During a discussion I was responded to me with:
There is NO such thing as “leaderless” organisation amongst humans - period.
and I don't know what to make of it. I don't have enough first-hand experience with anarchist organizations to refute it but I have read and watched enough anarchist media to doubt this claim.
(Edit: probably should have mentioned: This was told to me by another anarchist who I've seen in this com. So I don't think this was due to ignorance.)
My main inspiration for my own beliefs comes quite a lot from the youtuber andrewism. Because the way he describes anarchism speaks to me. It's hopeful and constructive focusing on the things we can build instead of the things we must defeat, something that very much resonates with a naive pacifist like me.
He has made a video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYVWbj8naBM.
And he does a good job of listing all of the different ways of leadership, until ending with the idea that leadership could be used as a way to start enforcing authority, and that constant vigilance is needed to oppose it. He therefor argues to view leadership not as a position, but as a practice that is shared across everyone.
There is also this comment under the video that I think is relevant:
I think that calling it a "guide" instead of a "leader" would properly convey the idea. Why is a guide a guide? Because of their local (or niche) knowledge, e.g. somebody who guides you around a museum. There is no inherent authority caught in the word, as you are simply choosing to listen to them concerning a specific context.
There is also this text: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-all-cocoons-are-temporary
Which I remember really resonating with me but I can't remember most of the specifics so I guess I'll need to re-read it at some point.
I’ve found it helps, when discussing leadership, to first establish what it means, since it’s easy to talk past one another if your ideas of leadership don’t match.
For example, some define leadership in terms of accountability or responsibility for outcomes, others by who reports to whom, others simply by appearances (e.g. figureheads), and still others by authority, power, clout/legitimacy, social capital, knowledge/experience, or simply influence.
Generally speaking, although I like considering influence (because it has allowed me to recognize many exceptional leaders I would have otherwise missed) ultimately, as it pertains to any official leadership role, I will always build my definition around responsibility, because that is the bottom-line burden of leadership. No self-interested person should ever want to lead unless there’s a cause or goal great enough to make it worth carrying that burden. That’s why many good leaders seem reluctant to take on a leadership role, then act as servants or stewards when they do.
From that perspective, I agree with your friend. You will never find any group effort, project, or any type of organization without some form of leadership, because they will always need at least one person willing to take responsibility for outcomes.
Yes. Even in a group of peers, leaders inevitably emerge. Unelected, unappointed but still leaders in those situations. As long as they lead by consent and are answerable. There's nothing wrong with that. An abject absence of leadership in all aspects/scopes is generally unnatural and uncommon.
Elections etc are a whole other can of worms