On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Bill Bartlett <william7 at aapt.net.au> wrote:
> As for your assertion that granting one member of a group a veto over use of
> the group's collective resources is "not only impractical but immoral", I
> assert to the contrary that you are absolutely wrong. That seems precisely
> to fit the bill of where consensus is appropriate and perhaps even
> essential.
<snip>
> However, in any economic organisation where there are no irreconcilable
> conflicts of interest, it follows that consensus decision making is
> possible.
So one union member among thousands should be able to "block" a strike? Or alternatively, if unions are a group with "irreconcilable conflicts of interest" this becomes an extremely broad exception. Again my argument is that consensus or non-consensus is something to decide on a case by case basis. There is no simple principle that determines when to use it. I'm accepting Graeber's definition of consensus as the right of one member to block. I will note that groups that try to reach consensus, but have a fallback practice of reverting to a majority or super-majority vote can be successful where true consensus won't be. Though again this is a case by case decision, not a general principle or default. Also as to your comment below, I've spent time in activist groups, and I will tell you that the ability to "block" is more an instrument of faction and intrigue than something that prevents it.
> And it is very desirable for a simple reason, consensus decision-making
> provides a measure of protection against political intrigue, schism and even
> dictatorship. Factionalism is discouraged simply because factions can
> exercise no greater formal power than a lone individual. There is no point
> in playing a numbers game if one single individual can veto your best laid
> scheme.
>
> And here's the thing - this dynamic also means that individual members of a
> group can play a democratic role in the group with a great deal less fear
> that they might in a group where majority rule prevails. Under majority
> rule, the individual can be punished by the group for saying something that
> is not appreciated. Or can be persecuted if they are considered a threat to
> the ruling clique.
>
> But under consensus, the individual has real power. So the individual's
> opinion must be respected. There can't be many of us who have never been in
> situations where that was called for and lacking, where the individual and
> hence the group was oppressed by a clique that may or may not represent a
> formal majority.
>
> Now all this is not to say that majority decision making is not the best
> option in purely political decisions. Indeed, majority decision making is by
> definition political decision making and perhaps vice-versa?
>
> But any economic organisation such as a union or co-operative would be
> ill-advised to go down the majority rule route unless this course was
> dictated by the nature of the membership. If the membership is composed of
> people with irreconcilable conflicts of interest, majority rule. If not,
> then consensus is best.
>
> Bill Bartlett.
> Bracknell Tas
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- 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