If a slim majority passes a divisive resolution in a majority-rules system that can indeed cause problems. But I'd rather the structure that allows for real political debate and discussion, because I think this process is clarifying and better then "burying the contradictions."
Not sure if that makes sense, I'm rushing. I have a term paper to write. Anne McClintock, Benedict Anderson, Habermas, feminism, nationalism, public spheres, quite the clusterfuck.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:15 PM, shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com>wrote:
> you specifically say that something cool - a demand for full
> employment - could be lost because the use of consensus democraccy
> means that a faction can block it.
>
> do you understand how failure could be the result of majority decision
> making? In other words, let's imagine that a 56% majority votes for
> full employment as one of the demands.
>
> Do you see the problem with that situation?
>
>
> > What do you mean by failure? What we individually think of as "bad"
> > politics
> > may win out, there's always that chance, but in a condition of free
> > discussion and debate, call me a 19th century rationalist, but I'll
> > take my
> > chances with democracy.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:27 PM, shag carpet bomb
> > <shag at cleandraws.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Since you guys are so big on criticizing anarchists for lacking an
> >> understanding of the drawbacks of consensus, could you name a
> >> drawback
> >> of majority decision making?
> >>
> >> In other words, please imagine for me the way the failure could also
> >> happen through your preferred method.
> >>
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
> --
> http://cleandraws.com
> Wear Clean Draws
> ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>