[WS:] As I see it, anarchists and fellow travelers are obsessed with the primacy of the individual over the collective. They are like neoliberals - individual is beautiful, anything collective is a potential threat to individual freedom. Their whole idea of consensus-decision making is basically hedging to preserve individual veto or exit power vis a vis the collective. Their view of the collective is rather rigid - as a permanent dictatorship of leaders over everyone else, as your statement aptly summarizes.
And this is precisely what is wrong with this picture. This is basically a psychopath's view of a collective that does not allow the possibility of different role playing. A normal person does not mind following the lead of someone else in some matters as long as he or she can lead in other matters. This is what keeps the balance of a healthy collective - it takes advantage of individual differences in skills, abilities and interests without transforming them into permanent status hierarchies. However, a psychopath cannot accept such role playing - he must always be in the dominant or leading position. The only difference between neolibs and anarchists in that respect is that the former openly despise the collective and praise the individual, whereas the latter pay the lip service to the collective but fear it and hedge to preserve their individual prerogatives against possible encroachments by the collective.
This is, of course not to say that there is no more-or-less permanent status hierarchies in many social groupings. However, such hierarchies are not unavoidable, so the fear that a power difference between two individuals in one situation will inevitably lead to some form of dictatorship borders on paranoia. The potential is there, but as long as individuals in that group alternate among different roles that entail different power, that potential is unlikely to materialize.
Anarchist obsession with consensus and absolute equality is like insistence on walking all the time, because there is a possibility that a plane or a bus may crash. It borders on insanity.
As far as I am concerned, consensus building is a valuable social skill that is worth honing. But expecting it to be the only way of collective decision making is like the proverbial person equipped only with a hammer ans seeing every problem as a nail. Sheer nonsense.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."