The key point they reveal here is on the nature of leadership and how that leadership is maintained. It is organic, it comes from active, unalienated participation in the technical production and execution of a project, and it is predicated upon respect of the other participants- respect which can be lost or taken away at any moment. “Leaders” function as supernodes because they are allowed to function as supernodes.

Meaning that the crucial characteristic of any egalitarian leadership, that power comes from below, is maintained. There are no shareholders or owners to empower leaders against their producing communities, so the leadership is not predicated on the alienation of the power of those workers.

That’s a big deal. That isn’t capitalism as we know it now, especially not the corporate model. I know that in Italy (and maybe elsewhere in Europe? sorry, I’m American, not well-versed in European law) they have a separate designation for a business that is “artisanal” and the distinction is based on whether or not the owner is involved in the production process itself and to what degree. There’s some resonance then maybe between an artisanal leadership structure based on skill, respect, and communication abilities, and the type of semi-formal leadership being discussed here. But it’s important to remember the distinction in types of leadership and the difference between leadership earned and proven “from below” and leadership imposed from above. After all, even anarchist militias in the Spanish Revolution had “leaders,” but it meant something very different than when the fascists said it.