undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthrowway1203852d ago0 comments

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.

0 comments

donkey_brains2d ago

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

lazyasciiart2d ago

That’s “other means”

wredcoll2d ago

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

kaikai2d ago

Consent

1 more reply

red_admiral2d ago

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_af2d ago

> 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".

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse