My decision to withdraw from the OWSNC process is because I personally find the consensus process so flawed that I do not wish to invest my scarce time into it. What I see is the constant diminishing of diversity of opinion in each successive generation, as contrarian thinkers are pressured into silence -- often just for the sake of "getting everyone home at a reasonable hour". The very structure of consensus decision-making does not have the capacity to handle complexity of thought (in my ever so humble and arrogant opinion). It is a simple math problem. 5 people, only with great difficulty, struggle pick a movie by consensus -- and usually 2 of them (or sometimes even the majority of 3 or 4) go to a movie they really didn't want to see just to be with the group. Fine for picking a movie, but a dangerous way to run a nation and I believe a formula for authoritarianism under the banner of representing the will of the people.
I think consensus might work in a case like your nuclear protest, a single issue where everyone is already in consensus on the strategy (stop this plant from coming online) and where you are simply discussing tactics. But, I do not think it would ever be able to deal with the big question of whether any nuclear power is acceptable in a world faced with global warming and oil supplies that devastate the environment and/or require violence to secure. I would like to think that I could be convinced that, even in that case, nuclear power is unacceptable, however without hearing the powerful arguments against oil sands or the blood spilled to prop up brutal dictators, I don't know where I would stand on the issue -- and I don't think a consensus process would ever enlighten me.
I find the Confederalist model, as practiced by the first Americans for almost 1,000 years, and as engineered by Deganawida founder of the League of Peace and Power of the Haudenosaunee in August 31st, 1142 AD, as the much more dynamic organizational structure. When I have more time I will elaborate on how the Confederalist decision-making modeI works for possible consideration by the group. In a nutshell it is about nested councils of Hoyane (great minds) who get their authority by consent (public servant was Deganawida's idea and definitely did not come from Rome or Greece) and they can be removed by consent as well, also checks and balances (another idea invented by Deganawida), and separation of powers (yes, another brilliant idea from Deganawida). A confederation is an alliance of autonomous entities. So, the Haudenosaunee League of Peace and Power was a league of nations (yes, the United Nations, formally the League of Nations, is another wonderful idea of Deganawida) where each Nation does not surrender their individual autonomy but instead enters into voluntary alliance. We tried it with the Articles of Confederation, but because we only took parts of Deganawida's engineering we were not able to get the coordination part to work. So, at the urging of Hamilton and Madison in the Federalist Papers, we abandoned the dream of a Confederation for the practicality of a Federalist system and have been paying the price even since.
And, in case you are wondering, the Southern States called themselves a Confederation as a "Fuck You!" to the Federalists however they never functioned as a Confederation, adopted a Federalist system, and quickly moved to an Authoritarian system by vesting supreme authority into Jefferson Davis and ultimately Robert E. Lee.
I personally support the goal of the OWSNC group and think there are a ton of interesting folks with the right focus on the problems and you have my best wishes for your success. However, I will keep my eye out for the fascism of forced consensus and will share my analysis with you if I see things headed in that direction. I hope to be proven shortsighted and ill-informed.
Michael
On 11/9/2011 9:17 PM, Gary wrote:
Michael,
I appreciated your words at one of the OWSNC general assemblies I attended a few weeks back. It seemed then that you were thoughtful and had interesting ideas - we all need new thinking in these times. Subsequently, I noticed your emails on the mailing list and again appreciated someone taking the time to suggest potential solutions, particularly on the local level.
Now, having just read your latest email I feel a sadness about whatever has personally affected you. The Detroit experience obviously felt very unfair to you. You didn't explain, however, the recent experience that triggered your email. Was it something that happened at the 'general assembly' of 11/6/2011? I didn't attend. So, I am in the dark about anything that transpired at that gathering.
In any case, I am saddened by your email and thank you for your critique of potential OWS directions. I personally make no judgement at present about OWS and the forms of 'direct democracy' or consensus that inform its process. I do know that years back, when I protested a nuclear power plant coming on line that I felt was demonstrably unsafe by choosing to be arrested, that the structure of affinity groups and consensus worked well for me and gave me a sense of safety and solidarity. That's my only bias. Otherwise, I am personally open to the good or bad of 'direct democracy' as it seems to be unfolding locally. As you say, there are well-intentioned people involved locally and I suspect that many are inspired by the possibility of something new, something that offers hope for ways out of our currently destructive economy and social contract.
I also feel that communities need a diversity of people who engage in dialogue in ways that challenge each other and lead to mutual transformations of viewpoint at levels of significance higher than any individual view. Your views have a place in this kind of dialogue. So, whatever happened, thanks for sharing.
Be well,
GaryGrass Valley
On Nov 9, 2011, at 8:32 AM, Michael Rogers wrote:
I have thought deeply about where the tears I shed last night came from.
No comments:
Post a Comment