I'm a little confused but I guess I'm starting to understand more. I guess I was grouping "leaders, masters, and rulers" into the same category: Tyrants yet lately, I've noticed more people talking about leadership within an Anarchist organization.
From what I understand, Anarchism isn't opposed to leadership, as long as it is consensual, horizontal, non-oppressive, and the leader is viewed as more of a 'father figure' than a master.
So where is the line drawn? What makes leadership okay and then what makes it a contradiction of Anarchism?