this post was submitted on 17 May 2025
-19 points (26.8% liked)
Asklemmy
48188 readers
802 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That is traditional leadership, and leadership is one thing and authoritarianism is quite another.
A leader does not have to be authoritarian. A leader works best when they delegates functions and distributes power horizontally. The leader is not the one who knows more but the one who is more focused.
In authoritarianism, the despot is "the alpha and the omega", the top of the pyramid and the highest authority, regardless of the scope. He is the one who has the last word, even if what he says is bullshit. There is no form of authoritarianism that is mild or "altruistic".
I grant you that the population is easy to manipulate, but that is precisely because of the dependence on authority figures, people trust more in what their "leader" tells them than in their own judgment.
The solution is to educate the population so that it is less prone to manipulation, not to continue doing the same as always.