makes a mildly interesting jumping off point.

My first question is: but what if they don't?

Fair. But I think that statement isn't meant as a strict and precise definition (eg. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or whatever), more like a "gateway" description directed at those who associate anarchism only with utter chaos and "burn the house down" kinda attitudes.

Now, I'm aware that when you need to say something is "gateway" that's a bit of a red flag, i.e. "milk before meat" (describing something as friendly and innocent at first, then only later showing the more aggressive indoctrination) is exactly what cults do. Having said that, I'd grant that the late David Graeber is quite the straight shooter so I think he's in the clear here.

Your "Other means" could almost be an essay prompt.

There's distinctions between power and violence (see Hannah Arendt), between social and structural power (see The Tyranny of Structurelessness).

And then there's this ancient Chinese text that has been slopified for a million management manuals:

The best leaders are those their people hardly know exist. The next best is a leader who is loved and praised. Next comes the one who is feared. The worst one is the leader that is despised.

The best leaders value their words, and use them sparingly. When they have accomplished their task, the people say, "Amazing! We did it, all by ourselves!"

That’s a narrow definition of a leader. Seems to me that a leader can be someone who others _choose_ to follow.

Whats the difference, from an anarchist perspective, of a leader making a rule or a group voting on a rule?