>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.
"Minor" problem? If you've set yourself the task of a future non-heirarchical society based upon this model, and if an inherent trait of this model is a tendency to reproduce heirarchies, I'd say that's a major problem.
The fix was in from the start. The DAN/Ruckus/NGO types controlled things from start to finish. The Working Groups had some latitude, but only within the framework established beforehand by the "leaders." Hence, "these are the non-violence guidelines, and you'll be expected to adhere to them." And similar other situations. As far as I can see, the purpose of consensus decision making within the context of A16 was to force people to agree to decisions that had already been made by the non-leader leadership beforehand. This isn't a slam on the individuals in the leadership. Nadine Bloch, Liz Butler, Chuck Kaufman, et al. did an excellent job, but I don't think anyone was suffering from the illusion that they weren't the prime movers and shakers, or that everyone involved in the mobilization was on an equal footing. Look, revolutionary leadership is an inevitability and necessity, but let's not use systems which make recalling or holding leadership accountable impossible.
>It is about everybody having a voice and being able to >challenge the
majority successfully.
Huh? Was Carol Moore, fanatical nutcase that she is, able to challenge the majority successfully? I think not. And that's because the majority tired rather quickly of Carol's screwball antics. If consensus decision making is supposed to guarantee that minority viewpoints are effectively heard and implemented into decision-making, than it failed miserably in this case. The fact that Carol was excluded from sabotaging things any further is a testament to the fact that good ol' fashioned democracy works, not consensus.
>It's about dissolving artificial hierarchies of political power >and
empowering each person involved.
See above.
>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.
The modern Green movement comes out of the anti-nuke movement (and the remnants of the New Left in general), so there's nothing factually inaccurate in what I said.
>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.
There is a not insubstantial number of women in the Labor Party. This problem has less to do with gender divisions than with the fact that most Labor Party members (myself included) tend to prioritize trade union work over political work in the short term, since the LP isn't a real party, doesn't run candidates, etc. As such, most folks, male and female, aren't likely to identify themselves as Labor Party members in movement circles unless it proves politically necessary.
>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?
Huh? Somebody please tell me where I said this.
______________________________________________ FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup