>For example, at one meeting of the Mobilization for
>Global Justice here in Washington, several ISO members tried to get rid
>of consesnsus decision-making. I think they were surprised when most of
>the people at the meeting spoke up in favor of the process.
What's not clear to me is why a small political party should favor the majority vote over consensus decision-making. If your party is small, you will fare better in consensus-decision making, as you can block any proposal that you oppose but the majority favor.
>In an ideal situation for the ISO, which this conference smells like,
>they assume control of the agenda, the organizing, and the process of
>the meeting. If they've set up a fake front group, they'll put together
>a public meeting on a college campus on the hot topic du jour. They'll
>get some good non-ISO speakers for the draw, but they'll always have at
>least one ISO speaker and an ISO moderator. When it comes time for
>question time, the moderator will maintain a "stack" which favors the
>ISO members that are sprinkled around the audience. The ISO members will
>pretend to be regular working people and students, but they'll always
>try to get in a few words about the ISO and/or socialism.
Putting a few words about your political org or socialism or anarchism or whatever at a public meeting is fine with me, as long as those who are plugging it make their political affiliation clear.
As for the Berkeley conference, I await further reports on it. -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Anti-War Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Anti-War Organizing in Columbus Covered by the Media: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/media.html>