The goal is to "organize as equals," even though as citizens of a hierarchical, patriarchal, classist society, we are certainly on different levels. When we state up front that we are trying to organize as equals, that means that we seek to work on these problems of power relations between us as we go along. We're not going to put this work off until "after the revolution."
Nathan is creating several strawmen in his arguments against consensus. There is nothing about consesnsus that implies longer meetings. We're on the same page about how much long meetings suck. I think the argument about "privilege" is a red herring, since long meetings that use tradtional methods discourage participation by working people just as much as long consensus meetings do.
For the record, the longest meeting that I've ever sat in on went for over 9 hours. It involved the second all-nighter of my undergraduate career. A student senate battle royale that involved approving renovation of the student union. This meeting was conducted under Roberts Rules of Order. I was in the opposition and we lost and the university got a very boring student union out of the deal.
> And there are always those setting up facilitation and otherwise framing
> discussion-- a bit power in such proceedings -- which is where the actual
> hierarchy comes in with anarchist/consensus organizing in my experience.
This is indeed a problem. We've run up against this at spokescouncils. But other participants are always able to make other proposals and have them seriously considered.
> And to the extent that consensus operates, I am unimpressed by the ability
> of such groups to run any signficant set of economic resources. Can Chuck
> or anyone else name the largest organization and its annual budget which is
> run on such principles? There are almost none. Protests can be run sort of
> on such approaches, but there is no model for social organization on any
> real economic scale.
I can't name any offhand, but there are plenty of cooperatives that have run on consensus for decades. I'm sure that most cooperative food stores use consensus of some kind.
> This is not a commentary on many historical anarchist groups which ran on
> voluntary lines but usually on some sort of voting an hierarchy lines. I
> was always impressed by Orwells description of the anarchist military units
> in the Spanish Civil War which elected their own officers, but elect them
> they did.
I think a different principle is at work here. Consensus isn't the only anarchist method of making decisions. I'm not up on the details of the Spanish military units, but usually when leaders or representatives are voted on like this, there is usually an understanding that they are recallable.
<< Chuck0 >>
Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.org/ MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/ Factsheet 5 -> http://www.factsheet5.org/ AIM: AgentHelloKitty
Web publishing and services for your nonprofit: Bread and Roses Web Publishing http://www.breadandrosesweb.org/
"Chuck Munson isn't like other protestors."
-- CTV