Reddit mentions of Hatred of Democracy (Radical Thinkers)

> How am i saying things are definitive. I have on multiple occasions lamented i haven't gone after the actual papers yet.

Let me ask you something: Are academics god-like individuals with unparalleled perspectives from those of all other people on earth? If not, then chances are they are not really all that different from you or me in the sense that they are also products of the sociopolitical environment we live in. Furthermore, since they are invariably products of an institution that is all about certifying people as "knowing" what is best for society as a whole, do you not think they are also prone to overlooking their own, fascistic worldviews for this exact reason?

> Although, really the questions used in the RWA score are so on the nose

Are they? It's not really hard to imagine under what circumstances someone's response to, say, Statement 1 can go from maybe -2 or -3 to a hard 4 - all you need to do is to swap out the institution or authority that someone doesn't like for one they like.

The reason I have brought up "distribution of the sensible" is that what it seeks to point out is a group of people Jacques Ranciere refers to as the "political surplus". That is, if you are the part of "political surplus", your judgment, your moral values and your telling of your own life experience simply do not matter to the society you live in regardless of what they are. You are instead a de-politicalised object that exists only to "move along" in a system that serves to make statistics and metrics that point to no person in specific look good enough for whoever in charge to justify their own position and prestige. (It is also not hard to imagine that Ranciere is a staunch supporter of direct democracy and has written an entire book just to make a case for it.)

Given this picture, a society under "distribution of the sensible" is always authoritarian by necessity. Since, instead of an object, you are a political subject with thoughts and values, the only way to make you "move along" despite your inclination to question what you have been told is the police state - that is, a state founding itself on the operational logic of the police. Should you fail to comply with what you have been told to accept or follow - to "move along" - someone will simply come and shut you up and make you comply with the directions you have been given through whatever means necessary. Sometimes it's state-sanctioned violence, but, more often, it's just a chilling reminder to know your place and not to stick your nose where nothing concerns you (supposedly). This is also why one of the most frequent statements from your local police department is none other than this one:

"Nothing to see here. Move along."

Now, of course, since what you really are is a political animal with thoughts and values, these thoughts and values may very well align with that of the (police) state. If you are part of the "political surplus", however, the question of whether your thoughts and values align with those of the state simply does not matter. You can vote for a political candidate either willingly or begrudgingly, but, at the end of day, only what's written on your ballot counts. You can work your low-paying job either with a headful of resentiment or with an ear-to-ear smile, but, at the end of the day, only whether you have a job at all matters to employment statistics. Under the "distribution of the sensible", your approval of the state's designs and machinations is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant to its own continued existence, and it is ultimately the "authoritarians" who will have an easier time getting by as the rejects and outsiders of the society they live in.

Do you see now how a systemic critique of society completely eclipses the necessity for trying to measure one's supposed, authoritarian tendencies?

Good catch. I really meant to say “moving beyond our current form of liberal democracy” because the issue is not so much democracy, which as I mentioned I believe has benefits beyond merely producing a decision. I edited.

I highly recommend Jacque Ranciere’s short book Hatred Of Democracy. He presents a pointed and responsible critique of liberal democracy, and fleshes out an impressive an argument for this line of thought.

According to Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page (political scientists and Princeton and Northwestern) the U.S. is not a democracy because average voters have absolutely zero influence over the policies that become laws. By contrast, Jacques Ranciere in Hatred of Democracy defends the ancient Greek conception of democracy as rule of chance. According to that understanding of democracy, the U.S. is definitely not a democracy, as in a democracy, power is supposed to rotate randomly, whereas in the U.S. and every other developed capitalist country, there is definitely an entrenched power bloc. I think of elections in modern countries as functioning primarily as a way to allow voters to blow off steam: allowing individuals to throw a temper tantrum every few years in the voting booth lets them to feel empowered even if they are not. This is remarkably different from the nineteenth century when many European elites feared that giving people the right to vote would lead immediately to socialism. The lesson of the 20th century for elites has been that this fear was totally overblown.