On one side it invokes the idea of designating a single person, A leader, to make decisions and co-ordinate some distinct group. This is the part that I have a problem with, as it feeds polity and potentially even authority. This is the kind of leaderless an anarchist organisation should not have as I would categorise it as a master.

But there is also another idea of having temporary leaders. People that become leaders because of their expertise, social skills, taking responsibility, or other traits. As this kind of leadership is temporary, it doesn’t come with inherent authority. This seems to be the one a lot of anarchists hold.

I believe that leaders are harmful for organising anarchy. We can do without them. For me the action of recognising someone's leadership starts eroding the anarchic vibes, or phrased more conventionally the action of recognising someone as a leader, even if only temporarily, makes the situation feel a lot more hierarchical and therefor will stop me from acting anarchicly. It would stifle my self-determination by allowing me to fall back on the comfortable position of just following someone. I might do that anyway but if I don’t recognise the person who I’m following as a leader it allows me to better question them and ultimately act on my own if I don’t think they are correct.

This is the root of my problem with recognising leadership. For me it allows me to fall back on the old archic ways of being that I want to brake free from. I know it’s just a word, but words carry meanings. Even if I don’t consider the leader having authority, designating one, even in my mind, changes the way I look at a group. It changes the way I act because just by following a leader I feel like I’m losing agency.

A week ago I got into a discussion about leadership. I made a post on !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com and got a lot of insight into what people meant. This is the conclusion I wrote in a PM but decided to turn into a proper post so that others could discuss them.