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
A leader must inherently be up in the hierarchy, since if they weren’t everyone would be a leader. Differences that may only be genetic can definitely give you a position over others, without even needing to use “coercion and violent orders” that you seem so obsessed with.
Think of that teacher almost everybody had that was able to keep absolute order and silence without even raising their voice or punishing anyone, but imposing by their mere presence. That’s what these kind of organic leaders have, an imponent presence that puts order without violent actions. But it’s clear than a teacher is hierarchically superior to students in a school, and that doesn’t mean they’re always gonna be imposing themselves by force.
But whatever, this is too focused on how survival without leadership is impossible when I said that an anarchist society would be constantly raided by opportunistic people
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
A leader must inherently be up in the hierarchy, since if they weren’t everyone would be a leader. Differences that may only be genetic can definitely give you a position over others, without even needing to use “coercion and violent orders” that you seem so obsessed with.
Think of that teacher almost everybody had that was able to keep absolute order and silence without even raising their voice or punishing anyone, but imposing by their mere presence. That’s what these kind of organic leaders have, an imponent presence that puts order without violent actions. But it’s clear than a teacher is hierarchically superior to students in a school, and that doesn’t mean they’re always gonna be imposing themselves by force.
But whatever, this is too focused on how survival without leadership is impossible when I said that an anarchist society would be constantly raided by opportunistic people