Consensus

[The Feral Underclass]

At the G8 "Eco-Village" the system of consensus was adopted to arrive at decisions. I think consensus is a great way to create decisions on things. Of course it is not always practical, but for large groups within a set space it works very well, or has the potential to work well. It unifies a group of people and encourages debate, which as Marx said "...is progress" and allows everyone to arrive at a decision they are all happy about.

What are peoples thoughts?

[NB: At the G8 we had a working group of facilitators who were able to manipulate the proceedings of consensus for their own pacifist agendas. This is besides the point of the system working and is something to be aware of when using it.]

[cph_shawarma]

All forms of mediations, be it democracy (to which consensus belongs), dictatorship etc. are hinders in class struggle and to be avoided if its possible, but avoiding it isn't always possible and then one has to compromise, otherwise un-mediated activity is the freest form, as it resembles informal class struggle. For critique of democracy see: http://www.riff-raff.se/en/7/undemocracy.php

[redstar2000]

I was in an anti-war group in the early 60s that used "consensus" to make decisions and I didn't like it all.

There was this one "alpha-male" who would drag out meetings for as long as it took to get people to agree to what he wanted out of sheer exhaustion.

I found it especially infuriating in situations where it was clear that a majority supported my views (:P) in the early stages of a meeting...only to see my majority "melting away" from fatigue and anxiety to make "some decision", "any decision" so that people could go home and get some sleep before they had to go to work the next morning.

It's likely that consensus might work in a group that's pretty much all "on the same page" anyway. But in groups where there's political struggle taking place internally, it's just a disaster.

And I think in most groups there is or should be internal political struggle...that should be resolved by voting for what the majority thinks are the best ideas.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Hegemonicretribution]

Filibustering is great when you use it to your advantage though. The only thing is that it is a pain when it is aginst you.

I think because of what RS2000 said, that consensus is often a glorified attempt at voting, longer and drawn out.

[Paradox]

I don't have any experience with consensus decision making, so I can't say whether or not it is effective in practice, but it does sound pretty good in theory.

In a case such as redstar testified to, those members of the discussion who had already decided to support a certain action or solution could withdraw from the person who is trying to wear them out and win them to his/her side. From what I've read, in a situation where a proposal has the support of the majority, members who disagree have a few options:

1. Non-support. They disagree with the action, but can live with it.

2. Blocking. They object and can't allow the proposal to go through, in which case a discussion is started to try and accomodate the disagreeing members' positions into the proposal.

3. Withdrawl. The disagreeing members no longer support the group and its decisions and so they withdraw from the group.

Now, if the number of members in disagreement is very small, or just one, and they are blocking a proposal, those in support of the proposal can choose to withdrawl themselves from the small group in disagreement.

Again, it sounds good to me in theory, but whether it'll be effective in action, I don't know.

[anomaly]

Don't the zapatistas use consensus to arrive at decisions (usually)? I read that somewhere. Any way, I think consensus is useful for perhaps smaller groups. If consensus is used, I think time limits on discussion and decisions must be used (for example, set aside a week to reach a decision, and then perhaps an hour or two each day of that week for the meeting to reach decisions). Time limits will allow situations like Redstar described to be avoided. The very obvious flaw with consensus is that it takes a long time to reach a decision. In situations where time is precious, a 2/3 majority rules style democracy would probably do well.

"All forms of mediations, be it democracy (to which consensus belongs), dictatorship etc. are hinders in class struggle and to be avoided if its possible, but avoiding it isn't always possible and then one has to compromise, otherwise un-mediated activity is the freest form, as it resembles informal class struggle".
-Shawarma, what sort of 'un-mediated' activity would be a suitable replacement for democracy in decision making? It seems to me that such a system would result in anarchy, with everyone making their own rules and such. Or is it with larger decisions that you say 'compromises' should be used?

[Entrails Konfetti]

Whats a good source in learning about the procedures on consensus ?

[Pawn Power]

You could start with the info on wiki if you like
consensus decision making (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making)

[Clarksist]

Consensus seems like a maddening endeavor. Because it comes down to the position with the members with the most endurance. Not the correct, or popular decision.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 07:28 AM
Consensus seems like a maddening endeavor. Because it comes down to the position with the members with the most endurance. Not the correct, or popular decision.
Clarksist,what would you consider as an alternative to electoral democracy ?

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 02:46 PM
All forms of mediations, be it democracy (to which consensus belongs), dictatorship etc. are hinders in class struggle and to be avoided if its possible, but avoiding it isn't always possible and then one has to compromise, otherwise un-mediated activity is the freest form, as it resembles informal class struggle. For critique of democracy see: http://www.riff-raff.se/en/7/undemocracy.php
I felt that article was inconclusive. I feel a critque must follow with an alternative.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 02:28 AM
Consensus seems like a maddening endeavor. Because it comes down to the position with the members with the most endurance. Not the correct, or popular decision.
That's why time limits on speaking and on the decision-making meeting itself should be set. It shouldn't just be 'okay, we're here until a decision is reached'.

[joshdavies]

The problems I have with consensus are that it is undemocratic and exclusive.

It is undemocratic becaus it puts every single individual's interest above the interests of the majority. If someone's feeling a bit grumpy they can (and indeed do at many meetings I've been to) block everything. In these circumstances what is wanted and what is necessary is not the main priority, the priority is making everyone completely happy with the decision. Which in effect amounts to a kind of lowest common denominator decision making.

Some people will try and refute this idea with arguments about how the Dissent eco-village at the G8 made some very radical decisions about what it did. This is true. But as someone has already pointed out, consensus is only workable in small groups or in groups which all generally think the same. This makes it an exclusive method and one which is only feasable amongst circles of anarchists- it even suits their method perfectly: why bother going through the trouble of making a political argument with tyhe mass of workers when they might not be radical enough for you? And why risk committing to any procedure which might impeach on your individualism?

It is these two anarchist characteristics of the whole process - fear of the masses and fear of being told what to do - which are two of the best examples of why not to be an anarchist and why not to use consensus.

[anomaly]

The problems you illustrate are why consensus should be used only in major decisions. Issues like making war, banishing members, and some major judicial decisions (execution) should require consensus. For most decisions, consensus is not a good idea, but for some it is quite applicable.

I don't quite understand how anarchists are 'afraid of the masses'?

[The Feral Underclass]

The idea that consensus is only useful in small groups is, in my experience not true.

In a post revolutionary society communities can elect a spokesperson to represent them at a larger meeting. This means that if the communities arrive at consensus before the meeting then the larger meeting only has to find consensus among the spokespersons that can feed information to and receive information from their communities.


Originally posted by joshdavies
The problems I have with consensus are that it is undemocratic and exclusive

Majority decisions will ultimately create splits and that invariably leads to conflict. Allowing large decisions to be discussed over and over again allows people to come to a conclusions, which they feel positive about. This process also allows people to get involved.

Sometimes people maybe grumpy, but I think we can get to a point in human history where we trust people to respect certain processes.

[anomaly]

TAT, wouldn't you agree that for minor decisions, strictly in the interest of time, consensus is not needed?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 05:45 AM
TAT, wouldn't you agree that for minor decisions, strictly in the interest of time, consensus is not needed?
I think that when minor decisions need to be made they would be made within a small working group, rather than a large group so finding some form of consensus wouldn't be that time consuming.

[joshdavies]

I don't quite understand how anarchists are 'afraid of the masses'? Because they reject (by and large) trying to win them to revolution through joint action with non revolutionary forces (the united front) in favour of doing their own radical actions in order to inspire people (propaganda by the deed and all that) and try to create their ideal society and structures within capitalist society.... That's another topic though!


Majority decisions will ultimately create splits and that invariably leads to conflict ...and consensus leaves everyone feeling tired (after hours of meetings) and no one getting what they want. I think that there is conflict both within voting and consensus decision making - there is bound to be. The difference is that in voting the conflict is open and honest (at least more so than in consensus) and the will of the majority isn't dragged back by people who are either in disagreement, stoubborn or who have no interest in seeing any decision made.


. Allowing large decisions to be discussed over and over again allows people to come to a conclusions, which they feel positive about. I wouldn't feel very positive after hours and hours of semantics being ironed out until everyone's happy with the wording of something. I also wouldn't feel positive if time that could be spent on practical preparation of something was taken up defining its general outlines.

Of course under voting you can in theory get 49% of people who are unhappy with a decision (this only happens when there's a deadlock, and a system of proposing and voting on amendments can make a deadlock much less likely) but at least a decision is made which can be tested in the course of struggle. Under consensus you get a watered down decision which doesn't have the totality of any one perspective in it (or is a mish-mash of all perspectives) and so its a little unaccountable.

I think consensus decision making is pretty egotistical aqnd untrusting: at the heart of it is the idea that the will of the individual is more important and more correct than the will of the majority. Any method which has that at its basis is a pretty dangerous one to use.

[apathy maybe]

I agree with what Paradox said, except I do have some experience.

Originally posted by Wikipedia
However, there is evidence that unanimous decisions may be a sign of coercion, fear, undue persuasive power or eloquence, inability to comprehend alternatives, or plain impatience with the process of debate.
In my experience there is often one person (often me) who continues to vocally disagree with what is being proposed. Often there are other members of the group who can't be bothered arguing anymore, but still disagree. The problem is that coercion (of a social type rather then physical) can be used to persuade that one person to drop opposition, "come on, everyone else agrees but you", which sort of negates the point of consensus. If a person can't be bothered arguing anymore, but disagrees with the position, then why use consensus? Why not just go with a 2/3 majority rules?

Of course, often if I am in a group and the group decides something that I disagree with (often by "consensus") I still reserve the right to go and do the opposite (though will not try and block the groups decision). I am a free individual, I will do what I think is the correct thing to do.

[joshdavies]

Do any of the people in favour of consensus think that in a revolutionary situation you could smash the state through organising by consensus?

Could you decide on how an economy functioned by consensus?

Do you think that having a revolution is contrary to the idea of consensus seen as a revolution is one class (the working class, who are the majority) with a set of interests imposing their will (getting rid of private property and exploitation) on the whole of society including those whose interests are against it (the people who make millions by exploiting workers)?