this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2026
26 points (90.6% liked)

Anarchism

2784 readers
24 users here now

Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.


Other anarchist comms


Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Even in conversation with other leftists I hear people talk about how so and so doesn't have good leadership skills or want someone to be a better leader. It's getting to me in a way I probably shouldn't allow it to, but I feel like that mentality is antithetical to the goal of communism and will only delay its arrival. How do we change that rhetoric?

I'm hoping this is the right comm for this sort of post, please direct me if a more suitable place exists.

Edit: I'm not specifically talking about politics. I'm also talking about leadership talk in the workplace.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Takapapatapaka@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

As shown by the hexbear comrade here, a lot of people just assume that no leader equals chaos. I find very hard to deconstruct this assumption, i think because it is deeply rooted in our societies. What i usually do is to point out that it's not leaders that bring order, but organization. Most people then say "well yes, but you can't have good organization without leaders", which is more manageable to discuss, though most of the times people didnt change their mind in my experience. My main argument, which can take many forms, is that there are lot of times in our lives where we organize without leaders : in some families / homes, during trips with friends, when playing casual games or sports, even in some demos or movements.

It doesn't really answer you question, but there's a passage of Bakunin's God And The State that i really like, where they point out that authority does not necessarily mean leader. So if you can convince someone that it's authority they like and not leaders, you can then bring up the anarchist version of authority : restricted in time, matters and always up to debate.

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Can you imagine consulting an architect about whether removing this stone would collapse the orphanage and the architect said it would and then not allowing anyone to impose their authority on you?

[–] Takapapatapaka@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

100%.

The point is precisely that we trust the advice of the architect in this matter because they are more knowledgeable than us, not because they or someone else imposed their authority on us.

And if they talk shit about how to educate children in the orphanage, we won't trust their advice because they are not knowledgeable then, and we do not let them impose their authority on us.

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Again. If you go and try to remove the cornerstone or a building because you want to change the aesthetic and the architect says "that will cause building to collapse", and you go to do it anyway, then who is going to stop you if you refuse to comply with the advice?

[–] JustJack23@slrpnk.net 4 points 4 days ago

Well the people that are benefiting from that orphanage would not be very happy and probably would stop you.

And on a more metaphorical level in an anarchist society no one person should have the power to ruin what it too the whole community to build.

By you not wanting the architect to impose his better judgement on you, you are imposing your stupidity on other people, and they in turn have the same right to reject your ability to do so.

The point is precisely not to remove the stone if someone with pertinent knowledge/expertise/whatever says it's a bad thing, because then their authority makes temporarily sense.