“Consensus” and “Diversity of Tactics”: Two More Flaws in Anarchism

“All formal decisions and actions of our coalition will be agreed upon by consensus at our meetings. If consensus is not reached, the group can continue with their action, but should not use our coalition’s name.

“We encourage and respect the right of our member groups to use a diversity of tactics, provided that those tactics do not conflict with our points of unity. Endorsing the demands of our coalition does not mean endorsing particular tactics of other members of the coalition.”

I think these two statements speak to the heart of the theory which backs most anarchist practice. Anarchism, as it has expressed itself in the United States - though I’m sure this applies elsewhere as well - is fundamentally individualist. Strict “consensus” says the following: 1. We can only make decisions if everyone agrees, and 2. If we disagree with what people decide we’re all going to do what we want anyway.

These two principles reflect a lack of discipline, a disdain for real unity, an avoidance of politics, an ignorance of strategy, and a brand of individualism which is a drain on our movement.

It avoids politics because it says that the best arguments can’t win out. No one has to actually back their proposals up with reason and evidence because people have the “right” to do whatever they want anyway (so long as they don’t use the group’s name!). Instead of trying to figure out what’s most strategic for the group’s growth, people are allowed to do whatever they want. There is no institutional drive to use a collective process to come to good ideas, to weed out bad ideas, and to overcome our tendency to be individualistic and think that its either “my way or the highway”.

It reflects a lack of discipline because it explicitly states that people should not ever have to do something they disagree with. It takes a good desire to not do things that are against our values, and extends that “right” to all decisions. If the group makes a decision, I do not have to abide by it. Even worst, I get to “block” the decision from ever going through.

It shows disdain for unity because it says that individuals have absolute rights, and groups tend to infringe on those “rights”. It sees organization as a burden, if not explicitly with some anarchists, than implicitly with most. Coming to unity is too much of a burden, best to not make any decisions that anyone disagrees with. And in the end people can do whatever they want anyway - they should be “encouraged” to use a “diversity of tactics” (read, theoretical permission to never have an effective strategy).

It is ignorant of strategy because the concept of “diversity of tactics” and the “right” of members to “block” ideas they don’t like and do whatever they want anyway prevents a sane discussion of what will best build our collective power and expand our base of support.

And all of this comes from a disgusting brand of American individualism, which many anarchists in the United States have refused to deal with in a thorough going way. Groups of like-minded revolutionaries are considered by them to be just as “oppressive” and “authoritarian” as the State and Capital. So rather than trust each other, its best to treat each other as enemies and never come to unity. It pretends that leadership, good ideas, and effective strategy don’t exist. Everyone has something to bring to the table (even if they don’t). Everyone’s ideas are equally good (even if they aren’t).

While have the agency to overcome these tendencies, even in a “consensus” environment, anarchist culture - which includes “consensus” and “diversity of tactics” - engenders a propensity to not work together, to not come to unity, to discuss politics, to not be disciplined, and to not combat our liberalism and individualism.