Log in

View Full Version : Consensus democracy and the Left



Imposter Marxist
14th October 2011, 15:32
After going to Occupy Wall Street and being active in my own cities Occupy movement, It got me wondering...Does anyone here think that consensus democracy is a good thing? Do you advocate it? Why, if so?

Its really just seemed to be some liberal hippie thing that really slows down the movement to me.

Battlecat
14th October 2011, 16:01
Its really just seemed to be some liberal hippie thing that really slows down the movement to me.
well, what other form of organising could work for the Occupy X movements?

00000000000
14th October 2011, 16:05
Given that the movement isn't under a strict banner / party or has a clearly defined political objective, would seem the like a reasonable idea.

Ism
14th October 2011, 16:13
To me, consensus democracy actually seems rather undemocratic. If consensus is perceived as a 100 % agreement, one person/a very small group of persons would theoretically be able to halt the entire process of decision making, stabilizing the political landscape at status quo. It is, as it has been said, liberal, at best, and fascist at worst. Fascist because it requires everyone to agree ≈ class collaborationist. Of course, it's not entirely the same, but in certain situations, it is. While I think it is important that the minority has a say, the minority should not be able to halt the political process of any institution. That's a pro-capitalist way of thinking in my opinion.

Occupy X isn't, sadly, a revolutinary movement. It's reformist at best, but reformism's not good enough for revolutionaries to join. Of course, entrism could be a possibility, though.

I do have a question on Occupy X and especially Occupy Wall Street (I might need to start a new thread then, but whatever) : Are there any cooperations/capital involved in the movement, or is it entirely a people's movement? Can this be documented?

Sensible Socialist
14th October 2011, 17:46
Occupy X isn't, sadly, a revolutinary movement. It's reformist at best, but reformism's not good enough for revolutionaries to join. Of course, entrism could be a possibility, though.

It's not good enough for revolutionaries to join? This smug elitism, coupled with the fact that you think any person on here is a revolutionary, makes me sick.

No mass movement will begin with the immediate goal of destroying the state and abolishing capital. You're not going to get it, and refusing to join any movement that does not hold up your revolutionary aspirations will make you one lonely rebel. It's our job, as people who understand the detrimental effects of capitalism and the promise of socialism, to join any movements that show promise and are filled with people wanting to do good by other people. Movements are fluid, and if we refuse to associate ourselves with those that do not already share our goals, no movement will ever get to that point.

W1N5T0N
14th October 2011, 17:52
lets cut the ism crap and focus on actually getting shit done okay?

:rolleyes:

Imposter Marxist
14th October 2011, 20:14
Listen, I'm not saying these things are bad because of their method of organization, hell no, I'd be a fucktard to say that. I'm also not saying "oh since this isn't a stalinist dictatorship it sucks ass! Democracy BOO" but what I am saying is that hey, if we're trying to be making real tactical choices then there are many other ways in which we could come together and have a fair and speedy discussion.

Instead, it ends up with a few people who can shout the loudest getting all the attention. If we decide something and then one asshole in the back yells "NO!" the entire crowd erupts into a south-park esque mob of jackasses and reaction.

Rabble Democracy: An Infantile Disorder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fEjJ4Ecy9Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fEjJ4Ecy9Q)

W1N5T0N
15th October 2011, 09:56
cool story bro.

Ism
15th October 2011, 16:40
It's not good enough for revolutionaries to join? This smug elitism, coupled with the fact that you think any person on here is a revolutionary, makes me sick.

No mass movement will begin with the immediate goal of destroying the state and abolishing capital. You're not going to get it, and refusing to join any movement that does not hold up your revolutionary aspirations will make you one lonely rebel. It's our job, as people who understand the detrimental effects of capitalism and the promise of socialism, to join any movements that show promise and are filled with people wanting to do good by other people. Movements are fluid, and if we refuse to associate ourselves with those that do not already share our goals, no movement will ever get to that point.

I see your point. If my message came out as being elitist, I am truly sorry, because I did not intend that. I just think it's obvious that we should not show interest in any movement that does not seek to accomplish our goals. If it can be documented that Occupy X is truly anti-capitalist or has a real potential of being turned into one, I will of course support it. If it's really just some liberal bullshit, why should I? Of course, if it accomplishes at least something like Tobin taxes or whatever it would be nice, but that's not our end goal. I might have sounded a bit harsh, but I think it is rather logical. You are very welcome to disagree with me, though.

But let me ask you: Yes, I do think everyone on here is a revolutionary. But it's RevLeft, an online forum for revolutionaries, so what's the sickening in that?

Jimmy Haddow (SPS)
16th October 2011, 17:29
15 October
The day of inter-continental resistance

www.socialistworld (http://www.<b>socialistworld</b>).net, 15/10/2011
website of the committee for a workers' international, CWI
Break the power of the banks and multinationals! Fight capitalism – for a socialist alternative to the failed profit-driven system!
CWI leaflet
http://www.socialistworld.net/img/20111014Grafik6368166180972936419.jpg

[pdf file (http://www.socialistworld.net/m/20111015Oct15Leaflet.pdf)]
On 15 October, all around the globe, the “enraged”, the “[email protected]”, the “occupiers of Wall Street”, demonstrators all over Portugal, in Santiago Chile and in Cairo – and many, many more – will take the streets to challenge the power of big business. The magnificent movements of young people and workers in these struggles, with common causes, methods and demands, instinctively reach out to each other across borders and continents.
After more than three years of ongoing capitalist crisis, the capitalists and their politicians show their inability to offer any way out of ongoing misery for the vast majority, called the “99%” in the movement in the US. Instead, the ruling elites want to make workers and youth pay for the failure of their system, to continue to bail out bankers and millionaires. That’s what this rebellion is against and where the demand for fundamental change, the demand for “revolution” as the youth movement for example in Spain puts it, comes from.
The CWI fights for
· An end to the dictatorship of the markets; break the power of the tycoons! Massive taxation of the rich and their profits!
· Massive investment in jobs, free and decent education and public services! Stop the cuts and austerity!
· Nationalisation of the banks and the major companies that dominate the global economy; bring them under workers’ and public control; for a plan to use the resources in the interest of working people, not leave them under the rule of profit and big business!
· A joint fight back against national divisions, racism and sexism.

http://www.socialistworld.net/img/article/2011-10-14Grafik7568242760834870438.jpg

Spread the indignation! Mobilise the full power of the movement!

But the resistance is developing, with occupations, tent cities, protests spreading from one continent to another. The methods which have been popularised by the international [email protected] have been powerful, a breath of fresh air capable of drawing a whole new generation into activity. The square occupations and camps stood as reminders to all in the centre of some of the world’s major cities of the opposition and resistance to the misery of the crisis. The mass assemblies in squares and neighbourhoods allowed a glimpse of real democracy and structures in which all could participate and have their say. These methods, while pioneered and pursued by the youth, drew massive support from other sections of society hit by the savagery of the crisis who then, as in Egypt, moved into action.
This has included the working class, who in country after country have seen the road to a real struggle partially blocked by national trade union leaders who refused to lead a serious fight to the end.
In Greece, the “enraged”, in occupying the squares, inspired working people, leading to a new upturn in workers’ struggles, with leaders forced to organise 24 and 48 hour general strikes.
In the US, even in the early stages of “Occupy Wall Street”, unions began to declare their support for the movement, sending delegations to their protests. In New York, tens of thousands of young people and trade unionists marched through the city last Wednesday in a united demonstration.
In Chile, where students will be continuing their tremendous movement with mobilisations on 15 October, workers have joined their mobilisations, including with strike action.
This support must become the basis for these movements to move onto a higher level. While indignation can shake society, there comes a stage when effective action must be taken. The working class holds the reins of the economy and produces the profits of the billionaires.
Our movements must seek to mobilise this potential power, through industrial action and general strikes. It was the development of such action which was key to the success of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions in toppling dictators, and must also be key to our struggle against the dictatorship of markets and profit.
Mass assemblies, built in communities and workplaces and linked together democratically, could come together to plan and control such mobilisations. In this way, the policies of the pro-capitalist trade union leaders could be cut across, and action can be forced on them, as in Greece. But as part of a serious and sustained programme of action, democratically agreed and controlled, such actions can be part of a consistent strategy that can paralyse society and force change.
Workers and youth are repelled by all the rotten parties representing the interests of big business. Right-wing trade union leaders block the power of these organisations. Many young people view these apparatuses with disgust.
To challenge all these parties, to prevent them using the power of the movements in their interests, the movements need to develop key demands to fight for and stop those forces from hijacking the protests.
As the events from Egypt and Tunisia to Greece and Spain have shown, without a clear force representing the interests of working-class people and youth that is capable of offering an alternative programme and strategy to the capitalist misery, the old elites will try to stay in power and sit out the protest in their cosy positions. The CWI argues for building new, genuine forces representing working-class people and youth.

http://www.socialistworld.net/img/article/2011-10-14Grafik2434681723907699041.jpg

For system change

At the moment 500 companies dominate the economy of the planet. Directly and indirectly they control 30% of the world’s gross domestic product. The struggle starts here and today to fight against the disastrous policies they enforce. The CWI fights for every immediate reform to save the living standards of workers and youth, to stop this system destroying the environment through global warming or nuclear power catastrophes.
However, for us this is linked to the fight for the overthrow of capitalism in general. In a new society, where this power of the multinationals would be transferred democratically to working people, beginning with the nationalisation of the banks and major corporations under democratic control, our fundamental problems could be solved.
http://www.socialistworld.net/img/article/2011-10-14Grafik8211578785865144380.jpg
The CWI argues that the movements internationally must link their radical demands together in a comprehensive programme to transform society along these genuinely socialist lines.
On 15 October, all around the globe, the “enraged”, the “[email protected]”, the “occupiers of Wall Street”, demonstrators all over Portugal, in Santiago de Chile and in Cairo – and many, many more – will take the streets to challenge the power of big business. The magnificent movements of young people and workers in these struggles, with common causes, methods and demands instinctively reach out to each other across borders and continents.
Be part of the organised struggle against capitalism

The CWI has parties, groups and individuals in over 40 countries around the world. We stand shoulder to shoulder with workers and young people internationally in struggle against the attacks of the bosses and their politicians. We are part of the fightback which is developing internationally as millions have taken to the streets saying “we won’t pay for their crisis!”
To be successful, the struggle against capitalism requires ideas, a political programme, and an organisation that is able to unite workers and oppressed people across the globe. The CWI aims to build such an organisation. We think that organised workers and youth in their millions are stronger than the millionaires. That is why we need more people to join us in the struggle for socialism!
If you want to join us or want more information, contact us via socialistworld.net or send us an email to [email protected]
Committee for a Workers’ International, PO Box 3688, London E11 1YE, Britain
Tel: ++ 44 20 8988 8760, Fax: ++ 44 20 8988 8793, [email protected]
www.socialistworld.net (http://www.socialistworld.net/)

Threetune
16th October 2011, 17:33
lets cut the ism crap and focus on actually getting shit done okay?

:rolleyes:

Go on then, tell us how.

tfb
16th October 2011, 17:45
While I think it is important that the minority has a say, the minority should not be able to halt the political process of any institution. That's a pro-capitalist way of thinking in my opinion.

I don't understand how that is a pro-capitalist way of thinking.

Do you mean that, since a minority can shut things down, nothing will end up changing and, since we have capitalism right now, we won't be able to move on from it?

If we had feudalism and there were a protest against it that needed consensus before the protesters would do anything, would you be calling consensus democracy pro-feudalism?

Do you mean that it's pro-status quo?

Or do you mean that minorities having a huge influence is pro-capitalist because the bourgeoisie is a minority? In the same way that it would be pro-"auditing the fed" or pro-911 truth or pro-whatever-some-minority-of-people-wants?

Or something else?

Edit: Nevermind, I think I've got it. It's pro-capitalist just because it requires getting along and working with whatever capitalists might have sneaked into the protest? I guess I still don't get the fascist thing though.

blake 3:17
17th October 2011, 19:44
Consensus decision making can be long and painful, but it does help ensure that minority voices aren't completely cut out. People need to be respectful of the process and be willing to look for compromises. For new movements it is helpful for finding out what really does unite people.

Given that many people are planning to stay places indefinitely, makes way better sense to work out as many issues as possible in a transparent way than having huge arguments when folks are super hungry and tired.

Sensible Socialist
20th October 2011, 19:02
I see your point. If my message came out as being elitist, I am truly sorry, because I did not intend that. I just think it's obvious that we should not show interest in any movement that does not seek to accomplish our goals. If it can be documented that Occupy X is truly anti-capitalist or has a real potential of being turned into one, I will of course support it. If it's really just some liberal bullshit, why should I? Of course, if it accomplishes at least something like Tobin taxes or whatever it would be nice, but that's not our end goal. I might have sounded a bit harsh, but I think it is rather logical. You are very welcome to disagree with me, though.


The problem with that type of thinking is it leads to leftists being in self-imposed exile from almost every popular movement, at least in the United States. How are we going to get people to realize the problems of capitalism if we never reach out into movements that aren't yet aware?

Die Neue Zeit
22nd October 2011, 17:53
Consensus decision making can be long and painful, but it does help ensure that minority voices aren't completely cut out. People need to be respectful of the process and be willing to look for compromises. For new movements it is helpful for finding out what really does unite people.

Given that many people are planning to stay places indefinitely, makes way better sense to work out as many issues as possible in a transparent way than having huge arguments when folks are super hungry and tired.

Why not settle for Supermajority decision-making? Of course this would have to be properly defined. For example, I'm against a supermajority that is in fact near consensus.

MarxSchmarx
24th October 2011, 00:41
Why not settle for Supermajority decision-making? Of course this would have to be properly defined. For example, I'm against a supermajority that is in fact near consensus.

IMO it comes down to a hierarchy of basically priorities. Some things should be decided by consensus, other things by supermajority, and some by 50%+1 or demarchy. I don't see why a plurality of methods can't coexist and adjust to the situation and the perceived stakes and thus maximize both individual liberty and democratic decision making.

Jimmie Higgins
24th October 2011, 09:11
To me, consensus democracy actually seems rather undemocratic. If consensus is perceived as a 100 % agreement, one person/a very small group of persons would theoretically be able to halt the entire process of decision making, stabilizing the political landscape at status quo.I totally agree with this first part though I don't agree with the second part about entrism how radicals should not be involved in this movement because it is not yet explicitly radical.

My experience has been that people are totally open to talking about radical ideas and debating these things. While I have encountered some sectarianism and red-baiting, it's sadly come from other radicals not the progressives - many of those progressives have been coming out seeking alternatives to the bullshit they have been told by the media and establishment.

This is the bottom-up political opening most of us should have been waiting for and preparing for most of our political lives. This is the opening that was closed by 9/11 a decade ago and things are really fluid and dynamic right now so we should be engaging with everyone and fighting to keep these political spaces and dialogues open. This particular form of protest will probably hit some roadblocks and move in fits and might be abandoned for other forms of protest, but I think the trajectory of Wisconsin to OWS shows that even if the occupys go down, a new mood and willingness to fight among working people will probably remain for a while due to dissatisfaction with the answers given by the capitalists and their parties and the continuing economic pressure of cuts and austerity.

I'm not sure what was meant by entryism, but I think it's not necessary because we can be open revolutionaries in the movement right now, so it's best to be upfront about or politics and argue revolutionary politics of democracy and socialism from below are in harmony with the ideals of this movement (increased democracyt and popular decision-making, popular control of the economy, and end to wars and inequality and racism) and our kinds of politics are necessary to actually achieve these ideals.

MarxSchmarx
25th October 2011, 04:06
I totally agree with this first part though I don't agree with the second part about entrism how radicals should not be involved in this movement because it is not yet explicitly radical.

My experience has been that people are totally open to talking about radical ideas and debating these things. While I have encountered some sectarianism and red-baiting, it's sadly come from other radicals not the progressives - many of those progressives have been coming out seeking alternatives to the bullshit they have been told by the media and establishment.

This is the bottom-up political opening most of us should have been waiting for and preparing for most of our political lives. This is the opening that was closed by 9/11 a decade ago and things are really fluid and dynamic right now so we should be engaging with everyone and fighting to keep these political spaces and dialogues open. This particular form of protest will probably hit some roadblocks and move in fits and might be abandoned for other forms of protest, but I think the trajectory of Wisconsin to OWS shows that even if the occupys go down, a new mood and willingness to fight among working people will probably remain for a while due to dissatisfaction with the answers given by the capitalists and their parties and the continuing economic pressure of cuts and austerity.

I'm not sure what was meant by entryism, but I think it's not necessary because we can be open revolutionaries in the movement right now, so it's best to be upfront about or politics and argue revolutionary politics of democracy and socialism from below are in harmony with the ideals of this movement (increased democracyt and popular decision-making, popular control of the economy, and end to wars and inequality and racism) and our kinds of politics are necessary to actually achieve these ideals.

I agree but I also think you need to consider first that there are not a few people in this movement who would go to great lengths to ensure that a whiff of serious radical politics stays as far away from it as possible. This is for two reasons. First, the organized left has a somewhat justified reputation for trying to take over movements and mold them to their own purposes. I think there is a lot of bitterness, fairly or not, over the PLP taking over the SDS for example. Second, there are many who are "advising" this movement and I don't for a minute believe it is as "grass roots " and bottom up as claimed. THere are likely a core of several hundred (maybe a thousand or two at most) effective, charismatic or hard-working uber-dedicated indivdiuals around whom this thing operates. I have no reason to believe that they haven't been exposed to socialism, much less that they aren't sympathetic. Most of these people almost certainly are savvy enough to realize that open association with "socialism" is the third rail of american public opinion.

Thus I think rather that it's key for the radical left, at least in America, to understand why socialism has not been part of the movement's "objectives". Part of it is a resignation over what is possible in the short and medium term, but another very real part of it is that they have likely considered, and actively decided to spurn, too close an association with traditional left.

Another, and no small issue, is that I doubt very seriously that the radical left in most of the US has the organized manpower, the savvy, the expertise and even the sensibility to approach and address this movement in an effective manner. In fact, there is plenty of reason to suspect precisely the opposite. Given its legacy of sectarian bickering and the needless dislike it would conjure up in certain segments of the American working class, we have to understand that the traditional left will likely continue to play a very limited role in these movements.

Vladimir Innit Lenin
26th October 2011, 21:39
IMO it comes down to a hierarchy of basically priorities. Some things should be decided by consensus, other things by supermajority, and some by 50%+1 or demarchy. I don't see why a plurality of methods can't coexist and adjust to the situation and the perceived stakes and thus maximize both individual liberty and democratic decision making.

Sorry to be overly bureaucratic (I usually leave that to Kautsky's stooge DNZ), but which method would you use to decide which methods are used for which situations/types of votes/issues?

I'm admittedly not all too familiar with the intricacies of the OWS movement and, as someone in teh UK, have not attended working group/caucus meetings.

But, though I am sympathetic to your sentiment of co-existence of methods, that in effect is a super-compromise, where only compromise is necessary (as clearly one method [full-on consensus democracy] or the other [simply majoritarian democracy] are not wholly adequate).

If we cannot agree between consensus democracy (maximum 0 negative votes) and majoritarianism (maximum 50%-1 negative votes), then surely we should make a simple compromise of 70-80% quasi-consensus? That seems absolutely reasonable.

TheGodlessUtopian
26th October 2011, 21:45
As said before consensus has its flaws,and it can sometime seem like a shit hole,but I still see it as better than what we have now.My GA has gotten better on the times by streamlining the process with the working groups but the over all commitment still is taxing when it comes to making demands.

BOZG
27th October 2011, 06:23
There are occasions when consensus can play a role but for the most part, it's an incredibly undemocratic method of decision making that creates a tyranny of the minority who always win the debate.

It also awards extra power to the earlier organisers who have implemented decisions that can never be reversed without their consent.

MarxSchmarx
27th October 2011, 13:24
Sorry to be overly bureaucratic (I usually leave that to Kautsky's stooge DNZ), but which method would you use to decide which methods are used for which situations/types of votes/issues?


I actually think that's spot on. But I think the question comes down to what kind of organization or community you are talking about.

So let's talk about what will go on under "full communism". Ultimately only those affected by decisions should be making them. My personal preference is that economic issues like whether we should put more emphasis on satellite or fiber optic cables get decided by 50%+1, and those that directly affect both individual behavior and the well being of others like environmental regulations supermajorities, and those affecting individual freedoms like whether to ban this or that religion need consensus. It's a crude yard stick but it more or less conveys the point.

My guess is different communities would use different standards to decide which types of voting to use for which types of issues. So we can have pluralism of issues in addition to a pluralism of voting styles across villages, towns, cities, etc... I think ultimately we have to in some very real sense understand that communities themselves are voluntary associations. And so individuals will likely differ in their preferences for the degrees to which different methods are used, and will ideally have the opportunity to live in communities where the mixture that is right for them works.

Or is it about political organizations under capitalism? If so, I think the answer here is, we don't know. My guess is that there are enough leftist groups out there, that as long as there is sufficient variation in what kind of decision making they use, whatever mixture of these decision making processes is successful in terms of forging the movement forward today (not 50 or 100 years ago) will emerge from the myriad of orgs out there. This is thus an empirical question, and actually we can look to examples like worker- and farmer owned cooperatives as well to assess this.




But, though I am sympathetic to your sentiment of co-existence of methods, that in effect is a super-compromise, where only compromise is necessary (as clearly one method [full-on consensus democracy] or the other [simply majoritarian democracy] are not wholly adequate).

If we cannot agree between consensus democracy (maximum 0 negative votes) and majoritarianism (maximum 50%-1 negative votes), then surely we should make a simple compromise of 70-80% quasi-consensus? That seems absolutely reasonable.

But even here I don't see why a 70-80% (say) would have to apply everywhere. I can see for example where majoritarianism works just fine, in practice I know votes where stakes are low enough tend to usually be very lopsided. Again, though, it likely depends on what we are talking about. In groups like OWS perhaps the 70-80% approach is fine, in some "Democratic Centrist" parties perhaps 50%+1 would work but consensus is needed if they are talking about something like "abandoning Marx for Kim il Sung", and in some infoshop type entities maybe consensus really is appropriate but majority rule is fine in terms of what color bookcase to use. But if we are talking about a post-capitalist society, I think a rigid commitment to some compromise will always be a bit too blunt a tool.

Die Neue Zeit
27th October 2011, 14:19
Sorry to be overly bureaucratic (I usually leave that to Kautsky's stooge DNZ), but which method would you use to decide which methods are used for which situations/types of votes/issues?

I take your insult as a compliment. :thumbup1:


those affecting individual freedoms like whether to ban this or that religion need consensus

Why, comrade? Consensus tends to be very conservative for large groups.

MarxSchmarx
31st October 2011, 02:45
Why, comrade? Consensus tends to be very conservative for large groups.

well the reason is that nobody should be denied their liberty to pursue something which does not affect others in a meaningful way (like what spiritual views they hold) without their full agreement.

But what do you mean by "conservative"? Do you mean it is hard to change anything or do you mean a blend of authoritarianism and capitalism that characterizes "conservativism" in much of the world?

Die Neue Zeit
31st October 2011, 02:46
^^^ The former (i.e., keeping the status quo). Consensus democracy is so biased towards the status quo for large groups.

MarxSchmarx
31st October 2011, 02:51
^^^ The former (i.e., keeping the status quo). Consensus democracy is so biased towards the status quo for large groups.

I see. So in this case, what would be so problematic about a status quo that ensures considrable individual rights over things like religious freedom? Frankly I think the harder it is for "the majority" to take away the religious freedom of "the minority" to say worship on sundays instead of wednesdays, I think we would precisely want a "conservative" outcome. Wouldn't you?

Die Neue Zeit
31st October 2011, 02:52
Did you read my e-mail commentary on organized religion (also posted here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-religious-critiquei-t139133/index.html?p=1812822))? I betcha the religious establishment would be hostile to what I'm proposing.

Then there's the serious problem of death cults, money-scam cults, and such - and those need to be cracked down on.

MarxSchmarx
31st October 2011, 03:34
Did you read my e-mail commentary on organized religion (also posted here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-religious-critiquei-t139133/index.html?p=1812822))? I betcha the religious establishment would be hostile to what I'm proposing.

Then there's the serious problem of death cults, money-scam cults, and such - and those need to be cracked down on.

Not yet, no. Another thing is that we might not be thinking about "religion" in the same way. I'm looking at it as a matter of individual belief systems, whereas you (quite rightly) point out that it has a social dimension in the form of organized religion. I still think it is not the beliefs of particular religions that are so bad as it is their practices which do victimize people, but even bourgeois democracies recognize that "freedom of religion" is not a valid excuse to actively harm other people.

I mean if some community wanted to put an end to involuntary human sacrifices to Quetzocoatl or something, then I think this is not subject to consensus because those affected by the decision (the victims of sacrifice) effectively aren't making that decision of whether they get killed. But this is distinct from banning the "belief" in a blood thursty Quetzocoatl and saying grace to him before you eat ice cream or something.

Die Neue Zeit
31st October 2011, 03:37
In that case, comrade, I think implicit consensus is in order. This comes about by cultural evolution and cultural revolution.

Le Socialiste
31st October 2011, 23:14
Consensus democracy isn't democratic at all, given its susceptibility to the whims and dictates of any given minority group. While it may contain some benefits, I don't see them as outweighing the negative aspects. What it does is hold up the movement, rather than allow it to move forward. A democracy based on consensus runs the risk of being hijacked by interests hostile towards workers' democracy and varying shades of left radicalism. It doesn't allow for the movement to grow and instead smothers it with the weight of every single group present. This could result in a complete deadlock, in which nobody is willing to give ground or accept what may or may not be best for the movement as a whole. It allows any given minority the ability to hold things up until their demands are met. Such proceedings don't strike me as democratic, nor is it worth pursuing.

Die Neue Zeit
1st November 2011, 01:59
Consensus democracy is only useful for small meetings like Politburo meetings (Brezhnev was an excellent practitioner of consensus policy-making), and even then there are limits.

Raúl Duke
1st November 2011, 20:10
Here's my opinion:

Consensus decision-making I don't agree with in relation to large groups, social movements, etc. I agree with MarxSchmarx on the use of multiple forms of decision making. Personally I'm biased to 50+1% majority decision making but consensus is doable in small groups. Even than, I would stress that all kinds of groups attempt at reaching a consensus but when things come to a stall a majority vote should be called in for. As a few others mentioned, consensus isn't really democratic since it allows a NO minority to stall and get their point in favor against the interests of the majority of the group.

MarxSchmarx
4th November 2011, 05:41
In that case, comrade, I think implicit consensus is in order. This comes about by cultural evolution and cultural revolution.

precisely. i think the idea is that decisions that require consensus will be a lot like language - they are reflective of a deep and commonly held social structure that substantial deviation from it is not an effectively viable alternative for anybody that wants to live in a real society. My guess is that in a post-capitalist world, the virtues of individual self-determination would be so deeply held that they will enjoy as virtually close to a consensus as the languages or even currencies we use under capitalism.

Die Neue Zeit
4th November 2011, 06:26
^^^ It's quite different from formal consensus and the problems with it expressed by posters here. ;)

MarxSchmarx
6th November 2011, 04:13
^^^ It's quite different from formal consensus and the problems with it expressed by posters here. ;)

Good point. I think this is one of the most neglected aspect of how a future "consensus" order will work. If we think about it, "formal consensus" has more in line with the modern bourgeois notion of how to fill out a form or two than the way "consensus" was practiced for centuries - that is, as a result of intense dialogue and actually trying to iron out as much differences in settings like the log house, the incense filled temple, or even a meeting around a sacred tree. I think this is something which expresses the indigenous development of these decision making tools, absent in the ideologies that seek to impose such a regime from above.

Jimmy Haddow (SPS)
7th November 2011, 15:33
Jarrow marchers march into history - and vow that the struggle goes on

Thousands of young people, trade unionists and other supporters joined the Jarrow marchers in London on the final leg of their long march from Jarrow.
In a display of determination, enthusiasm and solidarity, the Jarrow marchers led the way from the Embankment to Trafalgar Square, where a lively rally was held to mark the end of this 2011 march, a re-enactment of the original Jarrow to London march against unemployment 75 years ago.
Waiting among others in Trafalgar Square for the march to arrive, was Gloria Findlay from Dorset, whose first husband, Pat Devine, marched 75 years ago.
On the march itself, celebrating its historic end, was Lizi Gray, the great-grand daughter of one of the original marchers.
Like the 1936 marchers, those who have marched today have again been driven to undertake this physically demanding action to draw attention to the terrible lack of jobs.
They are calling for a programme of job creation to end the misery of long term unemployment and all the deprivation, wasted talent and suffering that it brings.


For the rally in Trafalgar Square, the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) provided a converted fire engine with a high platform from which the speakers addressed the crowd.

<LI class=ul7>Chris Baugh, assistant general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) applauded the marchers and thanked them for helping to highlight the plight of the one million 17 to 24 year-olds who are on the dole. He called for a major show of strength by the trade union movement in the public sector strike on 30th November against cuts in pensions. The trade unions must reach out to the millions of unorganised workers and to the 3 million coming out on 30th November, and if the government doesn't listen to that mass show of strength then that strike action will only be the beginning of the fight, he warned. <LI class=ul7>Marcher Lizi Gray gave thanks to the PCS and the RMT (Rail, Maritime and Transport workers' union) and other trade unions for their donations which the marchers "couldn't have done without" and also to all the supportive communities the marchers passed through that gave them accommodation and food. <LI class=ul7>Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT, praised the way that the Jarrow marchers have given up their time to call for a different future for young people. He said that working people have always had to win things through struggle. The bankers said they would shut down the cashpoint machines and so on, if they didn't get bailed out; we must now say too that we'll shut down the country if we have to, to stop us being made to pay the price of their crisis. <LI class=ul7>Matt Wrack, general secretary of the FBU, warned that some people will always say 'what's the point in marching and protesting'. But we can either roll over and take it, or we can fight back. The alternative to fighting back is absolute chaos, and services being cut to pieces - this is the prospect being offered to us, the austerity policies being implemented in Greece, north America and across the globe. We have to fight for our own alternative.
Hannah Sell, deputy general secretary of the Socialist Party, also expressed admiration for the Jarrow marchers and said that they have shown that young people are prepared to fight for a better future. And they're not alone, as the St Paul's protesters with their banner "capitalism is crisis", and many others, have shown. Any system that can't offer every young person a home, a job - a future, doesn't deserve to exist. She called on people at the rally to join the Socialist Party in its fight for a socialist alternative.
A number of other inspiring speeches were made, including by a representative of Kurdish and Turkish organisation Day-Mer Youth, and by Emily McArthur from the Occupy Boston tent protesters in the US.
A rousing end to the rally was given by national organiser of Youth Fight for Jobs Paul Callanan, who spelt out firmly: "We won't be a lost generation, we'll fight for our futures".
More reports will be posted on the Socialist Party website soon, plus more photos and also video.

Some of the media coverage of the Jarrow finale:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15607103 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15607103)

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/05/jarrow-marchers-petition-youth-unemployment?cat=uk&type=article http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16103883
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24006429-campaigners-recreate-jarrow-march.do (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24006429-campaigners-recreate-jarrow-march.do)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8871935/Campaigners-finish-re-enactment-of-Jarrow-March.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8871935/Campaigners-finish-re-enactment-of-Jarrow-March.html)

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/111620 (http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/111620)


from: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/13097/06-11-2011/jarrow-marchers-march-into-history-and-vow-that-the-struggle-for-jobs-goes-on