In order for any revolutionary movement to be successful it needs to have a platform, a position it holds from which to take aim at the system, an alternative vision of society to provide people with the security they need to become empowered enough to resist. We can’t just bite the hand that feeds us, we need to be able to feed ourselves.
That’s why you’ve decided to take your stand alongside your comrades in the Solidarity Collective. The strategy of the Collective is to be that platform: To create an alternative infrastructure to house, feed and care for all the members of an anti-capitalist society. To this end there are committees dedicated to developing systems that provide the day-to-day goods and services we all need.
There is a housing committee, an energy committee, another for food, for manufacturing, for education, medicine. The goal is to be able to provide all the things that every member of the collective needs, sustainably through mutual aid and co-operation. For every need that is met from within the collective, the membership is capable of making one more divestment from the exploitive capitalist system. Once this goal is actualised there will be a working example of how a society could exist without hierarchy and coercion.
You make your way to the housing committee. As it stands you pay your monthly rent to your landlord who, in turn, gives it to the bank until the mortgage is paid down, at which point they’ll flip the house, keep the money and do it all over again with another house. The interest paid to the bank fuels inflation which creates our economy’s need to consume more and more resources each year and contributes to the overvalued bubble that is the housing market.
The atmosphere at the housing meeting is casual. People are gathered chit-chatting around a table with a selection of teas laid out, and some-one has even brought a tray of vegan brownies. You pop one in your mouth. They are fresh baked, still warm, soft and delicious. After a few minutes, people begin to seat themselves in a circle. There is no obvious front of the room or even a place for the head of the committee, so you just sit yourself closest to the window. As the late arrivals shuffle in and fill up the remaining chairs, the person seated next to you speaks up in a clear confident voice.
“Is everybody ready? Shall we begin?” They are sensible looking, organized, obviously comfortable speaking in front of groups. “Alright, first off we need to pick someone to facilitate the meeting, and someone else to take minutes.”
From across the circle a voice calls out. “I nominate you, you’re good at it.”
“Sorry Alex, I did it last week. Someone else has to step up. Any volunteers?”
“Alright, I’ll do it,” Alex reluctantly agrees. They are down-to-earth looking, dressed in muted tones, but clean and well kept. “Let’s just quickly go over the rules. Anybody can propose a topic for the agenda. As the facilitator I will recognize speakers, and we can vote any time we feel ready for it. We do require a consensus vote though, so if anybody disagrees please speak up and we will try and find a solution. If you are still not satisfied but you don’t feel strongly opposed you can abstain from the vote signifying that you will not participate in a motion you do not support. But, if there is anything that troubles you so much that you would rather leave the committee altogether than see it pass, then you can block the motion and we have to keep discussing it until we can all be satisfied. Is everybody clear?”
“Um, I can take minutes,” you volunteer. “So long as people don’t mind if I record the meeting.”
“Does anybody block that motion?” asks Alex. “No? Ok moving on, what’s first on the agenda then?
“The real-estate subcommittee has been doing some homework, we’d like to report on some of the properties we’ve been investigating as potentials for co-operatively owned housing,” With their trendy haircut and flashy smile they almost look like they could be a real estate agent moonlighting as a revolutionary on the weekend.
“Finance committee has a draft charter for a non-profit society that would own and operate the proposed housing co-op on behalf of our membership,” another person offers “We would like to present it to the group so that we can get on with filing our application papers.”
“Ok. First on the agenda we have the real estate sub-committee report, followed by a draft charter from finance. That should take us most of the afternoon. Remember we can add items to the agenda at any time so unless there is a more urgent matter I will turn the floor over to the speaker for real estate.”
“Thank you”
The speaker stands, clears their throat and adjusts their glasses before they begin.
“From our initial survey of the market, one thing has caught our eye. Most of the buildings we’ve been looking at to house multiple people are either condos or rental apartment buildings. These properties offer several advantages for a housing co-operative: multiple units within the same premises allows for separate dwellings that share common resources such as laundry rooms and central heating, at the same time as offering privacy to each member. Also, at any given time there is a large variety of these buildings for sale, ranging from small two or three level condos, to very large multi-story apartment buildings. So whenever we are ready to purchase there will be multiple options to choose from no matter how many people decide to become founding members of our co-operative. Another option is adjacent town houses for the same reason as before, separate units that share responsibility for maintenance, but with the added bonus that we could also tear down fences separating the properties to allow for a shared garden and play area for kids. We believe that this type of property offers the best opportunity suitable to our needs.”
A weary hand rises from the circle and they are recognized by the facilitator before they begin speaking in a sceptical tone.
“As an architect with a background in civil engineering, I’m concerned that real estate property which is built for the demands of the free market, may not contain many of the design elements that are desirable for co-op housing. The current real estate market values privacy and independent living, with little value placed on community. While I’m sure we all consider our personal space sacred, I presume we would also appreciate social features such as common spaces to gather and share in. Whereas the capitalist paradigm maintains that good fences make good neighbours, we maintain that good pot-lucks make good neighbours.”
“This is just a sample of what is currently available to us. There isn’t an option to buy a housing co-op. That simply does not exist. Do you propose we design a new building from scratch? Do you have any idea what kind of a process that is? It’s hard enough to design the perfect house for just one person to live in, let alone a whole group! Do you realize how long it would take to gather all the right permits even after the designs were complete?”
“I do, and there are several other reasons for us to do this too. If we build it ourselves we are more autonomous, and we can also incorporate energy saving systems such as recycling our grey water, that would cost a fortune to retrofit into an existing building.”
“Wouldn’t it be more practical to buy an existing building? A condo is essentially the modern equivalent of a shared housing co-op.”
“You’re right, the legal structure of a condo allows for a group of people to co-own and manage a building together, and isn’t that exactly what we want to do? But it almost illustrates the point for me. Condo owners share nothing other than the legal responsibility for the building because the building has no common space for people to relax and spend time getting to know each other. Consequently it is nearly impossible to develop any sense of group identity beyond financial responsibility. It is a sterile environment in which community withers and dies. If that’s what we really wanted we would all have bought condos instead of coming here in the first place. I’m not interested in more of the same under a new name. If we want to build a new society, we must quite literally build one, from the ground up.”
Before long other people are putting in their own two cents
“Now hang on a minute. I live in an apartment myself. I wouldn’t mind it so much so long as I was making my own community richer with my rent check instead of some property developer. I don’t know about this design concept. It sounds great and all, but I’m worried about a place for me and my family to call home today. We’re never gonna get anywhere if we wait for everything to be perfect before we make a move. It’s far from a perfect world we live in after all. But we can do things today to make things better tomorrow. I say we look into buying one of these condo buildings.”
“I would like to impress on people the importance of design in the process of space making,” replies the architect. “Many attempts have been made to make suburbs work better for pedestrians, and all but a few have failed. It takes more than a couple of parks, some dedicated bike lanes and more frequent buses to make a neighbourhood work. Even if a community is safe to walk in, where is there to go? The burbs were designed for cars. There are no destinations within walking distance for people to walk to. You see you can’t put a space to new use if it wasn’t designed with that use in mind.”
As is so often the case, the debate seems to center around ideology versus practicality, and while the conversation deteriorates into more and more factions you wonder how this consensus process is ever supposed to work. Eventually the moderator calls for a break.
“It doesn’t look like there’s going to be an agreement on this subject today. I suggest that we put this discussion on hold until next week. Let’s give ourselves some time to think about what’s been discussed today. Maybe people can bring some new proposals to the group that address our differences of opinion. In the meantime let’s take a break, and we’ll reconvene in fifteen minutes for a proposal from finance.”
You’re relieved for the breather, but you’re a little bit troubled by this concept of consensus that does not appear to be forming around you. You get up to stretch and introduce yourself to the person seated next to you who opened the meeting.
“Nice to meet you,” they say smiling. “My name’s Robin.”
“Could I ask you a question?”
“Sure.”
“How does consensus work if people can’t come to an agreement?”
“Ah, good question. Consensus is not a way to make everyone agree, only totalitarianism can do that, and there’s far too much diversity in the human race for that thank goodness.
“So what is consensus then?”
“Consensus is a decision making process that allows people who are willing to work together to do so without creating hierarchy.”
“I don’t understand. If there are two or more people with different or incompatible beliefs how is consensus supposed to work?”
“In order for the consensus model to be applied there needs to be a core set of values that all participants can agree on. This can be as simple as a common belief in non-coercive decision making. Once this base understanding has been reached, consensus can be used to figure out the details in a way that works for everybody.”
“But the devil’s in the details. What if there’s no agreement beyond the basic principles? What happens then?”
“It depends. Sometimes not making a decision is better than making one that not everyone agrees with. As a system of conflict resolution consensus can be frustratingly slow but it ensures that no individual can impose their beliefs on another. Solutions have to be collaborative and outcomes satisfactory to everyone.”
“But you can’t always satisfy everyone. There are some beliefs that are mutually exclusive of one another, pacifism and militarism for example.”
“You’re right there are some beliefs that are completely irreconcilable. The consensus model reflects the diversity of the human experience and recognizes that we do not all walk the same path, and that no path is superior to each other. There are far too many divergent perspectives in the world for one monolithic organization to encompass all views. If there are people who simply cannot agree without compromising what they believe in then it may be more productive for them to recognize their differences and form different groups with others who share their perspective rather than try to work with people who don’t. In fact, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that’s what ends up happening to this committee. But that’s not a failure, it’s a step on the road to success. There are going to be more than one housing co-op in the end, and they will all be different. Isn’t that wonderful?”
“So you have to already agree with people for consensus to work? That doesn’t sound like diversity at all, it sounds like it would lead to homogenous, narrow minded organizations.”
“Ha ha. Kind of, but not really. People don’t have to already agree but they must be willing to work with people they disagree with. In the General Assembly we can’t break up into smaller groups just because we may not all agree, and yet you may still block a motion that you disagree with. However in order to do that you’d better have a damn good reason, and be willing to actively participate in problem solving to resolve the issue that caused you to block. If you’re not willing to do so then the rest of the group does not need your approval to reach consensus.”
“Wouldn’t it just be a lot easier to vote?”
“Easier maybe, but the end result of consensus is worth the extra work. In a democracy the majority rules. Which means that minority groups are almost never represented. This leads to alienation and dissatisfaction. Eventually the group will fail unless they make efforts to be inclusive and protect minority interests. The consensus model negates that problem. If everyone is included in the decision making process, then you can count on greater participation in the outcome, greater overall satisfaction and group cohesion. You see?”
“Hum. I think so. Thanks”
“No problem. Now I’ve got to make it to the bathroom before break is over.”
“Nice to talk to you.” You both rise. They flash you a polite smile as they quietly dismiss themselves.
You make a few laps around the room to bring the blood flow back to your feet, stopping to fill your cup from a thermos of loose leaf tea and allowing yourself to soak up the warm sunshine coming through the window. Listening to the babble of conversation percolating through the air you survey the room and see that the people gathered about in little clusters are fairly varied; roughly fifty fifty men and women, a few streaks of grey hair here and there, some folks who appear to be graduates, and others who have strong backs and thick skin from working with their hands. Most are young enough to be open to change, but old enough to be seriously considering their future. The common thread seems to be a sincere and optimistic desire to make a better world for themselves by helping to make the world a better place for everyone. You settle down for the second half of the meeting as people begin to make their way back to their seats.
“I hope everyone is feeling refreshed,” Alex, the moderator, calls the meeting back to order. “We’re going to hear from the folks in finance next.”
“Thanks. My name’s Kelly. I’m going to try and make this as quick as possible since that last part seemed to d-r-a-g on a bit.” The end of their sentence is pronounced through a sarcastic scowl that quickly transforms into a playful smile. They are heavy set, energetic and move with quick deliberate motions giving them a commanding presence in the room as they pace around the circle passing out sheets from a stack of papers in their hand. “I am giving you all a copy of the charter we have drafted that will govern the non-profit society we intend on forming to own and operate the housing co-op. Briefly the mission statement gives the society the mandate to manage a building for the purpose of providing affordable accommodation to its membership. The membership is limited to the number of people living in housing owned by the society. Normally the board of directors of a non-profit are elected by the members, but in this case, because the number of members is limited, one hundred percent of the membership may sit on the board. Founding members are people who have committed to the establishment of the society and who have contributed financially to the society to aid in the objective of acquiring residential property. Additionally a person becomes a member the moment they sign a rental agreement with the society.”
A hand shoots up from the circle and a person speaks up with a matter-of-fact tone in their voice having received a nod of assent from the moderator. “What if somebody’s behaviour is problematic and we have to kick them out?”
“In the event of cancelling a membership, a special meeting would be called and every member is required to be present including the member in question. A vote to cancel a membership requires complete consensus with the exception of the person in question. In the case of a founding member, the society is obligated to repay any money they’ve loaned to the society in full.”
Another question comes from the group
“How much money would one have to loan to the society to become a founding member?”
“If we want to get a mortgage on a large multi-unit residential building we are going to need a significant down payment. Of course it would depend on the property, but it would probably be no less than $10 000.”
“So the housing co-op is only going to help house people who can already afford to help themselves?”
“Ideally, the building we purchase will have enough units so that not everyone will need to pay a down payment, and once the co-op already owns some real estate, we will be able to remortgage those properties to finance additional housing that will not require new members to pay any money up front. But until we build up some equity we won’t be able to do that.”
“Down payment, mortgage, equity? What kind of an anti-capitalist movement is this?”
“We are not trying to be exclusive or classist. We just simply don’t have a lot of financial resources. We are not going to be able to achieve our goals of self-sufficiency unless people are able to contribute. We want to be a pragmatic movement. We want control of our own resources. But we can’t do that on rhetoric alone. If we want to own the means of production, we are going to have to purchase them. It may not be ideal, but there simply isn’t another way until we have a mass-movement capable of abolishing property. I want that as much as you do, but we’re just not there yet.”
The moderator recognizes another question and the conversation takes off on yet another tangent. Your mind begins to wander and you stare thoughtfully into the distance. By the end of the meeting you feel exhausted, if not a little bit frustrated. A long afternoon of bickering, nitpicking and name-calling has brought the group no closer to resolving any of the issues on the agenda and has resulted in little more than a sense of resentment amongst the people. You find yourself leaving the meeting with an undeniable sense of disappointment sinking in your stomach.
“How did you find the meeting?” it was the thoughtful, reassuring voice of Robin that forces you out of your sulky daydream and back to the present. “It was your first meeting wasn’t it? What did you think?” they sound optimistic, almost cheerful despite many reasons to feel the contrary.
Hesitating a little you reply “It wasn’t at all what I expected.” Seeing they want you to elaborate you continue. “Earlier at the protest, everyone seemed so united. But today there didn’t seem to be very much agreement on anything. How do you get anything done?”
“Well, it’s easy to agree on what you don’t like: police brutality, no thanks. But there’s a lot more diversity when it comes to what we want. If you ever see a group where everyone agrees, I’m sure it’s because some people aren’t allowed to say what they think.”
“I guess if you want to be inclusive, you should expect some disagreement.”
“That’s right, but in the end we all choose to be here, we all want to change the system, and we all want to work together. This process is how we figure out how to do that.”
“You think it’s going to work?”
“Have a little faith. The other option is we submit to the ruling authority of the status quo. How has that worked out for you so far?”
“Hah! I see what you mean.”
“So I’ll see you next week?”
“Sure.”
You’ve sure got a lot of questions swirling around your head as you leave the hall. But you decide to stick it out and give the solidarity collective a chance. There may be a lot of time dedicated to the idiosyncrasies of non-hierarchal decision making, but people at the meetings are sincerely interested in figuring out how to build a kinder, more just and equitable society. If there’s even a small chance it could work, it must be worth a try.
Over the next couple of weeks you see the larger housing committee transform from one dysfunctional mass, into several smaller more focused groups of people with common interests. This is part of the process, Robin assures you, and it seems to be working. You’ve found a group whose vision you find inspiring and the pieces start falling into place. Everybody does their part, and each meeting gets you closer to starting a housing co-operative. There are no hard feelings with people who choose to pursue other projects because you don’t have to fight with them anymore over differences that cannot be reconciled. It’s actually quite interesting to see all the different ideas develop as they diverge along various paths, instead of the unavoidable conflict that occurs in a group where not everyone shares the same objective. After all, you’re still part of the same movement even though you may disagree. In hindsight you realize there is no way a mass movement could exist under only one banner. To embrace unity, is to embrace diversity.
Original photo by: Acorn via Federation of Egalitarian Communities