Consensus Democracy

[Capitalist Octopus]

What is it?
How does it work?
Is it useful?
If so, for what sizes of groups?
Can it be the only decision making process used?

My class was discussing it today and they seemed to be heavily fetishizing it.

[The Jay]

I personally do not favor consensus democracy, but prefer direct constitutional majority-democracy. I think that consensus democracy makes as much sense as the single veto rule in the UN Security Counsel.

[Ostrinski]

Perhaps for small groups in irrelevant matters, but for economic issues, shit simply needs to get done. On such a mass scale, we can't wait around until we get everyone to agree on one decision, we've got to operate on majoritarian grounds, especially where things like food are involved.

[Capitalist Octopus]

Perhaps for small groups in irrelevant matters, but for economic issues, shit simply needs to get done. On such a mass scale, we can't wait around until we get everyone to agree on one decision, we've got to operate on majoritarian grounds, especially where things like food are involved.

Yeah. My thoughts though.

With that logic, why not just say, operate on more authoritarian grounds where one person or group simply makes the decisions? After all, we need to get things don't and can't wait for democracy.

In terms of majoritarian democracy, people in the class were using the typical "but that's a tyranny of the majority" "minority vote gets excluded" type lines, which they thought could be overcome with consensus. Explain?


Finally, we were talking about Tiqqun and they say democracy is enemy to communism because politics is the enemy to communism. They say communism is blending decision and action, so there's just action. People do as they wish. Thoughts?

[MustCrushCapitalism]

The majority compromising with the minority.... I smell class collaborationism.

[Ostrinski]

With that logic, why not just say, operate on more authoritarian grounds where one person or group simply makes the decisions? After all, we need to get things don't and can't wait for democracy.Well, again, some some small community program that is irrelevant outside of itself might be able to be run on authoritarian grounds, but majoritarian democratic decision making still trumps it in terms of efficiency, I think. On a large scale the decision making body needs to be broadened.


In terms of majoritarian democracy, people in the class were using the typical "but that's a tyranny of the majority" "minority vote gets excluded" type lines, which they thought could be overcome with consensus. Explain?Moralist bullshit. Do what works, again, especially when necessities like food are involved.


Finally, we were talking about Tiqqun and they say democracy is enemy to communism because politics is the enemy to communism. They say communism is blending decision and action, so there's just action. People do as they wish. Thoughts?I don't know what this means, communism is just extended democracy.

[MarxSchmarx]

Brospierre raises a good point about some issues can be settled by consensus democracy but for other issues it's inapporpriate. It's a continuum of "important" issues that basically boil down to how many people they affect.

Some issues only affect the individual or a very small group - e.g., should we have coffee or tea at this meeting. Other issues affect billions - like food or health policy. But then there are issues that affect everyone - like freedom of religion and rules about prohibited conduct.

On some level I don't care what rules tiny or even small groups of people use to manage their affairs.

Issues that are basically economic in nature - like food and land policy - need the expediency afforded by majoritarian rule, or, at least, cannot be stymied by consensus.

Where I differ from Brospierre's continuum is that it is for the last category - issues that trully affect everyone significantly - that I think consensus is necessary. If we are to implement rules that govern individual behavior in a substantial way, then individuals need to consent to those rules and they must be subject to consensus. My suspicion is that this distinction basically removes the tyranny of the majority objection as well - indeed, it is hard to argue that economic decisions by a majority (or 2/3rds or whatever) are in any sense "tyrannical".

[The Jay]

Yeah. My thoughts though.

With that logic, why not just say, operate on more authoritarian grounds where one person or group simply makes the decisions? After all, we need to get things don't and can't wait for democracy.

In terms of majoritarian democracy, people in the class were using the typical "but that's a tyranny of the majority" "minority vote gets excluded" type lines, which they thought could be overcome with consensus. Explain?

That is why I support a constitutional direct democracy. That way, the majority still gets their way but are limited in how they can act, thereby protecting minorities under the protection of said constitution. This constitution would have to be decided upon be a near consensus though. With such a constitution in place the risk of totalitarian arguments is greatly diminished and democracy is maintained. I'm open to new ideas myself if someone would be willing to give me a thought-out answer.

[Renegade Saint]

What is it?
It's a decision-making process where a few assholes can hold up the whole group. Most groups that use 'consensus' are actually just using a super-majority vote (ie, Occupy). In many places it requires a 90% vote to get anything passed. This leads to, in some cities, people just going around the GA to actually get shit done.

How does it work?
It doesn't.

Is it useful?
For deciding where you and your friends want to go to see a movie. That's about it.

If so, for what sizes of groups?
See above.

Can it be the only decision making process used?
I'm not sure what you mean. it's mutually exclusive with a simple majority rules framework.

What minority rights are they worried about being violated? Keep in mind the minority does not have a right to get their way. In fact, any sort of constitutionalism or super-majoritarian rules are fundamentally anti-democratic and actually do not protect minority rights that well.

This has some useful info: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/18b448r6#page-1

[Positivist]

Consensus could work on a communal level and is the best form of democracy because it involves real debate and persuasion in decision making. Though on an international or regional scale consensus democracy could be attempted with each commune acting as a single person but in the likely case it wouldn't be successful, thoroughly majoritarian (more than 51%) and constitutionally monitored direct voting would he the best option.

[Blake's Baby]

No it doesn't. It's rubbish. It means the biggest asshole gets their way.

You think we should reach consensus. I say 'fuck that'. As long as I continue to say 'fuck that' your only option is to agree with me.

Fuck that.

Now, please, demonstrate how you can reach 'a consensus' with me.

[Grenzer]

Consensus democracy is a terrible, terrible idea; as is constitutionality for that matter. People that are for constitutions say they provide a bulwark against totalitarianism, yet historically they have proven to be a vehicle for it, rather than a bulwark.

It seems that constitutionalism is a relic of the bourgeois framework. If a group desires to fuck another group over, and has the ability to do so, then they will regardless of what a piece of paper says. More often than not, they are inflexible and an impediment to progressive change.

But yeah, consensus democracy sucks even on a small scale imo.

[ckaihatsu]

It seems that constitutionalism is a relic of the bourgeois framework.


One interesting thing about formalism -- whether political or economic -- is that it commits a person (or organization, nation, etc.) to a certain aspect of *theory*, at a certain point in historical time. It's like planting a flag and then having to guard that flag in perpetuity, no matter what else happens around that flag for the rest of time.

This means that a person's politics is their commitment, or anchor, to a certain worldview -- one which may not even be *contemporary*, much less forward-looking.

[Ned Kelly]

Consensus 'democracy' was one of the bigger failings of the occupy movement. I speak from experience at occupy Melbourne. The loudest arseholes always got their way, that's all it is.

[The Jay]

One interesting thing about formalism -- whether political or economic -- is that it commits a person (or organization, nation, etc.) to a certain aspect of *theory*, at a certain point in historical time. It's like planting a flag and then having to guard that flag in perpetuity, no matter what else happens around that flag for the rest of time.

This means that a person's politics is their commitment, or anchor, to a certain worldview -- one which may not even be *contemporary*, much less forward-looking.

That would be true if that constitution were unchangeable. Who says that a new constitution wouldn't be written every decade or so for however big a region wants to sign in on it? As long as capitalism is gone, what's wrong with a group getting together and limiting their own authority to protect not only themselves but others as well.

[Brosip Tito]

Consensus democracy is a terrible, terrible idea; as is constitutionality for that matter. People that are for constitutions say they provide a bulwark against totalitarianism, yet historically they have proven to be a vehicle for it, rather than a bulwark.

It seems that constitutionalism is a relic of the bourgeois framework. If a group desires to fuck another group over, and has the ability to do so, then they will regardless of what a piece of paper says. More often than not, they are inflexible and an impediment to progressive change.

But yeah, consensus democracy sucks even on a small scale imo.
I think a constitution sets things out to a point where historical revisionism and deceit on what the socialist society, or DOTP more correctly, is to go toward.

Had there been a Bolsheviks constitution, in my opinion, Stalin would have had a harder time building his cult of personality around his lies and revisionism.

I can't say for sure, I haven't read to deeply on constitutionality.

[ckaihatsu]

All of these concerns about power grabs, and my concern about formalistic stagnation, point toward the objective need to always *grow* and *expand* the context at hand so that a constrained in-fighting doesn't even have a chance to develop.

I think it's no wonder that anarchists in particular are so concerned with authoritarianism -- they tend to limit their scope of what could possibly be under workers' control to a mere locality, which then has to resort to lateral market-like transactions with other localities, albeit self-liberated.

More to the point about political consensus is finding out what overall *ideologies* people have, and prioritizing *policy* that can address the most critical demands -- in a leftward direction -- across those ideologies. The most general policy would necessarily have to be anti-privatization, so that the public can exert democratic oversight and control of humanity's most impactful practices.

And, in an era where Occupy-type movements may actually succeed in winning over sustained popular support and real control over local productivity, there would then have to be a *generalizing* of such areas of resistance so that the context of *policy* can then be generalized as well -- *not* limited to those localities on a case-by-case basis.

[Renegade Saint]

Consensus could work on a communal level and is the best form of democracy because it involves real debate and persuasion in decision making. Though on an international or regional scale consensus democracy could be attempted with each commune acting as a single person but in the likely case it wouldn't be successful, thoroughly majoritarian (more than 51%) and constitutionally monitored direct voting would he the best option.
1. No it couldn't.
2. No it's not.
3. No it wouldn't either.

(what can be asserted without evidence/argument can be dismissed without the same)



What's happening in Hungary is a perfect example of why constitutions (which nearly always require a supermajority of some kind to change) are a bad thing. It essentially locks in what whoever has the political power at one place and time wants and makes it extremely difficult for future (or current) generations to overturn that decision. How is that a good thing?

[MarxSchmarx]

No it doesn't. It's rubbish. It means the biggest asshole gets their way.

You think we should reach consensus. I say 'fuck that'. As long as I continue to say 'fuck that' your only option is to agree with me.

Fuck that.

Now, please, demonstrate how you can reach 'a consensus' with me.


Consensus democracy is a terrible, terrible idea; as is constitutionality for that matter.
...
But yeah, consensus democracy sucks even on a small scale imo.

Grenzer, I take it you are taking issue with the idea that laws cannot be enacted if they are deemed "unconstitutional" irrespective of public support?

In any event, I think these criticisms fail to get at the ultimate rationale for consensus democracy - namely, that the only legitimate foundation for authority is authority to which people consent to subject themselves. One can no more abrogate's one's right to cease recognizing legitimate authority any more than one can "voluntarily" enter into a contract of perpetual slavery.

Indeed, the theory of authority that those who categorically oppose consensus democracy appear to have appears quite akin to that of the bourgeois ruling class. So if anybody is to be accused of retaining "a relic of the bourgeois framework", I rather suspect it is those that seek to perpetuate bourgeois myths about how individuals submit themselves to compulsion.

In fairness, all this presupposes what can uncharitably called the "ontological primacy of the individual"; but even if that were the case, I think a good case could be made that erring on the side of retaining individual sovereignty, in lieu of rubbish justifying the monstrosity that is the modern nation state, from bourgeois thinking is preferable to most poeople.

[Ostrinski]

I think it's more likely that on a consensus framework the eight assholes who are holding things up would have to be locked up so that things could actually get done.

[ckaihatsu]

I think it's more likely that on a consensus framework the eight assholes who are holding things up would have to be locked up so that things could actually get done.


Well, this is mysterious....

In what possible scenario would a group of a mere eight individuals be able to "hold things up" to the point where the larger proletarian majority would be politically incapacitated -- ?

[Ostrinski]

Under a consensus arrangement. My point was that it's more likely that the majority simply will just end up telling the eight assholes to fuck off and carry on with the operation.

[ckaihatsu]

Under a consensus arrangement. My point was that it's more likely that the majority simply will just end up telling the eight assholes to fuck off and carry on with the operation.


Thanks.

I guess I can't help but think that if the context *was* necessarily constrained -- say, a small manufacturing plant -- and so the *political* context was constrained as well -- say, 8 vs. 8 on whether to begin a production run tomorrow -- there would *still* be at least two variables / parameters at play: Either the proposed policy could be altered -- maybe to work out a different, more agreeable production schedule -- or the context could be enlarged, as finding out if the production run could be handled by another similar manufacturing plant, or perhaps kicked up to a larger relevant decision-making body.

[Sosa]

As a decision-making process, consensus decision-making aims to be:
Agreement Seeking: A consensus decision making process attempts to help everyone get what they need.
Collaborative: Participants contribute to a shared proposal and shape it into a decision that meets the concerns of all group members as much as possible.
Cooperative: Participants in an effective consensus process should strive to reach the best possible decision for the group and all of its members, rather than competing for personal preferences.
Egalitarian: All members of a consensus decision-making body should be afforded, as much as possible, equal input into the process. All members have the opportunity to present, and amend proposals.
Inclusive: As many stakeholders as possible should be involved in the consensus decision-making process.
Participatory: The consensus process should actively solicit the input and participation of all decision-makers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making

[Renegade Saint]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
Notice how it never says "democratic" or "effective".

[ckaihatsu]

With all due respect to any and all participants at any time ever, the very *event* of a defined-context group-decision-making process is *fundamentally* problematic because it effectively favors the here-and-now in the greater context of scale-and-time.

The very defining of a specific political 'event' cuts against a potentially larger and broader consciousness over more-generalized issues.

I realize I'm being "glass-half-empty" and "devil's advocate" here, but it just seems that *any* such 'event', no matter how insurrectionary, is at best a *barometer* for the state of the larger political atmosphere, and may be effectively *sacrificing* an expansive, growing class consciousness for the sake of temporal formalism and territory.

The "glass-half-full" side of this is to say that such an 'event' -- like Occupy Wall Street -- can *springboard* greater consciousness and actually serve to shift the overall societal political climate. But, as for any of us, it's incumbent on participants to *sacrifice* any limited material gains made through participation in favor *of springboarding* a broader and greater political consciousness. The danger is the temptation to *consolidate* power won, at the expense of the class struggle.

Also posted to:


Workplace democracy

http://www.revleft.com/vb/workplace-democracy-t169667/index.html?t=169667