Whatever term you want to use, there is no coercion or hierarchy in such a community. Providing guidance and sharing a creative vision is in no way antithetical to anarchism.
There’s no “gotcha” here like you think there is, and the only thing you’ve made clear is that you don’t understand what anarchism is and how it works lol
I think now you’re coming around! 🙏 A task can be accomplished with people providing guidance apart from any hierarchy or coercion.
In a way, something like r/place is a perfect example of how anarchism works on a small scale.
With that being said, I’m sure there are r/place communities where one person insists on total control, which most of us would immediately recognize as toxic.
Unfortunately, scale this toxicity up to a systemic scale, and suddenly we tend to fear even the suggestion that these systems might be harmful.
Sure, if you’re using “leader” to mean coordinator or guide, then there’s absolutely nothing about this that is antithetical to anarchism. In fact, this can be (as I have previously stated) an example of anarchism working on a small scale.
No it doesn’t. You just recognized this yourself when you noted that a leader can be a coordinator or guide. This by no means necessitates or even gestures toward a hierarchy.
“Orders” is a pretty unsavory, cynical way to frame a leader’s role. In fact, one could argue that a good leader does not need to lead by coercion or orders. This is the capitalist’s way of leadership: “I have more; therefore I’m above you.”
A good leader guides by expertise and experience, and need not place themself above others.
Leader does not equate authoritarian. Anarchism recognizes such hierarchical leadership for what it is: Abusive and destructive
Whatever term you want to use, there is no coercion or hierarchy in such a community. Providing guidance and sharing a creative vision is in no way antithetical to anarchism.
There’s no “gotcha” here like you think there is, and the only thing you’ve made clear is that you don’t understand what anarchism is and how it works lol
A leader doesn’t have to use violence for people to listen to them
Care to quote where I referenced violence?
I think now you’re coming around! 🙏 A task can be accomplished with people providing guidance apart from any hierarchy or coercion.
In a way, something like r/place is a perfect example of how anarchism works on a small scale.
With that being said, I’m sure there are r/place communities where one person insists on total control, which most of us would immediately recognize as toxic.
Unfortunately, scale this toxicity up to a systemic scale, and suddenly we tend to fear even the suggestion that these systems might be harmful.
In a way, we’re all sort of like abuse survivors.
Bro do you want me to mention again how a “coordinator” is actually a leader?
Sure, if you’re using “leader” to mean coordinator or guide, then there’s absolutely nothing about this that is antithetical to anarchism. In fact, this can be (as I have previously stated) an example of anarchism working on a small scale.
So I’m glad we both are in agreement!
A leader implies hierarchy
No it doesn’t. You just recognized this yourself when you noted that a leader can be a coordinator or guide. This by no means necessitates or even gestures toward a hierarchy.
A coordinator coordinates by giving orders, a leader gives orders. A guide is followed by others, a leader is followed by others
“Orders” is a pretty unsavory, cynical way to frame a leader’s role. In fact, one could argue that a good leader does not need to lead by coercion or orders. This is the capitalist’s way of leadership: “I have more; therefore I’m above you.”
A good leader guides by expertise and experience, and need not place themself above others.
Leader does not equate authoritarian. Anarchism recognizes such hierarchical leadership for what it is: Abusive and destructive