What do we do when consensus fails? Patreon: / anark Tip: cash.app/$Apeiro Twitter: / anarkyoutube Mastodon: kolektiva.soci... Anarchist Library: theanarchistli...
This was a fun one. I’ve been reading Seeing Like a State, so it’s sloshing in my brain with the ideas from that. I think one of the things worth highlighting is how complicated dispute resolution is in even our present society. Even to the extent the answer is “the state takes care of it,” the full details are either really complicated or forced into legibility by coercive structures. In other words, any sufficiently just society will have complex mechanisms of dispute resolution, and any society with simple ones is coercive by definition-it has to force simplicity on to society, usually with violence, to make it simple enough to have simple dispute resolution mechanisms. We can take this in the other direction too-a more free society will have more complicated dispute resolution mechanisms, ones that won’t stomp on the complexities of the society itself. Complexity is the goal, even if it looks less legible from a helicopter view of the society.
Love it. Consensus is a process of creating proposals by soliciting and incorporating feedback from the anyone (and everyone) in the group, especially from those who have concerns with the given proposal.
@@mvans130Agreed although I would add… We could also just default to direct democracy / majoritarian voting like the anarchists of the past used. Consensus isn’t really reliable, it should be aimed for, but when a decision needs to be made direct decision making via a vote should be done instead.
@@mvans130 “If a railroad, for instance, were under consideration, there would be a thousand questions as to the line of the road, the grade, the material, the type of the engines, the location of the stations, etc., etc., and opinions on all these subjects would change from day to day, but if we wish to finish the railroad we certainly cannot go on changing everything from day to day, and if it is impossible to exactly suit everybody, it is certainly better to suit the greatest possible number; always, of course, with the understanding that the minority has all possible opportunity to advocate its ideas, to afford them all possible facilities and materials to experiment, to demonstrate, and to try to become a majority” - Errico Malatesta
@@thelonewanderer4084 You bring up an important point. The size of the affected group will determine the most practical methods for soliciting and incorporating proposals and feedback in the consensus process. Voting is a form of feedback and is not contradictory to my comment nor consensus as I’ve defined it. For large groups, it’s impractical to address and ameliorate every single concerned person, although open comment periods are crucially important, and one or more voting period would be useful.
I'm glad you brought up the Federalist principle. Zoe Baker in her most recent book ("Means and Ends") mentioned that in the early days of the modern anarchist movement, there were various names for passed around as to what to call ourselves ("anarchism" wasn't the most popular initially), but one that I'm partial to was the calling themselves "federalists", because it tried to capture what political/economic system they understood that anarchists would need and live by. I think that "participatory economics/politics" is a more modern sounding term than federalism, but that iteration mean much the same in my opinion. Thank you for posting this video, because I think many non-anarchists could benefit from learning about these alternative means of organisation.
The first question everyone asks when first hearing about consensus (or consent) based decision making is “what do you do when people disagree.” They are used to having a central authority dictating rules, arbitrating disagreements, and enforcing everything with violent, financial, and/ or or social force. Most people worry that without coercion, there is no way to support decisions or to prevent assholes from doing harm. It’s true that the answer is complex. But IMO the best education is grassroots experience with dynamic governance. Failing that, very specific stories showing how various problems can be dealt with by a governing body is extremely helpful. One they have enough examples, people are able to understand the basic principles and can then extrapolate quite a bit.
Hey, sorry for pinging you on a 3-month-old comment, but this really rings true to me. In order to get real understanding of any complex topic, you almost always need some kind of direct experience to drive it home. And like you said, barring that direct, personal experience, the next best thing is stories of people getting that direct experience. Do you know of any such examples? Rojava comes to mind, but I don't know of any tidy narratives that could be shared about it. This is maybe the core difficulty of communicating about this. Most folks expect a simple answer, but it's a complex subject.
It is not a question of lack of experience but of an expectation of its application in reality. The consensus decision mechanism must provide for cases where it is impossible to make a decision such as sabotage or an ideological split. It must be designed to survive and perpetuate in an extremely competitive political environment.
I really love watching your videos, you were the one who confronted my ML ideology, I really wanted to go back to be clueless Leninist and still support the state but I understood that it's just how it is and we need to get rid of all opresors. I'm not sure which video that was but it was the first State is counter revolutionary and most of Anark abrigged. Thank you a lot!🏴
Why do people think MLs do not share the same critic of Anarchists against the state? We are literally the same. Lenin literally was for the dissolution of the state when "ready", but look how that turned out after his death. I love Anarchists but being anti-ML is bleh. Anarchists in the past like in Spain all gave up on their theory in practice, just like MLs if we're talking about hierarchy. There was hierarchy, conscription, and whatever Anarchists were criticizing MLs for in Anarchist attempts. Leftist unity for the win fellas. We're all for the same objective. All MLs I've spoken to recently are very open to Anarchist criticisms, and do take them well. They all acknowledge the failed "second revolutions" of socialist states. It's not like we're still in the USSR. We're all critical of the past. We don't want another failed revolution.
I saw someone else in the comments say they don’t agree that basic needs like food and water should be withheld from those that dissociate from the global federation, and while it’s true that basic needs should be considered human rights, I think that in a healthy society, the societal protection of your rights should be dependent on you respecting the rights of others. It’s the idea that tolerance is a social contract, not a moral duty. If a group holds dominating, oppressive beliefs, they have broken the tolerance contract and are therefore not entitled to the benefits of society.
I suspect that in a world that upholds unity in human needs, mutual aid, free and open commons, cooperation, compassion, sharing, and complete freedom within complete solidarity as ideals disputes, arguments, and disagreements would be far less common.
This is why the right of emigration is so important. You can have irreconcilable differences where no-one is clearly in the right or wrong, and people need to have the right to find a community in which they can live in peace. I would make that one of the universal fundamental rights.
Absolutely. We are unable to see this way because we are not able to freely move to a new community because of financial constraints and the fear of leaving our families which is a flawed hierarchy in itself - a spook if you will
Agreed, but redundant since it is inherent to the lack of coercion and hierachy. Borders are inherently about national property ideas, which are ideas that don't exist in anarchy. Doesn't mean we can't write it down as a fundamental right, nothing wrong with redundancy in my opinion.
just read the conquest of bread and it's something kropotkin thinks it's not like a law that either pass or not, it should be more like a contract where a proposal is made and it can be discussed, reworked and improved and only then be agreed upon.
20:50 The Makhnovists proved your point. Those who went out and took part in pogroms were dealt with in similar fashion (Makhno himself executed a member who took part in one. The Makhnovists also went on to arm Jewish communities and help them defend themselves from these antisemitic groups)
Def prefer raising awareness to reach consensus before disassociation but, since awareness is not always the issue, I agree that disassociation must be on the table at all levels. Love these videos, Anark!
Awesome video! The question that arises, is whether there will be specific strategies that have been developed through the praxis in assemblies that can be adapted according to the complexity of the context. And as you said, since it is a complex problem, it requires multiple responses and adaptation as new problems or concerns emerge. But knowing how other people have given specific responses to specific problems that may well serve others for self-organization also nourishes action, so it would be great if you could address this topic in your next videos. Thank you for this awsome channel, much appreciated!
i had a great friendly argument/ intellectual debate with my brother about this topic. He was taking the skeptical stance and gave the example of abortion, and also "pedophiliia" as examples of disagreements thay would be possibly completely destructive to a wide based consensus anarchist society. I would be interested to hear your thoughts about how disagreements such as these, especially abortion as clearly there would be much larger groups of people that disagree about what is right for that specific issue. Another point he somewhat stumped me on is the question of those who believe anarchism is not possible or not a good way to structure society (currently probably the majority of humans, if asked at face value today) he argued that it would be near impossible to implement anarchism given this condition- would also love to hear your thought on that. He stated that anarchists love to ignore the hardest and therefore most important points of disagreement that are widespread amongst humans, and instead just theorize about cases that would work out well, or at least that would not compromise, or at least significantly disrupt or inhibit the whole project of anarchism as a functional system / a realistic system to believe os possible.
Are you saying that anarchism's rejection of pedophiles makes anarchism look bad? That makes no sense. Let's tackle the abortion example instead. Some people will provide abortions. Some people will make use of these, some won't. I don't see a problem here. But OK, let's pretend it is a divisive issue. Then what current society would do is start a war. What anarchist society would do is disassociate and form two groups based on this issue, but they will work together on other issues. You're not going to refuse food for your starving baby from a farmer just because you know they had or hadn't had an abortion, would you? I wouldn't, baby gets fed. First rule of parenting. OK, so on the level of food you're going to work together. and what about sewage? You can choose to have two sewage systems, but a more sensible approach would be to cooperate on the level of sewage too. And so on for all subjects. Anarchism leaves lots of room for disagreement (more than any state solution, I would argue). Nobody is going to force anything on you and you can always walk away. The method for getting anarchism started solves your problem of people not believing it works. Just get started, create horizontal relationships. Share, care, help, swap, support, laugh together, set up a neighbourhood bookshelf. Do fun stuff that makes life better without involving hierarchy. That is how you implement anarchism: By applying the principles in daily life, and expanding the parts of life you implement it in. Start small, and take time to relax.
The green party of California uses a consensus model that I kind of like. They have everybody debate the topic others definitely a process to hear outstanding concerns the individuals might have that do not agree with the initial proposal. They also make full use of the friendly amendments aspects of it including temp checks and consensus on acceptance of said proposal. I really appreciate the use of outstanding concern as a way to debate differing opinions and help people understand why there may be descent on the topic. We do if no consensus can be framed within a reasonable amount of time specially on more time sensitive topics we will eventually call for a vote if no one stands aside on their concerns. That vote is typically a two-thirds majority to pass and if not a goes back into the consensus process to see if we can build further consensus. I personally feel that while consensus should be the goal at all point with some of the larger scale decisions it might not be as feasible to fax how full consensus on things, but should still be what we try for first before deciding to take it to a vote. For smaller at more localized more decentralized groupings, the need to take things to a full-on vote wouldn't be as great and and most situations could be handled surely through the use of dialogue around people's outstanding concerns.
agreed, if it's a logistical or otherwise "frivolous" concerns one could and should be able to either move out and associate with like minded people, the road problem I can see people having different neighborhoods having different parameters and whatnot. either way I agree that it should be pondered based on what the disagreement is about, how it would affect everyone and the level that should be dealt with. I'd think that if people followed their desires there would be more varied areas (night time enjoyers who would have a more nocturnal lifestyle, and so and so), so people could just find where they fit best I guess in a way that disassociation wouldn't be as bad as it sounds, for the most part.
Hi y'all, new subscriber here. I'm sorry to ask this here, but does anyone know where Eron (Re-education) went? He hasn't put any new videos out in a year almost. Is he okay? I like this channel too though. I'll have to try to watch your most recent videos since my kids just went back to school.
I've dealt with this within management Our team would always aim for consensus If someone strongly objected, we either gave the issue x time depending on urgency to have another session If still not on the same page, then we decided on some compromise where at the least we'd document the objections so that they could follow the solution going forward We found that this made people feel involved, but also more accepting of the other decision because their point had been considered And if the decision would be bad later on, then if possible we could try the other solution, or at least the objecting party would...not sure how to explain, but kind of get "some more credibility" or sympathy for the next decision Essentially a "they were fine with our bad decision last time, let's give them the benefit of the doubt if possible next time" kind of thing Really bad at explaining here, but basically, it created trust within the team as well as mutual respect since everyone was involved As the manager I did my best to have as little of an opinion as possible, but rather just presenting the problem that needed solving and its requirements and first listening to solutions This also led the team to sometimes ask me if I had ideas etc I'm not gonna pretend like I was perfect and never "used my authority" etc But I at least consider it positive that they were never afraid to tell me my ideas were bad or had problems This probably because I always tried to encourage it when possible or appropriate, in a way that made sense I strongly believe that the key is always that the people need to actually feel involved and that they were heard and considered, but also that there is accountability if they don't get what they wanted And there can be many mechanisms to ensure this happens Like recurring polling, ability to recall or reform Probably more things, these are just the things on top of my head and limited experience that I believe have promise to be built upon
It may be just theory but it has been like the second question people ask, as you said, a gotcha. Hell their alternative? "Oh I don't think this is the best way to do it, we should do it some other way" "Okay but you're in the party leadership. So get back to work!" I talk to a lot of MLs when I'm not in anarchist-specific circles, mainly in an open political discussion group that I hope to persuade people to my thinking.
How do we prevent a disolution (and how do we manage to buid) of the worldwide federation into severals independent parts which would then be able to go to war if one acts in a way that is in the disinterest of the other?
good video! i do have a couple of questions, though: 1. you covered what would happen when a locality disassociates from one of the much larger bodies due to its desire to do stuff that goes against the core values of the much larger body, but there’s a presumption in your example that the larger body has made what i would consider the morally correct decision. i feel compelled to ask what happens if the much larger body is the one that makes the immoral decision, with the smaller body being in the minority. i suppose other bigger and smaller collectives would then sanction the larger body and provide support to the oppressed smaller one, in most cases. but what if the global collective is the “larger body” in this scenario? (i do understand that we would all be voting members of all relevant collectives - this is a deliberately extreme example, and if the answer is just “then we’re fucked and the revolution failed” or whatever, that makes sense.) 2. i’ve seen you mention “councils of the oppressed” or “oppressed minority councils” a number of times in your videos, including here, but i don’t think i’ve ever seen you explain the way they would work, or at least how the larger collective would go about differentiating them from simple groups of people with a minority opinion. you probably have, and i just haven’t seen the video where you do it. i ask because it seems like bad faith actors could exploit the system if there’s no standard for what sets these groups apart, and if there is a standard, you get into the thorny issue of who qualifies for that standard and why. again, it’s totally acceptable to say you don’t have a solution for that worked out - i’m just asking if you do.
1) It's important to remember that all the larger bodies are just combinations of the smaller bodies. They are not separate entities making decisions apart from the smaller pieces. If the larger body made that decision, it made it through a combination of the mandates from the smaller bodies. Thus it cannot make a decision that the smaller bodies do not consent to. It can only ever go the other direction, with smaller bodies making decisions which disagree with larger ones. The rules of that larger confederation are rules that the smaller bodies have already agreed to and, if some large body (say a regional body) decided to go against the total federation, it would then be forced to disassociate or would be sanctioned by all the other regions in the federation, leading to two federations where there was previously only one. 2) I haven't spent enough time trying to work out a good mechanism to propose it here. But this is an article on the women's councils in Rojava! www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/rojava-inspired-womens-councils-europe/
When talking about political structures it’s hard to talk in morality because it’s relative, you need to structure the system to maximize people’s consent for the system they are participating in which leads to maximized satisfaction morality wise
5:50 I must say, I think the idea of wanting to live a life without much change should be respected, or even going backwards if one wants, they just shouldn’t impose this on others. If someone wants to live in an old western town where people carry revolvers everywhere I mean, that’s arguably going backwards, but for some that’s living their best life. Even if there are risks to that lifestyle as long as people realize them and accept them fully we should let them. Having our alternative available if they decide against it eventually is the best way to convince people away from it if you wanted to I’d argue.
@@kiara-kh7nh it’s complicated. Now wait, chill out lol. I’m not okay with them or whatever, but if you think about what would maximize freedom, what if as a method of conversion to anarchy we had a sanctioned section of land for capitalists and such to retreat to. The one principle that isn’t allowed is that they aren’t allowed to prevent people from leaving if they want to. We give them the easiest path out if they desire. So you have the people that want to participate in such a system genuinely doing so of their own will, and if it abuses them whatsoever they can escape immediately and turn on itself. It would lead to a less violent transition you could argue to people becoming anarchist.
@@kiara-kh7nh a less extreme example would be for example hun loving “Wild West” areas. Where things are decided often based off dueling and other similar norms which can lead to death. Some people are willing to make that sacrifice to live in such a setting. If you’d re against that society inherently, then we should provide a better alternative and lead by positive incentives rather than force. It’s all arbitrary to me though
@@kiara-kh7nh If a single person wants any kind of town they're gonna have to convince a lot of people to create such a town. And since they can't co-erce their residents, anyone of the unwelcome group can easily bust open a sundown town by just... moving there. I think you're forgetting how inherently hierarchical sundown towns are. You're basically asking "what if someone tries to coerce someone?" Well, the same thing would happen that technically should happen now too: Society steps in and stops it.
I'm speaking locally here... It's not going to fix little things (like you brought up street lights) and certain other things, of course, but the big stuff won't be as much of a problem if we have a database of general consensus for each community before anyone moves there. Custom laws that have already been established if you move to a particular community, so there is already a set of basic rules everyone already agrees on upon entry. If John moves to a likeminded community that already mostly thinks like John, there will be less problems right from the start. Not no problems, but they won't be bickering over what's most important to all members. For instance, John isn't religious, he doesn't want cigarettes, he's a vegan... Whatever... If people who all live in that community already agree on the top 10 or 20 most important things to them, that will help quite a bit locally. No one can just start smoking cigarettes, because they already agreed from the start to live in a non-smoking community. If they choose to start smoking, they need to pull out the database and find a new community that doesn't have an issue with cigarettes.
Just a very general question to consensus: How would the people meet up to make decisions? Because I think we all know how hard it is for example to find a date with a larger group of friends to go out. How would the entire population of a village/city etc. come together? Because everyone has different duties, some might be sick, some might have other things to do and all that. Sure, nowadays we have the comfort of video calls and all that, but would that be sufficient? What are your ideas on that?🙈
I: I've got one qualm about disassociation - many of the structures in an anarchist society will not be mere legislative bodies, but community structures, right? So then, unless I'm misunderstanding or missed the relevant argument; if one would come to a sudden disagreement (like, things went well, but then a decision happened they can't reconcile with, _nor_ do anything about (since they're in the minority on it, and others don't mind/agree with the decision)), and would have to disassociate, they would lose a community, or even have to move away, losing a place they've always lived, or spent a significant time in. It might just be one of my "what if" bad scenarios; and I know it's _not_ really different (better) nowadays, since nowadays, people have way less decision-making power, but still - would there be a way to remedy situations like this without the disagreeing party having to lose so much? (speaking of someone disagreeing for morally non-objectionable reasons, not like someone wanting to hurt others)
Think of it like unions. A union is basically an organisation within an organisation, right? Well, if you can nest organisations like that I see no reason why you can't continue that pattern. To continue the union example, let's say you disagree with the way pensions are arranged in the greater union(union G). Union G has a stock trade based pension plan and you want a direct savings pension plan. OK, fair enough. So you can form a subunion (Union S) wich organises the voting power of the union members that want a direct savings pension plan. So you can work together, try to convince together, set up events and protests together, vote together, and even strike together if you feel it has come to that point. The entire point of a non-coercive system is that you can opt out like that. Sure, it is going to get complicated and messy, but you are free to choose that mess. In a wider societal description, you can organise a dissenting collective. If you have enough members and you can supply the necessities then the two groups can simply split up. If you're not big enough to stand on your own you will have to find other groups you can join with to get at least something of what you want, which will require compromise. Or you can always go it alone, though that can be very hard. The choice is yours. Nobody ever said freedom meant "You get what you want and fuck everyone else." It is hard work, and tough, and you will probably be disappointed a lot. Just like in real life. Except now you can't blame the unfairness of the system (though we know how human minds work: We're going to blame everything except ourselves at the start :P Acceptance and self-reflection comes later.)
Can you make a video about the distinction between a global federation and a vanguard party? The way I understand is that one is about a bottom-up power flow body composed of delegates and the other is top-down tyranny
@knowledgeanddefense1054 Honestly, that's just through revocation. They can be fired and their functions resumed at the whim of the council. However, you will see how a bottom-up system works more broadly in that video
@@Anark Sure, but I meant like if they could possibly find and take advantage of any loopholes that make it possible for them to dismantle the revocation system from within somehow, like say a war breaks out and they are given emergency powers (Star Wars Palpatine style) And I know that maybe I sound conspiratorial here, but as an anarchist I think we should always be skeptical of power concentration
@knowledgeanddefense1054 No power can be permanently delegated (as that is representation as opposed to delegation), so no emergency could lead to that outcome.
More leftist groups could benefit from loose Iroquois Confederacy-style alliances. For those who don’t know, the Iroquois Confederation was a group of Indigenous American tribes that decided, “Okay we need to work together to protect each other from the white people, because they represent a common threat to us all.” The idea behind the alliance was that while there were rules that were held in common, each tribe would still maintain their sovereignty and be able to conduct their affairs as they see fit, so long as it didn’t interfere with the affairs of other tribes. Though your section on “the minority isn’t always right…” well, I’ve seen something similar when it comes to that problem. My dad is a preacher and has served in many itty-bitty small towns. As you probably guessed, many small towns tend to lean conservative and generally aren’t very open to change. So if you want to change how the congregation does something, you will face something of an uphill battle. But with most people, once you’ve laid out your case for said change, they’ll generally be like, “Okay, we’ll give it a shot.” However, there always seems to be one person or other small percentage who will not let the matter go, no matter how well you make your case, how everyone else feels about the change, or the results that come about from the change, the kind of people who, if given the choice, would take it to the Supreme Court and beyond. It’d be one thing if it was over a big issue (my dad’s denomination is currently splitting over LGBT rights), but too often, it’s over penny-ante stuff. Though when it comes to people who dissociate from the group for whatever reason, maybe we can take an influence from another historical group. Basically, if you decided that being a Shaker wasn’t for you, the Shakers would let you leave, but given you some supplies like, say, a horse or a mule along with food, etc. to tide you over until you reached another settlement. We could do something similar with our dissociated, unless they are being expelled for having committed a crime or something.
A shorter version of the video could have been: “direct democracy is the solution not consensus” and watch all the individualists cry in the comments lol
I absolutely love your work. But if I may be afforded one critique, it's that I watch all your videos at 1.25x because your delivery is a little slow. I think you should consider experimenting with a slightly faster delivery and see how it effects your analytics regarding viewer retention. Like, it might just be me, and I have a solution. But it may be worth a little experimentation.
Speeding up may also necessitate more takes and add to production time due to fumbling words more often. And there's no reason to contort yourself or add labor if it doesn't yield any tangible benefits. But, like I said, it may be worth a bit of experimentation. At 1.25x, it still sounds like a fairly natural human delivery, if a bit punchier and more performed.
@@Anark I think some people think of consensus as everyone agreeing the specific decision and/or course of action is the best possible. Like a "positive" agreement, not just an agreement to go along with a proposal. Like, I don't think this conceptualization of consensus is useful, but I think it does cause confusion, it makes people think consensus based decision making is way harder than it actually is.
Ok, I don’t think I’m on board with the idea that violent people should be prevented from accessing basic needs. It’s absolutely fair to limit their access to anything they might use to cause harm - even limit their freedom to seek out victims - but their basic human needs should not be withheld. Even capitalism makes an effort (half hearted as it is) to feed and house prisoners. I’m ok with sending all the power mongers off to fight it out on their own island or whatever, as long as you don’t let them raise children there.
@@Anark these things will tend to overlap in the "most pathological" cases, though, won't they? And I actually think that's kind of the answer to the cases where the decision-making process eventually breaks, like, when no reasonable solution exists and yet self-defense doesn't apply. Then these people will "unfairly" be dealt with through the justice system, which tries to minimize its own harm. So there's still a degree of "unfairness" there, but it is very rare, happens in the worst of the worst cases and harm is minimized. It's not ideal but it's absurdly better than anything we have and not a big inconsistency, I think. Like, I think it's healthy to admit that yeah, our system will have some failure points. It's a good thing in debates too, as a way to get rid of the often imposed burden of perfection.
What if these larger scale structures believe in the subjugation and discrimination of a certain small minority? That minority cannot sustain itself without relying on the larger structures and is forced to accept subjugation to survive.
Then the small minority will defect. And anyone else who is paying attention will also defect. Also, how did that large scale structure come to that belief? Are you saying that every single member group and every member of those groups believe that way? In that case the same thing will happens as now happens with pedofiles: Society will reject and pity them and that is good and proper. Also, what exactly is the larger scale structure going to do? They deal with general principles and guidelines, and maybe long distance trade. Are they going to stop the food shipments to this minority? The collateral damage alone would cause an uprising, and since they don't use coercion this immediately dissolves the large scale structure.
