|
Post by mjewell on Oct 26, 2011 18:19:25 GMT -7
Jim:
That's not a reason why consensus decision-making would do a better job of pragmatically delivering results to actual people than other democratic methods.
And I don't see the language in the document that other GA's are not "in solidarity" with NY unless they use a particular democratic method over another democratic method.
That's likely because it would not make any sense for one GA to attempt to impose consensus on another GA in advance. We can see that would not be a consensus decision involving the people supposedly part of the consensus. It would not even be a majority vote decision.
That's not an inclusive or democratic approach, and, more importantly, you have not explained how insisting that everyone follow it will remove constitutional protections from corporations, achieve universal health care, subsidize local food production, force corporations to stop shifting costs to the public, provide debt relief or pass campaign finance reform, etc.
There would not be a "99%" without these issues. We are failing if we do not "call the question" once in awhile, get out act together and fix these problems.
We (#om) should not get hung up on whether we are "in solidarity" or not. We should focus democratically on getting this economic work done that people need done.
Monte
|
|
|
Post by rebecca on Oct 26, 2011 20:33:43 GMT -7
I wish we could address the substance of people's concerns about how consensus is working here and now rather than just reiterate the abstract point that there are different models of consensus. The Occupy movement as a whole is struggling with this issue precisely because the stakes are getting higher. Police don't wait around while people engage in terribly long meetings to achieve pure consensus. I care deeply about democracy ... and at the same time, I care deeply about effective, widely partipatory action. My concerns about the GA were not abstract ... but very concrete and arising out of the GA meeting itself.
Rebecca
|
|
|
Post by maryellen on Oct 26, 2011 21:07:30 GMT -7
I'd like to urge our group to not be wed to any one way of doing things. If the consensus model is not working to serve our needs as a group, perhaps we should consider another way of achieving our goals.
I am partial to the idea of a super majority vote because I feel that our group is losing lots of wonderful members and not gaining potential members due to the long discussions and slow, very slow, processes involved at the GA and committee meetings. I have not liked how some things happen randomly WITHOUT discussion, while others have been over discussed to the point of endangering the health of the group. I also feel that the very fluid nature of the group is not conducive to the consensus process. For example, it is disheartening when you put time into something and then a new member or previously uninvolved member steps in and slows the process or stop the process toward the goal by voicing concerns.
I am very familiar with the consensus model. I lived in a community of thirty people in the 1980s that operated using the consensus model - we ran a soup kitchen, homeless shelter, medical clinic and legal aid center, and we did a lot of anti-nuclear protesting etc. It was a lot of work, and when the community consensus process started to break down over important issues the stress tore the community apart. That community still survives, but it has never quite recovered the vitality it once had, and I think that the consensus process had something to do with it - it is a process that can cause some people to feel alienated and I've seen fear become the dominating motivation in consensus groups rather than trust and respect. I'd hate to see that happen with OM.
I urge folks to continue the discussion about how we structure ourselves and make decisions. I do think there are many reasons why a super majority might solve some of our momentum problems. If adopting a modified consensus model using a super majority will help us do a better job alleviating oppression and suffering, let's go for it. I know a super majority model can be done with love, respect and concern for all, and it can be inclusive if we are attentive to that value through our discussions and our decision making. So far, the consensus model has been an obstacle for me - even though I fully understand how it works and why it is often a good approach.
|
|
|
Post by Jim C on Oct 26, 2011 21:40:21 GMT -7
Jim: That's not a reason why consensus decision-making would do a better job of pragmatically delivering results to actual people than other democratic methods. Well, you've not given any reasons for why Roberts would do a better job. IN my estimation, part of the reason why our country is in as bad of shape as it is is because of the predominance of decision making processes exactly like Roberts. Of course there's no membership requirements. This isn't a membership organization. And it isn't an Alliance or a Club, or a Cooperative or Coalition. It is a Solidarity movement. And for me, to be "in solidarity" means that I endorse the statements the the NYCGA have adopted. And you have not shown how Roberts would accomplish this, either. In fact, the failure of our political system to reach the goals you have listed could be seen as an indictment of Roberts, as many organizations working towards these goals utilize Roberts, and have not achieved success. We have already consensed to being in solidarity with #OWS. Are you questioning the decisions that we have made? Or want to reverse them? Maybe it is better to discuss what "in solidarity" means. I know what it means for me, and how it informs the work that I do here. I'm not going to soapbox on that here. I feel that in order to be a part of a global movement, and to work together, there needs to be shared principles, like those I quoted in an earlier comment on this thread. Otherwise there is nothing to bind the movement together, and it will begin to work at cross purposes. The "economic work" that you speak off will only come to fruition on a national scale if we work together--work in solidarity. The strength of this movement will come from commitment, shared principles, willingness to work together, and in our numbers. That to me is what solidarity is.
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Oct 26, 2011 22:21:19 GMT -7
I think a lot of people feel like their voices have never been heard, that they're totally powerless in their lives both at a personal level and with superstructure forces such as governments and corporations. I think they feel a grassroots movement such as OM this an opportunity to change some of that, and therefore a lot is riding on this experience for them. When people feel fiercely emotional and protective of something, like an an idea or belief they hold, they're sometimes unable to see a bigger picture or even listen to and hear someone else. Someone else who really is "on their side". Especially when that someone else is better able to articulate ideas or beliefs in a broader context. People with the articulation, acumen and skills may been seen as elitist, when really it's just a matter of education, time spent gaining knowledge and experience that makes them better able to communicate and understand "what needs to happen". In the context of a movement that's supposed to be leaderless or horizontal in nature, this can create total chaos and consensus may never be achieved, on anything. We need to be able to care about each and respect everyone as an emotional being, equal in inherent value but not necessarily knowledge or ability. The best solution I can think of at this time would be something that may sound simple, but only has the potential for success if people can truly overcome the propensity of their egos and emotions. That alone can take a lifetime, because it requires healing trauma and all sorts of physiological release. Most people don't want to even go there or are in denial that that "stuff" even matters or has a role to play in any of this......But getting back to my suggestion, for anyone who's interested, it is, in the absence of a truly enlightened leader (my vote would go for someone along the lines of a Zen Master like Thich Nhat Hanh ) I support/suggest a majority rule decision making scenario AS LONG AS people are capable of being able to roll back any such decisions when it's proven that whatever was decided upon isn't working. Much easier said than done; people get very attached to things, even when they aren't working, for reasons of ego, pride, emotionality and concepts like, "well we've gone too far to turn back now". It has to be a learning process in which people are actually willing to learn, especially from mistakes, even huge ones. Lastly, I want to say that if people have blocking concerns to decisions and chose to leave OM as a result, it's okay, it's okay if someone wants to walk away. I don't say this be callous, I say this because it's a personal choice and if people emotionally or fundamentally cannot reconcile, are upset by the process or things not going their way, it's okay for them to leave. Furthermore, their reasons for doing so may be completely enlightened, valid and correct. In which case, they are free to build a movement in the manner they see fit, and if successful, people will naturally gravitate there.
|
|
|
Post by zarvoc on Oct 26, 2011 23:15:11 GMT -7
I just wanted to add that according to information posted about "the process" that I've seen posted online, many GAs use something called "modified consensus", which is set at the 90% mark. I'm not sure if that's what we're using, and my apologies if I'm re-treading old ground. But I think this is a good thing, and my reasons are two-fold:
1. It will prevent any problems with saboteurs using the process to filibuster proposals. 2. It will allow progress on a problem that has two courses of action. For example, suppose there's a big Occupy rally Billings at a bank. Two options -- do we support it or don't we? In a scenario where a 90% majority want to support the rally, but a 10% minority don't want to support it, it is the minority which is effectively making the decision. Doesn't that seem inherently anti-democratic? If an action must be taken, a pure consensus model will favor the minority, however slim.
This isn't to imply that the view the minority takes is the wrong one -- just that the group ought to be able to choose between two courses of action in a fair way.
|
|
|
Post by zarvoc on Oct 26, 2011 23:28:07 GMT -7
Sorry, forgot to introduce myself. I'm Graham. I also took a look at an introduction to Robert's Rules, which is posted here, for people who aren't familiar with the idea: www.robertsrules.org/rulesintro.htmMy intuition here is to reform the consensus process -- which, so far, has been painfully working -- instead of starting from scratch with a new system whose problems aren't immediately apparent.
|
|
|
Post by debbyflorence on Oct 27, 2011 8:34:46 GMT -7
My concern with majority and supermajority is that the sad truth is , prejudice still exists , and has not disappeared from Occupy Missoula just because we all agree we want change. I have seen many, many instances where males interrupt and discredit females, i have seen a particular moment where a woman who was dressed as if maybe she was economically very poor, was asked by several at the GA "Is this going to be relevent?" before she took her turn to speak -- it was relevent, and no one apologised for the prejudice-based assumption. The same voices that get marginalized in our current system, are at risk of being marginalized in a straight majority.
Also, Monte you show concern that people are walking away because of the consensus model, but that actually does not explain the 55 people who came to the Library just last Saturday, nor does it include the positive feedback I heard about how that meeting went. I think your bias is painting a picture of failure that might not be blamed on consensus any more than it can be blamed on our current issues with disseminating info and communication. I know of people who are getting turned off because the consensus model is not being used properly--- and i know of people who have left because there are a few dominant voices that are lecturing the entire group about what we MUST do. So we cant make that assessment, that people are not coming because of the consensus model. Especially, because we have only begun to learn how to use it -- so there hasnt been an adequate demonstration of its efficacy in our group.
I was talking to Brooklyn yesterday, and she mentioned a hybrid consensus model that sounded really great because it addressed efficiency issues. It involved having most decisions be made at the work group level, and then having rotating representatives come meet at a logistics work group ( this would include people from each work group, not just the encampment how we have titled "logistics" thus far) --- The work groups , and then the reps would make all the pragmatic and time sensitive decisions, helping move things faster. The General Assembly would be reserved for proposals and resolutions that were all-encompassing, like how Oakland just proposed a General Strike. I like this model a lot, and I hope Brooklyn comes here to talk about it more.
|
|
|
Post by bike4ethel on Oct 27, 2011 9:01:45 GMT -7
Great discussion all around. In answer to Rebecca's concern that at Saturday's GA we took some action -- came to consensus -- without a lot of discussion. I think the fact we did was a great example that we ARE making progress! In other words, it was fairly clear we were all in agreement, so nobody brought up small concerns that would have taken up our limited time. We did have some sense of urgency to get some things done. I responded earlier in this discussion, but think my comment may have been left behind in another section (Declaration?) when this discussion was moved. The wonderful thing about consensus is that everybody is heard -- all concerns are heard before we move on. The horrible thing about consensus is that everybody is heard... and we never move on to action! For me it has been the frustration of trying to get a Declaration adopted. It seems every working group meeting ends with more new text inserted either because new people have joined or earlier members now contributed new text. We have twenty people on the Declaration e-mail list -- i.e. people who have attended or sent comments by e-mail. All this participation is wonderful, but in the meantime, OM desperately needs its own solid statement because lack of one keeps people from committing to it. I haven't heard a report on Wednesday's meeting, which I couldn't attend. I'm hopeful they all agreed on a final draft. I'm fairly confident -- and urge -- that if the Declaration working group recommends adoption, it will be adopted without any blocks! And if a block occurs? Have we now learned how to operate effectively with consensus? It can't be by falling under the tyranny of one or two! I do favor consensus, but MODIFIED, clearly understood, so that once concerns are raised there be an attempt, after some discussion (or sometimes even before) to find out if they are shared by many others, and if not, ask if we could move on and get a show of support for whatever the proposal is. It has to be more than a simple majority if there has been a blocking concern. I do think we all want the best for the group; however, I also think personal egos sometimes get in the way and that people really need to examine their reasons for their concerns in light of what's best for the cause. Consensus works only when there's unity of purpose. I think we have that, but, for example, if we attempt to make our purpose as drastic as some -- a minority, I think -- would like, i.e. "end capitalism", we'll not only frighten off most of the 99% we'd like to join us, but will lose some of the people who have joined and are now sitting on the sidelines waiting to see what direction we're going. I think the last draft of the Declaration I saw had a good unifying message that is inclusive not exclusive. And I might say, if it included an "end capitalism" statement, I would voice a blocking concern, expect to be heard, find out if anybody shared that concern, and unless 30% or more did, I'd have to say, "sorry, I really wanted to be part of this, but I can't now," and you'd say, "sorry to lose you" (or maybe you'd just say "bye-bye.")
|
|
|
Post by Luke on Oct 27, 2011 10:25:03 GMT -7
Just thought I'd mention that today I watched a Democracy Now clip about an Occupy Oakland Iraq war vet who got severely injured by the police (shot in the head w/ probably a tear gas canister). In the discussion, one of the guests briefly mentioned that they were using a "modified consensus," in which 90% of those attending were required to agree in order to make decisions. There wasn't any further elaboration, but I thought it might be something to think about-that people are in fact tailoring the process to make it work for their locale. Also, they are calling for a general strike in Oakland on Nov 2, which demonstrates their ability to call for larger actions, though there were dissenting voices even as it passed, since their model allows for this. www.democracynow.org/2011/10/27/iraq_war_vet_hospitalized_with_fractured
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Oct 27, 2011 11:20:44 GMT -7
My concern with majority and supermajority is that the sad truth is , prejudice still exists , and has not disappeared from Occupy Missoula just because we all agree we want change. I have seen many, many instances where males interrupt and discredit females, i have seen a particular moment where a woman who was dressed as if maybe she was economically very poor, was asked by several at the GA "Is this going to be relevent?" before she took her turn to speak -- it was relevent, and no one apologised for the prejudice-based assumption. The same voices that get marginalized in our current system, are at risk of being marginalized in a straight majority. One of my greatest concerns, no matter how good the model any movement works from, is the human factor. Like you mention here, prejudice is alive and well in all forms, so is greed, ignorance, pride and ego, deception and anger and so on. All these things make for messy situations, and when taken to their radical extremes, by people, who lead corporations, government and military forces (both national and private), these individual human manifestations become the very things the OWS/OM movements are reacting against. All of it is just manifestations of the human mind. Ideally individuals need to help themselves before they are able to contribute in truly beneficial way. Myself included. However in the absence of some miracle that will transform the collective human consciousness overnight, I think we're going to bumble along the best we can in light of all the challenges we face.
|
|
|
Post by troutsky on Oct 27, 2011 12:13:36 GMT -7
A radical I respect, Michael Albert, has just returned from Europe where he saw many of these same issues affecting "the Movement". His thoughts are worth reading here. www.zcommunications.org/occupy-to-self-manage-by-michael-albert . Basically he found people disillusioned in part by the tedious consensus process, in part by the indefinite nature of going to a square day after day after day without constructing a truly self-managing entity. Welcome to capitalism! Atomization, alienation and fetishizing efficiency are it's specialty. That and keeping us too busy and exhausted to participate in our own self-managed organizations. Still, we bravely try and I salute all who showed up. In my opinion consensus need not be a religion, ( I don't think voting is violent or Roberts Rules, used sparingly, would harm us) and I think we could come up with a method to differentiate which decisions could be voted on ( practical, pragmatic, functionary needs?) and which should go through consensus (theoretical disputes, messaging, tactics and strategies?) We can't be all things to all people, some will leave and that's OK. This doesn't mean ,however, that I agree with the "fierce urgency" to "deliver quick results". There are plenty of progressive organizations people can join if they want to legislate policy or come up with petitions or candidates to knock on doors for. I believe most people camped out on Wall Street are realizing that such reforms only legitimize a hollowed out , Kubuki theatre "democracy" which needs to be acknowledged as the trap for well meaning liberals that it is. Belief in the rational voter and the Electoral Process is what got us into this crisis ( and every other capitalist crisis since 1890) in the first place. The Anaconda Company showed us the one dollar = one vote concept clearly. My reason for being at the GA's instead of Forward Montana meetings is because I felt it was a place people were ready for a structural critique and weren't particularly worried about what the Missoulian wrote or what signs people carried. If you think all the liberals of Missoula will come pouring out once they see we only want a kinder, gentler capitalism, you haven't organized here before. They will support us, but they won't join us. They are busy getting Tester re-elected. Sorry to be a downer but even if all the occupiers across the country formed a voting bloc they would not get single-payer, they would not stop the Keystone pipeline, they will not reverse Citizens United. Wisconsin should have been a clue. What we can do is stretch the discourse and give the next generation of radicals hope by not being afraid to want what we desire. By broadening the scope of demands ( how about full employment, shorter work weeks AND pensions?) and using our imaginations. Yes people are suffering, here and around the globe, and we should work to understand the root causes. Fixing symptoms while leaving the disease is a snake biting it's tail. (edited to fix link to work)
|
|
|
Post by maryellen on Oct 27, 2011 14:51:35 GMT -7
Hi All. I think that lots of us here support the idea of a 90% majority vote. It seems like a really nice compromise, and it has been used by other Occupy groups, so there is some precedent. Let's consider this - it could really help us move forward, yet it will keep most of the positive and important aspects of consensus that most posts have commented upon.
|
|
|
Post by occupymissoula on Oct 28, 2011 16:46:57 GMT -7
THIS IS DEBBY FLORENCE< sorry i was logged in as occupymissoula still and didnt notice
I am really disappointed to see tactics like "bandwagon"-ing people ( " there are lots of us" ) and talking about statistics to sway people.. I think there might be lots of people who might consider supermajority--- but this forum is truly not an accurate sampling, and i would be heartily upset if we abandoned consensus before we even got used to it! I think there are tons of people not in this conversation that would either prefer a modified consensus model or would like to learn more how to use consensus before they make up their mind. I would like to strongly advocate that we continue practicing what we have. It is in our Declaration, and our declaration is beautiful . I agree with the reasoning in the declaration for why we are using consensus. I think 3 weeks of consensus being run by inexperienced folks is not a fair measure of its effectiveness.
Please study this model and begin to practice it more, we must take turns at facilitating ( we are not really doing that very much, but instead relying on the same 8 people to do everything whether its run this website or run a meeting) , must start understanding about power dynamics and so on.. its important to learn about these things before we can say they arent working. I yearn for us all to be empowered, healthy and happy. I think consensus is a beautiful model and can be modified to the group to be very effective.
It was clear from day one that many people do not have experience with using consensus. It is frustrating for all of us because of that lack of experience. I used to be co- owner of a worker-owned collectively run cafe, and we got shit done. Meetings were sometimes long and frustrating. But guess what? Have you ever been to a city council meeting? Have you ever been on a board or served on a committee? I have been in dozens and dozens of majority-rules meetings that go on forever and spin wheels on details. Please do not start pegging consensus for this very human tendency.
At the New Riverside Cafe in Minneapolis, from my recollection, we did not often have the "Block" like the occupy movements describe, we had a "Step out" --- A "step out" meant you were opposed to the proposal but you were stepping aside so that the majority of the group could pass the proposal. A proposal could still carry with 3 "step outs" i think -- i cant remember. But if too many people stepped out , the discussion had to continue. I will try to locate their manual so that we can use it as one example.
This may seem like semantics, but its very important to me that we do in fact pay attention to the minority voice. If someone seems like they are strong-arming the group by blocking, they can be confronted for using tactics to persuade for their own agenda. Also, if we change the strength and meaning of that block to be more of a "step out" of the process ( a person can always decide to come back with a different proposal at a later time if they need to). At the Riv, when someone stepped out, they got a chance to speak to their step out. So they didnt stop the process, and their voice got heard.
i think the supermajority you speak of does not know how to use consensus, could not make an educated decision, and could therefore easily be swayed toward what is comfortable and normal to them, which is "majority rules." Right now i see a lot of tactics being used not to have an open discussion about how to apply several principles together, but tactics that are designed to persuade people and act like this is a competition. When i hear statements like " a lot of us want..." it sounds like a marketing tactic. This is a red flag to me, because if we are building community we need to be collaborating, not competing.
Brooklyn posted a link to the modified consensus model she told me about, in this forum. Please read about it. I think we could use something like a supermajority in some situations but I would like to see that modified to something like "Stepping out" and a quorum model of some kind.
|
|
|
Post by occupymissoula on Oct 28, 2011 16:59:25 GMT -7
|
|