[claudiawerner]

Zizek is famous for pursuing a line very much against the grain; people intellectually similar to him argue for a society organised informally and locally, like a commune - but he argues that he'd rather be living in a bureaucracy in which he doesn't have to worry about all the smallest decisions and direct democracy. To him, the trouble of the USSR wasn't all the bureaucracy, it was that it wasn't bureaucratic enough to the point where it was easy to game the system.

>Žižek now believes that efficient bureaucracy is the necessary corollary of any successful future state. While often alluding to the utopian impulse that imagines a political community beyond “what is”—including Derrida’s “democracy of the future”—such imagining should not exceed the strictures imposed on the world by technological complexity, sprawling populations and megalopolises. In fact one should be able to take utilities and health services for granted. Freedom of choice should not have to extend to one’s electricity vendor and Internet provider, or even what hospital one wants to convalesce in.[0]

and,

>I think he agrees with Laclau and Mouffe, that every radical solution is temporary, 'lives in borrowed time'. This means that an 'organizational structure' must not become sedimented, but remain open. This probably sounds a bit abstract, but it matters, as it assumes the position opposite of e.g. Stalinism.[1]

On some level I agree with him, as much as it's contrary to the self-organizing semi-anarchist hacker spirit.

[0] https://criticaltheoryresearchnetwork.com/2017/08/10/bureauc...

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/zizek/comments/6mmtpg/what_kind_of_...

[Fnoord]

> Zizek

Who? This person? [1] I'm at a loss. Could you explain what this has to do with this topic?

From what I understand it seems to be in agreement with the principles of Hakim Bey's Temporary Autonomous Zone [2].

"The book describes the socio-political tactic of creating temporary spaces that elude formal structures of control.[1] The essay uses various examples from history and philosophy, all of which suggest that the best way to create a non-hierarchical system of social relationships is to concentrate on the present and on releasing one's own mind from the controlling mechanisms that have been imposed on it.

In the formation of a TAZ, Bey argues, information becomes a key tool that sneaks into the cracks of formal procedures. A new territory of the moment is created that is on the boundary line of established regions. Any attempt at permanence that goes beyond the moment deteriorates to a structured system that inevitably stifles individual creativity. It is this chance at creativity that is real empowerment."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj_%C5%BDi%C5%BEek

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Autonomous_Zone

[claudiawerner]

He's a continental philosopher who specialises in political philosophy, a topic which is very relevant to methods of governance in society (most generally) or smaller units (like programming projects). In particular, his concern in this scope is questioning the extent to which critiques of current methods of governance and the organisation of society (e.g as highlighted by the Frankfurt School's critical theory) are relevant to any future methods, and whether questioning government philosophically rules out a bureaucratic governance.

In particular his position is interesting in contrast to others in the anti-authoritarian Marxist tradition.

I hadn't heard of Hakim Bey or TAZ, so thanks for pointing that out to me.

[AstralStorm]

This does not close nor stifle creativity at all, unless your point is that any majoritarian system does so. There is a balance involved, too much chaos and everything explodes.

You're free to fork your own python like language and get buy in as long as you do not infringe the trademarks. Or make experimental branches and proposals.

[AstralStorm]

Uhmm, it is self organizing as well as transparent. This is why the rule for changing governance rules (including itself) is simple and transparent. To keep relative stability, it has a built in buy in threshold.

There is a difference and fine line between freedom of choice and being overwhelmed by options, especially irrelevant ones, even more so if all competitors are essentially fake and owned by the same company. Looking at Unilever and Nestle here for example.

[AstralStorm]

Why the downvote? It is not like the organization form was thrown onto the project by an external force?

Or does self organizing mean something different from what it says?

[tinus_hn]

> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

[doublepg23]

Never thought I'd see Zizek in a HN thread on Python... Great points from him though.

[xamuel]

Zizek isn't a philosopher, he's an entertainer disguised as a philosopher. His entire schtick is: take something common sense, declare the opposite is true, and do so in a profound-sounding way with lots of eccentric gesturing and lisping.

Chomsky on Zizek [1]: Posturing. There's no theory in any of this stuff. Try to find in all [Zizek's work] some principles from which you can deduce...empirically testable propositions...beyond the level of something you can explain in 5 minutes to a 12-year old.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0

[haberman]

There's also the fact that he's impressively blind to abuses of power committed by his friends. Doesn't inspire confidence in his ability to see things clearly.

https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/why-did-i-sign-the-letter-...

https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-brief-post-script-on-the...

[claudiawerner]

I've come across a comment almost exactly like this before on HN; was it you who posted it? Zizek does entertain, but most popular writers also entertain, and entertainment is not mutually exclusive with philosophy. He is respected within philosophy (and Chomsky is not a philosopher, as much respect I have for him too) and widely cited. The inversion of common sense things is precisely the aim of critical theory. Granted, Zizek draws from "low culture" too in order to appeal with popular media, but you can't simply say he's not a philosopher. What he does is philosophy or critique of it and you can read as much in his books.

You might say that he lacks rigor or prowess in his arguments, but those admit he's a philosopher. I can't see how you can deny he is a philosopher. Let's rephrase the essence of your argument: anyone who writes to entertain or repeatedly questions notions of common sense cannot possibly be a philosopher (despite large output and several research and teaching positions in and invitations to philosophy departments at universities around the world), if and only if a linguist says so and they have a lisp and some nervous tics.

I'd also suppose that none of the topics which Zizek addresses are philosophical ones: https://www.iep.utm.edu/zizek/

[xamuel]

He's a pop philosopher and a genius at cultivating followership, but he doesn't really have productive ideas (at least not ideas whose results you couldn't explain in 5 minutes to a 12 year old, to borrow Chomsky's language).

Take a saying of Zizek and route it through a robotic voice (to eliminate his accent and mannerisms). Do the same to the negation of same. Play the results to a random population. The genuine saying of Zizek will not statistically stand out as being any more valuable than its negation.

[blfr]

Smells of "real communism hasn't been tried."

I quite like the Swiss model of democracy. Taleb argues that the focus on small matters and diffused democracy avoids centralization of power and provides a lot of their famous stability.

[claudiawerner]

It's important to analyze arguments not by what they seem to be but by what they actually are; the substance of what he's saying isn't that the USSR (for example) "wasn't real Communism" because it wasn't bureaucratic enough, his position is that regardless of whether it is "real Communism" or isn't, bureaucracy is still a question of central importance. The notion of discussing "utopia" in relation to its actual existing aspects is covered quite well by Marcuse[0].

On the other hand, several Communists (in fact, the ones Zizek is arguing against) very much argue for exactly what you propose: focus on small matters and diffused democracy to avoid centralisation of power. The fact of "real Communism" having been or not having been "tried" is irrelevant to the questions concerning how such a society, if it is possible, ought to be organised. Thought-terminating cliches don't make for critical analysis.

[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marcuse/#FanUtoRatGra

[blfr]

Theoretical arguments are incredibly overrated for complex systems. Usually, they're just ways for academics to signal their ability to make these arguments, to show off how smart they are, and of little utility otherwise.

You need to see how things actually work out in practice. And in practice Swiss democracy works very well whereas most central bureaucracies are soul killers.

[AstralStorm]

The trouble is, their system mostly works because of culture, not because it is truly any better. A certain high level of egalitarianism, responsibility for decisions and push back against exploitative or manipulative practices is required for success. This makes transplanting their practices hard.

In case you do not know, Swiss have a central bureaucracy. Not everything, heck most things are not decided by direct vote. Important things are though and the citizens can propose a referendum after the fact as well given enough buy in.

[blfr]

Obviously, the environment matters. It's not just culture but geography, history, genetics. It's much easier to run a free country when you're surrounded by oceans (like the US) or mountains (like Switzerland) than when you're surrounded by potential conquerors.

But that is also true of bureaucracies. Honesty, attention to details, voluntary respect for rules make bureaucratic systems semi-liveable and not a hellish kleptocracy.

Every idea suffers from implementation problems. Not every idea is worth implementing though.

[claudiawerner]

On the other hand, critical thought about such systems as they exist can pave the way to what we should and shouldn't want in future systems. While it's true of course that history doesn't follow some Solvenian philosopher's blueprint, real action is informed by theoretical aims. The other extreme is extreme apathy to towards democratic decisions (as others have pointed out) and how soul-killing and time consuming it is to have to engage with a great variety of things where a choice already made for you would be better. Compare this with the many arguments on this site about hosting your own e-mail server rather than using gmail + PGP.

[AstralStorm]

Indeed, but they do have policies, high level approaches and big decisions too.

The problem with this kind of direct democracy is the same as with all diplomacy - astroturfing, focus groups, demagoguery and unintended consequences.

Focus groups make diffuse votes matter less despite being more prevalent. (Overwhelming majority in some cases.) Astroturfing is a kind of diffuse bribery. Unintended consequences is most often when people are presented with a package deal and do not dig deeply enough to figure out results. Finally demagoguery is usually by presenting a palatable but highly inferior option or by going for short term bandaid solutions.

The latter two are less relevant to a programming language project.