Consensus decision making is idiotic shite for people who live in some ridiculous fantasy world where it's possible for everybody to agree all the time. Fuck consensus.
Turning The Tide - nonviolence training, 2009
- Thread starter han
- Start date
Bakunin
I am Noodle's bitch.
Cobblers, IMHO.
It may take longer to thrash out an arrangement that everybody can agree on, and that's when a consensus can be found, but if I'm planning actions and discussing policy as I was at Climate Camp this year then I'd rather take the extra time and thrash out an agreement that everybody can live with than simply leave a faction of people pissed off and unenthusiastic at being pressganged into a plan they don't think they can live with.
I can get as bored in meetings as the next man, and I don't especially like being stuck in them anyway so it can be a bit of a trial sometimes, but I'd take consensus over a straight vote if a consensus can be achieved and it usually can if people are prepared to work at it.
I don't particularly fancy having to actively push people into an action when, if a consensus can be reached, everybody involved can have an equal voice and a final arrangement that everybody can at least live with.
It's fine to try to reach a proposal everybody is happy with before voting, but that isn't always possible, it's just a fact of life. There isn't always a compromise that everybody is going to be happy with, sometimes people just fundamentally disagree. When that happens it's better to at least end up with a solution the majority of people are happy with. If you feel like you absolutley can't go along with a decision about strategy, then just don't take part, that's what I do.
LSCG (the group who run Next to Nowhere) uses consensus and I absolutely fucking hate it. I've sat there in meetings while one nobhead just repeatedly blocked proposals everybody else was happy with that many times that it's not even funny anymore. Half the time it just ends up being a de facto majority vote where the minority just shuts up and pretends they agree so that the meeting can move on.
LSCG (the group who run Next to Nowhere) uses consensus and I absolutely fucking hate it. I've sat there in meetings while one nobhead just repeatedly blocked proposals everybody else was happy with that many times that it's not even funny anymore. Half the time it just ends up being a de facto majority vote where the minority just shuts up and pretends they agree so that the meeting can move on.
Taxamo Welf
kebagels pls
consensus is an anti-democratic system based on very, very small groups which have already come together on the basis of about 90% agreement. If you are an animal rights group, you already agree on the major issues, so your 'consensus' decisions are actually about the very small choice of what AR lunacy to engage in. Try using the consensus model in a discussion with slaughterhouse workers for an idea of why majoritarian democracy would be a better model.
I say this as someone who has made consensus decision about things like walking into gunfire or not by the way, i've not just had a boring meeting experience at my local squatted shit hole.
I find consensus empowers the divide between the holy activist and the sordid normal. The holy activist is super duper democratic cos of consensus, and the Kevin McNormalperson is excluded and therefore an authoritarian.
I say this as someone who has made consensus decision about things like walking into gunfire or not by the way, i've not just had a boring meeting experience at my local squatted shit hole.
I find consensus empowers the divide between the holy activist and the sordid normal. The holy activist is super duper democratic cos of consensus, and the Kevin McNormalperson is excluded and therefore an authoritarian.
Taxamo Welf
kebagels pls
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeexactly.
Taxamo Welf
kebagels pls
Politics is not for you my son.
Strange choice of username by the way; are you sure you didn't mean to call yourself Tolstoy?
Bakunin
I am Noodle's bitch.
I side with consensus over majority voting whenever it's possible for a consensus to be reached. I make no bones about that or apologies for it. There's nothing 'anti democratic' about at least making every effort to hear all points of view and come to decision that people can agree on if it's possible to do so, quite the reverse.
Were you at the Climate Camp this year? I was, and while consensus decision making may not always be the quickest way to resolve an issue, it's still a better way than shoehorning people into things they either aren't ready for or simply don't want to do.
It seemed to work pretty well at Climate Camp, by the way, but if you weren't there then you wouldn't have seen it working, nor would you really be in a position to slag off the Climate Camp and the people involved in it.
Don't patronise me, young man. I've been in the activist game for getting on for eight years now and I know how it works. If I didn't believe in the consensus way of doing things, frustrating and time consuming though it can sometimes be, I wouldn't have stuck with it all this time.
Taxamo Welf
kebagels pls
lolzors 
brb
brb
cantsin
Well-Known Member
I'm not an an glass up bottomist, but I can see why Quakers could get right on people's nerves
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
exactly.
han
love is the answer
Well, some interesting responses!
Anyway - the whole point of the course is to discuss the merits of nonviolence and peaceful protest.
I first got to know about the Quakers through direct action and demos in the '90s, and now I work with them I know them to be, on the whole, a fantastic bunch of people. What other religious group's motto is 'Thou Shalt Decide For Thyself' ? ! What other religious group says you can believe what you like, and advertises itself for the curious in the Pink Paper? Although they're inspired by Christian writings I find the Quaker way of doing things more similar to Buddhism than anything else.
And nonviolence is an essential part of this. People may disagree with it, but there's no denying that nonviolence has far more power than violence when it comes to making a point. Remember the bloke that walked in front of the tanks in Tianamen Square.....
Anyway - the whole point of the course is to discuss the merits of nonviolence and peaceful protest.
I first got to know about the Quakers through direct action and demos in the '90s, and now I work with them I know them to be, on the whole, a fantastic bunch of people. What other religious group's motto is 'Thou Shalt Decide For Thyself' ? ! What other religious group says you can believe what you like, and advertises itself for the curious in the Pink Paper? Although they're inspired by Christian writings I find the Quaker way of doing things more similar to Buddhism than anything else.
And nonviolence is an essential part of this. People may disagree with it, but there's no denying that nonviolence has far more power than violence when it comes to making a point. Remember the bloke that walked in front of the tanks in Tianamen Square.....
which should be actively defended.
as my understanding & experience of Quakerism has demonstrated to me the Society of Friends will afford support equally to those who choose other methods if it affords the same conclusion of their own...a right of freedom to express individual witness, as opposed to no rights of freedom to express anything of individuality.
violence and non-violence have the want for the same outcome...a change for the better...both NOW are needed to be equally supportive of each other. IMO.
eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends'_Ambulance_Unit
october_lost
It's not hip any more...
han
love is the answer
Yes, peaceful protest didn't work this time. Of course, there are no guarantees. But it still the only way, really.
What else do you suggest.....civil war? Now what would that achieve?
In Bloom said:
That's helpful.
soulman said:
So is that. Marvellous! How lovely it must be to have such a positive outlook on life.
I'm sure you're talking about a minority, here, aren't you? The vast majority of Quakers I've met have been extremely genuine, peaceful and open people.
So, the 'violent' people you've met have all been really lovely then, have they?
It really pains me that I have to explain this, but the "not a pacifist" is not the same thing as "violent".So is that. Marvellous! How lovely it must be to have such a positive outlook on life.
I'm sure you're talking about a minority, here, aren't you? The vast majority of Quakers I've met have been extremely genuine, peaceful and open people.
So, the 'violent' people you've met have all been really lovely then, have they?
I'm of the opinion that violence gets results, sometimes, it doesn't follow from this that I'm a violent person, I don't go around trying to solve all of my problems with violence.
So is that. Marvellous! How lovely it must be to have such a positive outlook on life.
I'm sure you're talking about a minority, here, aren't you? The vast majority of Quakers I've met have been extremely genuine, peaceful and open people.
So, the 'violent' people you've met have all been really lovely then, have they?
I made it clear who I'm talking about when I said those pacifists I've tried to have a discussion with. Did I also mention they try to twist words to make themselves seem clever.
So non-violence doesn't work, but still it's the only way. Think about that.
I think non-violent protest is fine as a tactic, alongside other tactics like physically defending yourself from state violence. The problem is when some people begin to worship non-violence and try to turn it in to a lifestyle. It's no more viable as a lifestyle than some imaginary band of 'violent people'. It's a tactic, amongst others, and should be seen as that.
october_lost
It's not hip any more...
What he said, proposing non-violence by insinuating were proposing outright violence is dumb. As Ive already said non-violence is an arguement for those who usually dont feel the brunt of the states violence so their safe to push their soft unworkable liberal stratergies on a movement.
A well argued case against non-violence has been written by Peter Gelderloos
http://www.akpress.org/2005/items/hownonviolenceprotectsthestate
I especially liked his point that democracy is an implied threat of violence (we won the vote == there's more of us than there are of you).
http://www.akpress.org/2005/items/hownonviolenceprotectsthestate
I especially liked his point that democracy is an implied threat of violence (we won the vote == there's more of us than there are of you).
Taxamo Welf
kebagels pls
that would be proper funny. Do it, put it on youtube.
Taxamo Welf
kebagels pls
If that's his point, i'm not a fan. Whislt majoritarian democracy obviously has some implied coercion, i think the point to be made about 'non violence' in a capitalist state is how much sodding violence there is in the capitalist state. Poverty, crime, the police force and justice system, prison, the army, war. All key parts.
Democracy in its proper sense is not violence, its making a group decision. THEIR "democracy" is violence because it is done within a strict framework which is already and eternally violent - the capitalist state.
Now, i'm happy to live under a genuine democracy. I think Mssr Gelderloos is possibly not and is a bit of a silly-billy. I've had a flick of his book and his entire frame of reference seemed to be 'protest' and protest movements.
I don't remember reading anything like what Mr Smim suggests in Gelderloos' book. It's worth a read, if only for the bits where he addresses the myth of an entirely non-violent civil rights movement in America. He does talk a lot of bollocks as well, mind.
Taxamo Welf
kebagels pls
cheers IB.
Taxamo Welf
kebagels pls
Shevek! Don't egoise!
Similar threads
