Not every Anarchist supports consensus. It caught on in the USA only in the 1980s with the merger of Quaker pacifism and Anarchist opposition to nuclear industry....Mostly by 'Food not Bombs' which is Anti-Militarism.
Quaker consensus is rooted in pacifism, and the idea that nobody should ever do anything to offend anyone, even in communication......I wouldn't say I am especially violent, but I don't really subscribe to being a doormat. Nor do I agree that the lowest common denominator is always best.
I believe that Consensus can work, and work well, in small intentional groups of friends who are all on the same page. It works when you have a small group NO GREATER than 12, and everyone is on the same page. you can sometimes sort of do more, up to maybe 30 if everyone agrees to a platform.....but its rough.
Why is it that the largest Anarchist organizations, like the CNT in Spain, using Roberts rules of engagement, and not some Quaker pacifist model of decision making based on non-violent communication?....Because its inefficient, and its not a suitable way to run a union. These people have jobs and it takes long enough using simple or super-majority, rather than letting lone individuals "block" a mandate of the union.....also, there are infiltrators who would LOVE to exploit that.
If you use 100% consensus, all it would take is 3 agents to block every proposal that the state objected to.....Its a horrible idea. Its not even right in theory or principle, its just plain wrong.
The only way the harmful effects of Quaker decision making can be mitigated is by autonomy......If you respect autonomous actors, and dont require that they submit to their objectors, then suddenly consensus is viable again in your small group carrying out direct action.
But seriously guys, none of the effective Occupy camps used pure consensus. OWS did not. Occupy Oakland did not. Occupy Portland does not. Occupy Chicago does not.......The IWW uses 2/3 super-majority....they do this because they want to get things done, not just spend all day with their thumbs up in the air.
Consensus (if you want it) in small groups. Some kind of modified consensus or participatory democracy in large groups (or nothing). That is the only way it can work. Every camp that tried pure consensus fizzled out an got REALLY boring, like it was more about the process of sitting around talking than about getting to the Occupation and direct action itself.....yawn...