Sure, leadership will always happen at a local level. My point is that if you have a strong leader in an anarchist movement, you run the very real risk of that leader establishing “temporary” powers that end up being persistent. The allure of power is too strong that most people who rise through the ranks as leaders are going to abuse that position and take power for themselves.

If an anarchist system is to be created, it needs to be fought for by several different groups, so that no single group can get into a position of power. Sustaining the system would likewise require enough powerful groups that no group can effectively form a coalition to take power for themselves.

People are tribalist, so they’re going to rally behind powerful leaders, and that’s one of the reasons I oppose anarchism (I believe it will devolve into autocracy of one form or another), while believing in the ideals of anarchism.

Sure, but a republic w/o a central government. Leadership will happen at a local level, anarchy is about having a lot of separate communities without a legally binding connection between them.

Leaders of various communities will, but there should be no central leadership. If you have an anarchist movement led by a central leader, congratulations, you’re getting a dictator should your movement succeed. Anarchist groups should have no central leadership, they should be decentralized enough that, if successful, there’s no possibility of a power struggle.

Why did you want to find common ground? What’s the goal here?

Why?

Uh… real anarchists don’t have leaders…