Alex LoCascio wrote:
>
> Chuck,
>
> What you're not confronting here (and you as an anarchist should be
> particularly concerned), is that consensus decision making as practiced
> during A16 does not eradicate the problem of "leadership." Consensus
> decision making _does_ create leadership, but it creates completely
> unelected, de facto, UNACCOUNTABLE leadership. As such, it's an even bigger
> disaster for freedom than say, democratic centralism (and I mean the real
> thing, not the Stalinist caricature).
No, I haven't addressed this so far, because it hasn't been brought up. Yes, there was a problem with unaccountable leadership during A16, but it was a minor problem. But this minor problem needs to be addressed in the future, so maybe we can find ways to create a mechanism to deal with it. Again, the "leadership" problem at A16 mainly had to to do the organization that initiated the action.
> It's also a complete inappropriate form of decision making for a
> large-scale, industrial society. I can't imagine production, distribution,
> and consumption decisions in a future socialist society being made along
> these lines. Christ, Chuck, it took the action spokescouncil THREE fucking
> meetings to decide whether to let those poor schlemiels who wanted to plant
> flowers participate.
I'm sorry, but my goal is to create a society where decision making is made along these lines. This system will work and has worked in the past in large settings. The main problem is that most Americans are unfamiliar with consensus decision-making. They are also too used to the idea of having other people do things for them, including leaders. Consensus decision making is about political participation. It is about everybody having a voice and being able to challenge the majority successfully. It's about dissolving artificial hierarchies of political power and empowering each person involved. There is an emphasis on skills-building. That's why the A16 process included facilitator meetings, so people could learn how to run these meetings.
Oh yeah, I thought it was pretty stupid too that we discussed guerilla gardening over several meetings. But at least the people who were concerned got a chance to voice their concerns until they were satisfied. There concerns weren't voted down by the majority in the interest of running an "efficient" meeting. One of the things that consensus allows is for controversial decisions to be blocked until everybody is happy with them, or at least agrees not to block the decision. This allows time for reflection about a decision. It also means that sometimes decisions are put off, because nobody can agree. There is nothing wrong with tabling decisions.
> And then there's the philosophical underpinnings of consensus decision
> making. Modern consesus decision making comes out of the Green movement, a
> movement which ignores the class nature of capitalist society and contends
> that everything would be alright if we could just convince everyone that
> their production and consumption patterns are wasteful and harmful. As if
> the ruling class doesn't know that pumping PCBs into rivers is
> environmentally destructive. I don't want to reach a consensus with the
> bosses; I wanna whup their asses.
Sorry, Alex, modern consensus decision making comes out of the women's liberation consciousness-raising groups of the lates 60s and early 70s. The process was further refined in the anti-nuke campaigns of the 70s and 80s. It is no co-incidence that some of the DAN organizers gained their experience from the anti-nuke groups.
It's funny that the issue of women being involved in the A16 movement hasn't come up. This is the big elephant in the room that some of you don't want to talk about, especially those of you who sat in on A16 meetings. In fact, the use of a modified consensus decision making model allowed many more women to be involved in the A16 campaign. I suspect that the women outnumbered the men and probably could be said to have dominated the natural leadership positions within the campaign.
As far I saw it, I welcomed it as a very positive sign. I think Alex should address this. As far as I could tell, Alex and the folks from the Labor Party were all male.
Oh, before I move on, you are jumping to a false conclusion by saying that consensus decision making is useless because the Green Party is reformist and consumerist. Can somebody help me with what this error in logic is called?
> My affinity group, Rosa Luxemburg, decided to junk the consensus model
> internally early on and revert to a modified form of majority rule with
> concern for minority opinions. I think this was ultimately more efficient
> in the long run. There's gotta be a happy medium between Roberts Rules and
> anarcho-masturbationism.
>
I don't see much wrong with doing that on a small group basis. The consensus-based model, or modified versions like DAN's adaptation, is far superior though for large campaigns that consist of a diverse range of people and groups.
<< Chuck0 >>
This was the year *everything* changed.
-- Commander Ivanova, 2261
Mid-Atlantic Infoshop -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/
Homepage -> http://flag.blackened.net/chuck0/home/
"A society is a healthy society only to the degree that it exhibits anarchistic traits."
- Jens Bjørneboe