[throwway120385]

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.

[donkey_brains]

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

[lazyasciiart]

That’s “other means”

[wredcoll]

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

[kaikai]

Consent

[red_admiral]

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_af]

> 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".