Have you actually experienced this "coercion" in consensus decision making, or is this a theoretical extrapolation? If the latter, I think you may be misunderstanding what consensus is about. Bookchin seems to be basing this on particular experience, but his description doesn't reflect my own experience with consensus decision making, and his argument doesn't make much sense. Bookchin writes:
> This practice, called "standing aside" in American consensus
> processes, all too often involved intimidation of the
> dissenters, to the point that they completely withdrew from
> the decision-making process, rather than make an honorable and
> continuing expression of their dissent by voting, even as a
> minority, in accordance with their views. Having withdrawn,
> they ceased to be political beings
But why is visible "standing aside" any less an honorable and continuing expression of dissent than voting? Why does this visible and explicit "standing aside" mean that the people who do it stop being political beings, any more than people who vote in the minority would be?
More generally, Bookchin's suggestion idea that consensus is individualistic is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. The assumption seems to be that the purpose of consensus decision making is to avoid any possibility of a sovereign individual being forced to do something to which they have not given their consent. He's treating consensus decision making as just another form of voting, but one which requires unanimity rather than majority. But the unanimity of consensus is not the point at all; the point of consensus decision making is to promote a dialog in which individuals may come to change their minds because they are part of this collective process. Consensus decision making is necessarily social, not individualist. Clearly, this kind of social process is possible in a process which ends in a majority vote, too, but consensus decision making arises out of an attempt to implement this social decision making process, precisely because the classical majoritarian processes were too individualistic.
(I'll leave aside the bit where Bookchin claims that consensus is a plot by a sinister group of Jacobin Quakers.)
--
"When placed in value-relation to the linen, the coat signifies more
than when out of that relation, just as many a man strutting about
in a gorgeous uniform counts for more than when in mufti."
-- Marx, _Capital_ Voyou Desoeuvre http://blog.voyou.org/