This tendency also signaled a shift away from class politics, or indeed that social classes in the Marxist (or classical anarchist) sense existed any longer. Hardt and Negri argued, instead, that a myriad of oppressions and exploitations could only be understood as a whole multitude. No longer, they argued, was class struggle the primary motor force of history. They highlighted the rebellions of indigenous communities, landless farmers, the urban poor, and others as examples of this new dynamic that, in their view, did not fit into the classical Marxist understanding of class struggle.
One tool we use for finding consent in larger groups is consensus . Most anarchist decision-making is built around this method. Consensus is a way of determining what everyone in a group is comfortable with doing. “Do we want to blockade this building?” “Do we want to sign our group’s name on this public letter?” “Do we want to publish this book?” A group that respects the autonomy of every individual within it will generally act via consensus in some form or another. Some people mistake consensus to be basically the same as voting but where everyone agrees instead of a majority. This thinking however, is still built around voting, which is a form of competitive decision-making that is not designed to respect people’s autonomy. Consensus, instead of being a way to convince everyone to agree to the same plan, is a way of exploring what the logical limits of any given group are. If all members of a group cannot agree on a specific action, then it clearly needs to take place outside of that group, if at all. Unlike consent on an individual level, however, it is not always the case that a group seeking consensus needs everyone to be enthusiastic about the given action, and “standing aside” on a decision is common and respectable behavior.