> Well, when you're engaging in consensus politics, which for the record I've
> only done a few times, the tendency seems to be to try to avoid bringing
> divisions and disputes to the foreground, in order to get anything done. So
> that might mean that this kind of structure might facilitate the type of
> debate that can keep a diverse movement from fracturing.
Yeah, the debate over "consensus" gets misrepresented as one side being ideologically pro-consensus and the other side being ideologically anti-consensus. In reality, one side is ideologically pro-consensus, in the sense that they insist on consensus as a matter of principle. (See Graeber's views on this topic.) While the other side says consensus versus voting is a practical question whose answer depends on the situation -- see anarchist Wayne Price. Note: again, this is a topic where anarchists split.
SA