Tell them to step the fuck up and be one. If they want one so bad and haven't seen any yet, dare them to be the one to actually try organizing instead of waiting to be organized.

I'mmmmm not sure if this is relevant, but there's a distinction between leaders and... Managers/facilitators etc. Leaders are never assigned or appointed as leaders. Leaders are natural and defined by the fact that people follow them.

Everyone can be a leader in different ways and on different topics, in different situations.

This is often confused with managers (and synonyms) who are appointed, and somehow supposed to always be the decision maker in... Many things.

Someone to keep the oversight and ensure orchestration like an orchestra conductor is important like that.

Leaders don't need to be good managers. Leaders don't need to be managers, though at times they are. Leaders don't need to be anything, they already do leader things by definition, by the fact that they've changed people's resolve/opinion etc.

But leaders are natural. It's so, so, so important that people learn that they don't always have to be a leader in everything, and on the flip side, can naturally rise to the occasion given their knowledge, passion, and relevant circumstances.

Makes things way more fluid, less forced, equal. And plays to everyone's strengths in that regard.

Sorry, I don't have a 1 liner for that. Maybe someone else does.

There is a lot of confusion/obfuscation about terms. A leader is someone who is good at bringing people together and motivating them to accomplish a task through interpersonal skills. Leadership describes those skills. Government officials are not necessarily leaders, they are above us in the involuntary hierarchy we were born into that we are compelled by force to keep living in. Some of those officials may display leadership traits from time to time but leadership does not involve coercion by definition.

Leadership involves mutual respect, sacrifice, and a lot of interpersonal skills like conflict resolution. A leader may be doing different type of work but they should be doing at least as much work as the people who choose to work under/follow them. If someone is just watching people work without contributing they are at best a supervisor, usually an active impediment, not a leader.

All groups and projects do not need assigned leaders of course. Direct democracy or group consensus is usually the best way but some things require big picture organization or split second decision making making a voluntary hierarchy necessary. Constructing a building needs at minimum someone who can help organize the work. A community militia in combat needs a chain of command or they will get slaughtered.

I'm having trouble organizing my thoughts but I hope you find this opinion useful.

Edit: Sorry for the edit but I just wanted to add that Dungeon Masters and Game Masters could be a good example of facilitators and leaders. A group trusts them to act fairly while making a fun time for the group. If they turn into a power hungry asshole who fakes rolls to "win" the group will usually ask them to return to being a player or ask them to find another group if it is bad enough.

Funny enough the best way is to lead by example. I believe most if not all people can feel the difference when the dont just follow someone, but actually participate in something as an "equal" (whatever that actualle means in that specific situation).

This often happen organically in situations like disasters when people have to take responsibility and make decisions spontaneously jnstead of waiting for authorities to help them. In not so pressing situations its something that could be facilitated, but is pretty hard to do consistently.

Especially in conversations you might bring up examples on how leaderless / non hieraechical projects were successful and even bring up things in their own lives where they might already have leaderless / non hieraechical ways of doing things like friend / hobby groups etc.

I’m not specifically talking about politics. I’m also talking about leadership talk in the workplace.

ELABORATE

anarchists don't seek leaders, we seek direct acts. Folks that do, are authoritarians. They maybe maoists, they maybe fascists, but not anarchists.

A great metaphor: fish school to thrive, sharks shoal to predate, whales pod to monopolize. Yet Orcas enrich.

Baulk a loud perplexed "YOU WANT TO BE LED!?!!"

I personally encourage people to concentrate on policies (or the ideas in general) and not on personality. And then how consistent these ideas are or are they following up on their promises.

I have the benefit of living in a place where everyone expects politicians to lie so sentiment like "they are all bastards anyways" is common.

That is the first step I think, then comes introducing them to better or more consistent ideas.

If you truly want to destroy the belief in leaders, then start with the most-fundamental: eradicate parenting.

Once there are NO leaders in anybody's lives, THEN people will stop assuming that leaders somehow provide value.

That means parenting needs, for that agenda, to be destroyed.

( no, I'm not being sarcastic: for that agenda that is an actual requirement.

I've got no problem with different-moralities acting on the world, so long as they're being honest, & let Natural Selection pick between them.

Moneyarchists, concentration-of-wealth-archists, no-archy-archists, communist-party-fascism, individual-centered-fascism, monarchy, oligarchy, committee-archy, etc, all ought work-out to the final degree, what their morality actually means, & honestly commit to their exclusive-supremacism.

The world would be an aweful-lot clearer, if that were consistently done, & people could pick what they REALLY believed-in, instead of all the cultish "cultural massage" of "bringing people in" to this, or that ideology.

Then Natural Selection will do exactly what it's going to do anyways,

but this-way everybody'd be able to see what people mean even when an ideology usually pretends it means something else..

Honesty would make the world better. )

_ /\ _

Why would you not want good leaders?

As shown by the hexbear comrade here, a lot of people just assume that no leader equals chaos. I find very hard to deconstruct this assumption, i think because it is deeply rooted in our societies. What i usually do is to point out that it's not leaders that bring order, but organization. Most people then say "well yes, but you can't have good organization without leaders", which is more manageable to discuss, though most of the times people didnt change their mind in my experience. My main argument, which can take many forms, is that there are lot of times in our lives where we organize without leaders : in some families / homes, during trips with friends, when playing casual games or sports, even in some demos or movements.

It doesn't really answer you question, but there's a passage of Bakunin's God And The State that i really like, where they point out that authority does not necessarily mean leader. So if you can convince someone that it's authority they like and not leaders, you can then bring up the anarchist version of authority : restricted in time, matters and always up to debate.

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

Teach others to be leaders. Instead of actually trying to become a leader by telling people what they should do, become a leader in a way that shows others "see what I'm doing? do this aswell."

What's better than a group with a leader? A group of leaders. So the leader is supposed to be the smartest, most cunning and strongest of us, right? Why shouldn't we all adopt those principles? Why should we rely on the great ideas of one leader, when we could pool in our ideas so that the idea of a leader is directly tied to the collective? Two minds think better than one. Three minds think better than two.