----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Munson" <chuck at tao.ca>
>
> Your suggestion that consensus decision-making is "oppressive" is based
> on your politics, experience, gender, and class position. We often hear
> similar rants from authoritarian leftists who wish to get rid of this
> method and replace it with their far more oppressive method:
> majoritarian rule and agendas set by leadership.
======================
Well this is the crux, because the 'mythos' of leadership can be separated from the issue of majoritarianism. And it's *always* the case that if a large minority disagrees with the majority, they claim opression, no? It's precisely why so many meetings go until exhaustion; the participants fall into the zero-sum trap. Outside of mathematics and certain segments of science, there's always disagreement and some group can alwys assert they're being oppressed by a majority.
>
> > Wanting to go home is the most perfectly normal emotion to have at most left
> > meetings; not wanting to go in the first place is the second most normal
> > emotion-- and a lot of people act on that basis. Which means that decisions
> > by those who show up for endless meetings are usually unrepresentative of
> > the normal run of humanity, instead containing freaks like Chuck and myself
> > who can happily endure such endless ordeals.
>
> I've been pretty outspoken in our local anti-capitalist group lately
> about keeping the meetings short and efficient. The meetings drag out
> for the following reasons:
>
> 1) facilitators are inexperienced in the process
> 2) participants are poorly prepared
> 3) meetings don't start on time because "we are still waiting for
> somebody."
>
> > The normal alternative in history is for people who hate meetings to elect
> > people to represent them to exercise their interests; Unfortunately, most
> > anarchist style groups don't recognize that a person elected by 10,000 (or 1
> > million) union or organizational members should have more decision-making
> > heft than an 18-year old with endless time on their hands who happens to be
> > able to attend every meeting.
>
> That's when you move to a spokescouncil model where a delegate or
> delegates is empowered to represent the smaller group to a larger
> meeting.
>
> > Recognizing representative democracy is
> > "oppressive" and "hierarchical." There are some reasonable reform
> > intentions in the whole "particapatory democracy" rhetoric, but somewhere
> > along the way it jumped the rails of sanity and any semblance of democracy
> > that includes anyone other than political freaks who love to attend
> > meetings.
>
> That's a fair criticism, the stuff about the freaks, but this means that
> these meetings aren't being done correctly. Many of us have little
> experience with an egalitarian process that requires us to participate
> and not simply rubber stamp opinions coming out of the central
> committee.
>
> > Democracy is not representing all the views of those who happen to show up
> > to a meeting but aiming to represent the views of those who don't show as
> > well. The very term "participatory" democracy, however highminded, is
> > inherently exclusive. Leadership is not alienating but quite empowering for
> > the vast numbers of people in the world who want to leave the room and know
> > that their interests will be fully represented when they are not there.
> > Concentrating on making the leadership democratically accountable is a
> > continual needed focus of reform, but eliminating it is hopeless not due to
> > any iron law of hierarchy but because most people want to be able to go home
> > and sleep.
>
> We will have to disagree. I see the anarchist model as being a fully
> workable alternative to hierarchical decision-making.
>
> I hear you, Nathan, about the long meetings.
>
> << Chuck0 >>
>
=======================
I've been in meetings with brilliant and experienced facilitators that have navigated tough issues
and when the vote comes down some of those in the minority still complain; what's to be done then?
Lefties and post-lefties have yet to come to terms with what some call the narcissism of small
differences.....................................
You still haven't solved the problem of disagreement, though.
Ian