What is be the consensus regarding the idea leadership?
From what I understand, anarchism is the absence of a central government, and is “true” democracy in that power circulates horizontally rather than “trickles down”, to use an odious term. Does this scale down to the group level?
Let’s say you had this scenario: someone new comes along and suggests all these brilliant tactical actions, or any actions. Would that person be accepted as a leader? If not, how would s/he fit within a flat power structure?
Just wondering.
8461
As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.
Hi fellow worker,
Thank you very, very much for your enlightening response. I especially liked the bit about language being anarchistic! I also like the bit about Graeber’s ethnographic gift giver. The two remind me of Chomsky who said that everything has its own grammar. It’s kind of a chicken/egg-type conundrum. Do we see a grammar in everything because we think in terms of language? Or is there an inherent order in everything that’s parsed in our language as “grammar”.
Either way, beautiful, powerful, and nutritious food for thought! Thanks again!
Blessings,
Tlahtolli
Hi Tlahtolli,
i think there are a number of conflations in this post like non”non-violent” and anarchist. if you have a question about anarchism it doesn’t need to be framed as an issue of violence vs. non-violence which is an issue anarchist differ upon (for example Alexander Berkman, Nestor Mahkno, Buenaventura Durruti, etc. were all militant anarchist, others such as Dorthoy Day and Catholic Workers Movement, Amon Henesy and the radical wobbly folk singer Utah Phillips all staunchly advocated nonviolent pacifist Anarchism).
As to your actual question anarchist have organized along various lines for instance the Modern Schools organized along the lines of traditional top down institutionalism (see peter avrich’s book on the issue movement) with a Chairman, a Principle, etc. others have organized explicitly and consciously along non-hierachical, horizontal lines, in resistance to the formation of calcified leadership, for instance (the black bloc is generally organized internally along these lines (see the “black bloc papers”), affinity groups are generally structured along these lines, most friendships operate on this basis, and the occupy movement does so).
with regard to your specific questions
“What is be the consensus regarding the idea leadership?”
I think your asking if there is a consensus on leadership. the answer is probably – no. however it seams clear that OO specifically, and anarchism generally, are highly resistant to the idea of representatives and leaders so if there is a consensus it is probably that formal leadership is bad.
“From what I understand, anarchism is the absence of a central government, and is “true” democracy in that power circulates horizontally rather than “trickles down”, to use an odious term. Does this scale down to the group level?”
yes. all human interactions and social relations can be understood in terms of anarchist sociability. here’s an example. Language is an example of anarchist social organization. People invented language through a long sustained capacity to cooperate and overcome our differences to seek mutual benefit and enrichment through symbolic exchange over such a long period that it became part of vary being. Now that we’ve all inherited the many millennia of wealth produced by anarchist social invention in our dna none of us is compelled or coerced into using language yet we all choose to use it voluntary. the entire world is organized along non-hierarchical, non-coercive, voluntary, and mutually beneficial basis – language is proof that we’re all anarchist. The human faculty for language demonstrates how anarchism works on any scale of social interaction – be it a single individual using language skills to contemplate their surroundings, two people conversing, completely different groups of people translating for one another, to the entire species which has organized itself to use a specific means of exchange that (while it can be abusive) fundamentally anarchistic.
“Let’s say you had this scenario: someone new comes along and suggests all these brilliant tactical actions, or any actions. Would that person be accepted as a leader?”
this depends on how people choose to organize. if the group organized on the basis of a formal leadership structure – than yeah that person would be a leader. if they have organized in a fashion that is explicitly opposed to the creation of a formal leadership than no this person would not be a “leader” they would likely be seen as a respected comrade that is recognized for the amount of responsibility they take on and/or the quality of their ideas/actions. one is a leader by example, the other is often only a leader in title.
If not, how would s/he fit within a flat power structure?
by gettin’ where they fit in. sorry i couldn’t resist.
but seriously, there are a couple of ways for people to get involved and shape how such a leaderless structure evolves.
1. organize. generally it’s best to have done some research first, then engage in networking, dialoguing, debating, inculcating ideas, get on working groups, committees, etc, craft actions and proposals that are well conceived and garner support from broad constituencies w/in the GA. bottomline tons of shit to make sure the actions and proposals end up being successes.
2. share the genius ideas to the group. they will be stoked. however if you haven’t got anyway of acting upon and implementing the ideas than they’ll probably just be rousing words, (see the first option it will solve this problem).
3. understand that one is not part of a revolutionary vanguard who have the answers (if these ideas are self evidently true than they’re likely be embraced via consensus) instead one could embrace the a role of ethnographic gift giver which David Graeber has described as follows:
“It is also because the practice of ethnography provides at least something of a model, if a very rough, incipient model, of how nonvanguardist revolutionary intellectual practice might work. When one carries out an ethnography, one observes what people do, and then tries to tease out the hidden symbolic, moral, or pragmatic logics that underlie their actions; one tries to get at the way people’s habits and actions makes sense in ways that they are not themselves completely aware of. One obvious role for a radical intellectual is to do precisely that: to look at those who are creating viable alternatives, try to figure out what might be the larger implications of what they are (already) doing, and then offer those ideas back, not as prescriptions, but as contributions, possibilities—as gifts.”
someone new comes along and has some great ideas, awesome. It doesnt mean we need to capitulate to a cult of personality and choose a leader. If we “elected” a leader I think a lot of folks would jump off this bandwagon.