Direct consensus democracy is basically trying to make as many people happy as possible. ex. If a collective is trying to find out what to produce, or how to produce it, the collective members would get together, one vote a member, and well, vote..lets say 75% of people voted for planA, 25% voted for planB, in regular demcracy, direct, or indirect, the vote ends here. consensus is trying to make as many people happy as possible, soo the theoretical collective might have another vote, maybe with a new plan, or a compromise of both plans that reaches more people. Anarchists who are against consensus democracy might not know exactly what it is, or maybe they hold the fallacy that everyone can always get their way, the way they want it. Which is ridiculous to me.. I would rather be in the minority sometimes, than be subjected to a bosses whim all the time. As long as no one is intruding in my life or exploiting me, I'm good. I see someone pulling dictionary definitions..sigh... definitions are arbitrary.. You look up anarchism in the dictionary you sure as hell won't see Proudhon or Bakunin.. you'll see something like "chaos. disorder" which is obviously non-sense... How else will any decision be made within a WORKERS collective, if you don't have some organization structure? horizontal organization of course as organization does not entail hierarchy, though can obviously lead to it. Consensus makes the most people happy, and is the most realistic way to achieve a functioning Anarchist society in my mind. Some people believe that the good speakers will dominate the collective meetings, and that's probably the only argument that holds any weight in my opinion. Of course I'm open to ideas, I read a lot of the links on this page, but as of now, I'm still in favor of Direct consensus democracy as far as workers collectives go. But Direct consensus, if used to make laws or some other imposing action is not justifiable, and wouldn't exist in anarchism.