throwway120385 an hour ago

If we define "leader" as "someone who commands by force or by some other means the obedience of a group of people" then Anarchy is a society without leaders. It doesn't mean a society without order, but it presupposes that people can behave reasonably and that that is enough to ensure order.

▲

donkey_brains an hour ago | parent | next [-]

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

	▲	lazyasciiart 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That’s “other means”

▲

red_admiral 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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!"

	▲	the_af 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> The Tyranny of Structurelessness To me this essay was an eye-opener, both because it's well argued and also because it's so obvious once you read it. Even outside the specific niche of feminist groups in the US, who hasn't witnessed this phenomenon in action? Those supposedly flat groups where everyone has a voice, yet it's always the same subset of people who are heard and ultimately influence or direct all decisions? And the unwritten rules who are both invisible and "the law".

▲

wredcoll an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

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

	▲	kaikai 26 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Consent