What he describes seems aligned with a consensual process that is the result of a long and patient campaign of education and struggle, and has very little to do with top down stuff.
I don't care if it takes eighteen months to change a light bulb.
Joanna
----- Original Message -----
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 9:09 PM, <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> An interesting discussion
>
> http://occupywallstreet.net/story/some-remarks-consensus
>
> Joanna
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
A couple of points on this., One thing, from what Graeber says, even the Occupy process, at least at the particular meeting he describes was not a consensus process but had a formal option of overriding the minority with a 66% majority - which I find tends to work.
Secondly he describes true consensus as means of advancing equality and freedom - that everybody has an equal say and that nobody is forced to do things they don't want. But majority rule or super-majority rule in voluntary organizations does the same thing. All that majority rule means in such groups is that if a really small minority does not like a decision, past a certain point it is incumbent upon them either to live with that decision or leave the group, rather than having veto power over the larger majority.
I'm not saying that consensus is never a suitable decision making principle - just that group decision making has depend on circumstance. Graeber seems to agree that consensus processes can vary widely, but then seems to argue that all these varying processes need to be based on consensus. Whereas I can think of lots of circumstances where giving a small minoriy, let along a minority of one, veto power over how a group uses collective resources is not only impractical but immoral. Group decision making is not one size fits all - and that applies to fundamental principles, not just processes.
As I say there are cases where consensus makes a great deal of sense. For example, when engaging in direct action in defiance of laws, usually in the USA at any rate, those putting themselves at such risk come to a consensus as to what they will or won't do prior taking such actions. And a few worker owned co-ops I'm familiar with select new hires by consensus. Even in such cases these are not necessarily the only choices, but they are examples where consensus works. But there are many cases where it fails. I will say that a local Quaker church after a long discussion about switching from incandescent lightbulbs to CFLs now has a new lightbulb joke. "How many Quakers does it take to change a lightbulb? All of them, but only after 18 months of discussion."
-- Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow Solving the Climate Crisis web page: SolvingTheClimateCrisis.com Grist Blog: http://grist.org/author/gar-lipow/ Online technical reference: http://www.nohairshirts.com ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk