[BTW, I'm not criticizing the OWS "anarchists/libertarians" who blocked that full-employment demand, who I know nothing about. I can imagine that this demand is a counterproductive tactic. The point is long-term organizing; "demands" only make sense if there's some tactical benefit. Maybe there's more costs than benefits.]
Take internet forums, which for many people is the closest thing we have to a public square. I've actually seen some anarchists allow outright misogynists (who call themselves "Men's Rights Advocates", I'm not joking), trolls and their allies to participate in decisionmaking. I can only assume that in real life, they do the same with the leering guy who always pays his membership dues and carries an FBI keychain.
There's a difference between a decisonmaking procedure (consensus, voting, fiat, etc), and the merits of the decision. A skinhead group may use consensus internally (many corporations do, like tech startups Graber mentioned in _Debt_), but we'd hardly consider that a wonderful thing.
There are solid anarchists who do inspiring organizing work, and they bump up against this issue:
"To be blunt, why should we care if organizations are democratic?
Democracy is not an end in itself, democracy is a means. A bad
decision made democratically is still a bad decision. There are two
reasons to care about democracy. Democracy is good when it results
in good decisions – when groups decide to do good things. And
democracy is good when it has good effects on the participants –
when it makes them better and more likely to do good things. This
results in tensions. Participation in democratic decision-making
can have important shaping roles on people’s shared interests. But
sometimes people’s shared interests are narrow and conservative.
"Say there are two mass organizations, both with a lot of
conservative members. One is highly democratic and votes to exclude
racial minorities or to oppose a program of member education around
racial oppression within the organization and in society. The other
is highly undemocratic, with a leadership to the left of its
membership. In the second organization, the leadership
undemocratically creates a program to educate members about race
and changes the members’ attitudes. Clearly both of these
situations are highly imperfect. Clearly the second is preferable.
"Above all, we should strive to create the conditions wherein an
organization can act democratically and make good decisions in a
democratic fashion. Sometimes this means encouraging democratic
processes even though this will result in worse decisions than if
an enlightened leadership made them. Other times, however, certain
issues are important enough that being less than fully democratic
is worth it because it will avoid catastrophes or create conditions
which change members’ consciousness over time."
— Nate Hawthorne, http://ideasandaction.info/2011/06/mottoes-and-watchwords/
All the best,
Tj
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 3:06 AM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> I think this is pretty great stuff. Bookchin really develops the problem I've had with the use of "autonomy" by the OWS anarchists, and underscores the coercion and opacity involved in "consensus":
>
> http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bookchin/cmmnl2.mcw.html?type=6