> Shane posted an excerpt from Bookchin that I'll defer to, as I
> pretty much agree with him in his criticism of consensus. I don't agree
> with Bookchin on everything, but on this point I do.
What does Bookchin have to do with this thread?
> Having said that, I don't see that consensus is a problem for smaller,
> more intimate groups like the example I gave of 4 or 5 people living in a
> single house. But if we're talking decision-making structures suitable
> for production and distribution in a society that is interconnected
> globally, democracy seems like the only workable solution to me. The
> tension between expediency of process and respect for individual input is
> someting all of us who want a radical economy have to confront. We
> can't find the perfect system, only the best one.
A system based on consensus decision-making in the best and most democratic system. I would also add that it is the most anarchistic, which accounts for the ham-fisted attempt by the Trots to get rid of it in the anti-globalization movement.
I get the impression that Brian either doesn't have much experience with consensus or hasn't paid it much thought. Consensus can work in just about any size group, although it sometimes has to be modified for special circumstances. Brian suggests that consensus couldn't be used for bigger tasks in society, yet this just doesn't make sense. Why can't a neighborhood group using consensus send a delegate to a city-wide group using consensus which then sends a delegate to a regional group that uses consensus?
Last time I checked, any system that runs society involves lots of meetings so there is no real size barrier to using consensus in as many situations as possible.
> And yes, I do like democracy more. Part of that is personal experience
> with consensus-based groups, part of it is simply concern that a few (or
> even one) people not be allowed to constantly subvert the majority's
> wishes, as happens in our current society.
So are you telling us now that you are a social democrat? Or is this a case where you prefer "efficiency" over the slow process of face-to-face democracy.
> As Bookchin said, consensus really does cede too much power to big, sovereign
> egos who insist on getting their way all the time, and "principally
> object" whenever they don't, even if they're holding up the rest of the
> group from acting.
I don't think Bookchin is in any position to argue this, seeing how he has this big ego problem. But Bookchin is simply wrong about this, because the problem with big egos is minimalized far more in consensus than in other system. In the forms preferred by groups like the ISO, the big ego simply gets on the steering committee to control everything. In consensus, if the big ego doesn't have a legitimate reason to block something, then the group continues with the process.
Chuck0