About Dissent

[razboz]

We're very quick toget angry at the status quo when they "quell dissent" or "silence opinion". When we organise, however, we never seem to accept that regardless of our tactic, we always crush dissent from within the movement, or else be condemned to splitting or not acting at all.

Sometimes we do it implicitly: people won't be listened to, or they'll be made to feel small or insignificant compared to the will of the group.Voting is one way to do this, but even in consensus circles you'll be argued down, and socially segregated for presenting minority or threatening views. Is this a practical need? Do we really sometimes need to just get on with it? Would dissent from wihtin a group weaken it too much?

Part of the description for this forum is: "a place to discuss the theoretics of applying ideas into practice". An idea i have is that all voices must be heard. The practice is consensus decison-making and mutual respect in all discussions. But how can these avoid being bogged down in paralysing minutae? When someone disagrees with a group, how can they be part of decisions without returning to the first principles that you agree on? What if disagreement persists?

How can we act together, but think alone?

[Ele'ill]

By treating the ideas presented as ideas instead of making it personal and viewing the idea as a mold of the person's 'soul'.

There's a lot of negative ego involved during councils where decision making is going on (rather than simply exchanging ideas or shooting the shit which happens too much as it is). I identify as an anarchist and when I go to various councils there's too much emphasis put on the fact that we're simply anarchists and 'there' in the council in our space- whatever space that may be. The problem is that it still feels good to break away and identify as a dissident- it's all a lot of people have ever gained towards their vision of a new world. Stop clinging to that.

I think trends within the dissident community affect how people make decisions. A group can come to a consensus on what to do and it may be a horribly ineffective idea while the other people- maybe one or two that opposed it- sort of get outted.

Maybe the solution to acting together and thinking alone is to be more critical of what we're doing- we need to be our best critics so that we can grow. I think a lot of people get bogged down in an almost lifestylist (I hate to use that word here) manner of thinking where they decide that regardless of what they do- the fact that they're 'anarchists' will shine through brighter.

I don't know





I hope this applies some how to the original post- which was a really good post btw-

[Decolonize The Left]

We're very quick toget angry at the status quo when they "quell dissent" or "silence opinion". When we organise, however, we never seem to accept that regardless of our tactic, we always crush dissent from within the movement, or else be condemned to splitting or not acting at all.

Sometimes we do it implicitly: people won't be listened to, or they'll be made to feel small or insignificant compared to the will of the group.Voting is one way to do this, but even in consensus circles you'll be argued down, and socially segregated for presenting minority or threatening views. Is this a practical need? Do we really sometimes need to just get on with it? Would dissent from wihtin a group weaken it too much?

Part of the description for this forum is: "a place to discuss the theoretics of applying ideas into practice". An idea i have is that all voices must be heard. The practice is consensus decison-making and mutual respect in all discussions. But how can these avoid being bogged down in paralysing minutae? When someone disagrees with a group, how can they be part of decisions without returning to the first principles that you agree on? What if disagreement persists?

How can we act together, but think alone?

"How can we act together, but think alone?" We have no choice but to do so.

Unfortunately, consensus decision-making is very time consuming and depending upon the size of the group, can be effective or detrimental. All depends upon context. So in a small, local meeting discussing the production of an event or paper, consensus decision-making can be reasonably used to achieve a decision. The larger the group, the more time is involved in this process.
In short, consensus decision-making is a luxury afforded by time. The more time you have, the more people can speak and be heard (hopefully). Yet, as a counter-example, in a military situation, consensus decision-making is a terrible idea as time is not available. Decisions must be made by those most intelligent in regards to the question at hand (i.e. the individual who is medically trained makes the decisions regarding medical issues, etc...).
In a different context, say a gathering of 300 people, consensus decision-making is likewise not reasonable if you intend to reach a decision in a day. A better option is to have a set of choices, allow the group to form into discussion circles (whereby consensus decision-making can take place) then have representatives from those circles come speak on their behalf. Upon hearing out each of the options and their supporters, there could be a discussion in regards to detractors for each option, and then a blind poll could be conducted.
This would allow for each member to be heard within the context of the smaller groups, but would facilitate a larger decision via votes.

The most important issue in any decision is clarity. You must be extremely clear on what you are saying, what you mean by what you're saying, and how you want it to be implemented. Failure to be clear will inevitably result in returning to the original problem in order to seek clarity. Likewise, by being clear you present an honest account of your position/idea which encourages honest dissent.

- August