Comment by danharaj | Hacker News Reader

Comment by danharaj | Hacker News Reader

The basic principle of Radical Democracy, which is different from Liberal Democracy, is relevant here:

> "Radical democracy" means "the root of democracy." Laclau and Mouffe claim that liberal democracy and deliberative democracy, in their attempts to build consensus, oppress differing opinions, races, classes, genders, and worldviews. In the world, in a country, and in a social movement there are many (a plurality of) differences which resist consensus. Radical democracy is not only accepting of difference, dissent and antagonisms, but is dependent on it.

(Wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_democracy

This article can be interpreted as evidence that radical democracy actually works and the root of democracy ought to be a diversity of minorities all advocating for things we could call their essential beliefs, and a healthy, free society is one in which on any given issue the majority is flexible enough to accommodate minorities that have stronger preferences.

That is, a prosperous, cohesive society isn't one that tends to homogeneity but is instead driven by its heterogeneity. Furthermore, a prosperous, cohesive society isn't based on rigid principles, but flexibility and the ability to evolve its structures to accommodate more and more diverse groups.

Seems legit to me. Most homogeneous groups in history seem to either arise from a founder effect or maintain their homogeneity through dehumanizing tribalism and Incredible Violence.

Do you think only burqa wearing Muslim society is prosperous and cohesive? That seems to be only way how that Taleb article could support Radical Democracy.

To me the most homogeneous societies seem to be frontiersmen living in extremely harsh places. The Sami, Pygmy tribes and Inuits we're left alone for most of history. Nobody can fight off immigration indefinitely if there is some reason for them to come.

The most violent civilizations in history didn't seem to care who they oppressed. Roman Empire, Mongol empire and British empire had no problems taking different ethnicities as subjects. Some of them even had somewhat varied ethnic makeup in the power-base of the empire. For example Romans had Latins, Etruscan people and Greek city states assimilated into Rome proper.

This idea that ethnic makeup dictates success and violence of society is essentially racist. It doesn't really matter if you advocate a mix of ethnicity, you are still trying to sell policy with race. The only non-racist stance is to assume that ethnicity and success have no correlation what so ever.

I think it's interesting that you assumed ethnic minority/majority when I had in mind all sorts of minority/majority contrasts.

> Do you think only burqa wearing Muslim society is prosperous and cohesive? That seems to be only way how that Taleb article could support Radical Democracy.

What? I'm going to ignore your nonsensical question and merely clarify what I meant:

In the traditional logic of democracy, consensus is the ultimate goal. It makes sense to me and you that a process that seeks consensus can function and effectively govern, probably because we have been raised to learn this logic since a young age. Radical democracy turns this on its head: The essence of democracy is plurality that defies consensus.

I don't think it is intuitive that this could function on large scales. I think Taleb's article gives evidence that yes, this can work, because the real dynamics of society are not driven by consensus building, but by minorities advocating for themselves. I am not saying the article is explicitly supporting radical democracy, but it gives us an empirical point of view from which to analyze its merits.

I agree that idea of conflict in democracy seems good.

But to me that Talibs article is specifically one of the big problems that idea has. If the most stubborn and intolerant part of the populace always get their way, regardless of their size, then it should always result in stubborn and intolerant policy.

The more you put distinctly different groups of people in a society that runs this way, the more likely it is to have some extremely stubborn and intolerant idea to surface.

I give you that if the stubborn idea is "freedom of speech", that could work nicely. But recently "not mocking prophet Muhammad" has been seemingly bit more stubborn.

> Most homogeneous groups in history seem to either arise from a founder effect or maintain their homogeneity through dehumanizing tribalism and Incredible Violence.

Or isolationism. Like how Japan essentially kept its borders closed for centuries.

Borders can only be kept closed with violence. Incidentally, Japan's borders were opened with violence or at least the threat of violence.

"Most homogeneous groups in history seem to either arise from a founder effect or maintain their homogeneity through dehumanizing tribalism and Incredible Violence."

Yeah, sort of like the inhomogeneous groups in history acquire their inhomogeneity through dehumanizing tribalism and (nothing incredible about it -it's just human nature) violence. Take the British Empire for example. They deliberately moved people around their empire to keep their subjects angry at each other rather than at themselves; Indian rubber tappers and Chinese merchants in Malaysia, Scottish Protestants in Northern Ireland, Indians shipped to Kenya, etc. Worked for a few hundred years. Arguably, the modern neoliberal system is an extension of this to the modern day.

Taleb's argument doesn't seem to be in favor of any flavor du jour of democracy. More an exposition of how things work in complex pluralistic social systems, democracy or no. Ornery minorities in a pluralistic society end up getting their way most of the time. As all of western civilization seems determined to become some kind of ornery minority, the next 20 years should be pretty interesting.

I think I didn't communicate clearly what I meant. I think my response to a sibling comment clarifies my observation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571763

I'm not sure what you mean about "western civilization" becoming an ornery minority but it gives me a sense of "barbarians at the gates" sort of thinking. Could you clarify?

Western civilization is very obviously dissolving itself into tiny balkanized minorities, consisting of perpetually aggrieved people whining at each other in a sort of victim olympics in hopes of status payouts and vague grubbings after ephemeral power. Taleb's hack applied on a wide scale by everyone against everyone else. There are passages on the subject in Thucidides, Ammianus Marcellinus and probably lots of other places...

Anyway, civilizations get sick and die: there is nothing I can do about it beyond scowling at the imbecile descendants of the people who once sent men to the moon. At least China seems to have walked away from its suicide attempt.

Pluralistic society could still work with vehemently pluralistic majority of conservatives. Who are not afraid to defend their own rights, even when they seem insignificant.

I really never thought I'd say that. I guess I'm getting old. "A man who is not a Liberal at sixteen has no heart; a man who is not a Conservative at sixty has no head." —Benjamin Disraeli

In most contexts, radical means extreme. Saying it is related to the Latin root "radix" (root) is an etymological fallacy: Words mean what they're currently understood to mean, not what their roots mean.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/etymolog.html

I think you're being very presumptuous coming here with your cute little link. People have been calling their politics radical because they reexamine the roots of society for centuries. The connotation that radical means extreme comes from propaganda against ideas that challenge the status quo at the roots of its foundation.

You don't understand the word this way, but that's ok. No one who talks about radical democracy lacks the context to see radical with the connotation of "root" and those people would consider your understanding of the word not to be apolitical, but very much political and thus contentious.

I suggest the next time you are introduced into a context where words mean different things from what you think, you don't try to colonize it with your understanding of the word as if you have a generic, impartial, apolitical comprehension of human communication.

Of course, the connotation of extremeness isn't opposed to the original meaning of radical. Anything that deals with the essential root of an idea will be extreme in its expression. It would be fine to associate 'radical democracy' with connotations of democracy taken to its extremes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com