/lit/ - Literature

No. You can't escape the iron cage, you can only find a way to be content within it.

>>16875806
Read Werner Sombart: Jews and Modern Capitalism.
http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/sombart_werner/Jews_and_modern_capitalism/sombart_jews_capitalism.pdf

>>16875806
Sorry but we’re fucked

>>16875975
Why? What does that have to do with the iron cage?

>>16875975
Ignore Sombart, read Braudel

Bump, i need some time to finish my answer and i don't want the thread 404'ing on me.

>>16877778
Go get 'im!
>1 off

>>16875806

Embrace the guild, my son

>>16875806
This is going to be a bit longwinded, but I it is all important preamble for answering the question. If you just want the answer then i'll capslock an ANSWER before it so you can skip to it, and an even further TLDR because even that answer is pretty long. Not too proud of this one.
So, Weber's entire approach to sociology is termed 'interpretive sociology' because it is focused around studying the subjective experience of individuals rather than the statistical trends of society, like a Durkheim or Comte. As he puts it:
>Sociology is a science concerning itself with the interpretive understanding of social action [...] we shall speak of "action" insofar as the acting individual attaches a subjective meaning to his behavior-be it overt or covert, omission or acquiescence
So Weber holds that the meaning that people give to their social behaviour is the foundation by which all social organistaiton is to be understood. Implicit in this claim, of course, is the proposition that the meaning that people give to their actions is causative of the organisational forms that come to exist in society.
There are four primary forms of social action:
>(1) instrumentally rational, that is, determined by expectations as to the behavior of objects in the environment and of other human beings; these expectations are used as "conditions" or "means" for the attainment of the actor's own rationaIIy pursued and calculated ends;
>(2) Value-rational, that is, determined by a conscious belief in the value for its own sake of some ethical, aesthetic, religious, or other form of behavior, independently of its prospects of success;
>(3) affectual (especially emotional), that is, determined by the actor's specific affects and feeling states;
>(4) Traditional, that is, determined by ingrained habituation.
In everyday life we abide by all of these to some extent, but typically one of these comes to dominate our outlook, and indeed the outlook of an entire society; it becomes the hegemonic form of social action, and gains legitimacy.
Legitimacy is not simply political legitimacy, but something far broader. Further, It is more than simply the aggregate of social actions, but rather a kind of 'privileged' ordering of society. The political legitimacy analogy is helpful: why do we follow the laws and rules of the government? because we think they are in some sense correct or justified. Now take that sense of correctness or justification of a government, and apply it to social actions. Remember, Weber thinks social actions are defined by their subjective meaning to the actor, so what we are saying is that there is a belief that a certain subjective meaning of social action is more justified or correct than another. And as social organisation is a product of this subjective meaning, its shapes itself in the image of this subjective order.

>>16878705
Recalling the taxonomy of Weber's types of social action, when any one of these types of social action become predominant, they form their own distinct social legitimacy. Though Weber lists four kinds of social actions, he only gives three kinds of legitimacy: Charismatic, traditional, and rational. These derive from the Social actions: Affectual, traditional, and instrumentally rational respectively. Charismatic legitimacy is a legitimacy derived from a belief in the infallibility of an individual or movement. Weber links this to prophetic and heroic figures, and the edicts and rules which they dispense. These rules are followed, not based of any instrumental calculation or habit, but purely on the heightened affectual resonance to their cause or personal qualities. Traditional legitimacy is derived from the authority of time and repetition. That something is tradition is reason enough to follow it, it needs not be dictated by some superhuman authority or justified on instrumental terms. Rational legitimacy is the legitimacy of instrumental reason, or means and ends. We believe in the correctness of an action based on the reasons we can give for it. I may debate a law based not on the fact that it was handed to me by a prophetic figure, or that it has been around since time immemorial, but by calculations to the effectiveness of achieving its end, its costs, or by its effect on public opinion.
ANSWER
Now, with that out of the way we can talk about the Iron cage. The iron cage is not capitalism, but the domination of rational legitimacy in the subjective meaning we give social actions. Capitalism, bureaucracy, parliamentary democracy—all are merely following the prevailing wind of rationalisation. We are not trapped by the division of labour, nor by being the cog in a vast bureaucratic machine. No, the real iron cage is the reduction of everything to instrumental calculation, to means and ends, and the belief that this is the only justified way of understanding and organising the world. And the fact that such an outlook is seemingly unassailable. 'No summer bloom lies ahead of us, but rather a polar night of icy darkness'
Weber was quite resigned to this fate. However, within his writings there is a way for rationalisation to be reversed. It has to do with the transition of these social orders. for starters, once rational organisation develops it will always overturn traditional organsiation in virtue of its monstrous capacity to produce material advantages.
>Under otherwise equal conditions, rationally organized and directed action is superior to every kind of collective behavior and also social action opposing it
There is simply no way to out-compete a system of social organsiation whose sole consideration is finding and implimenting the most efficient means of its ends. Traditional legitimacy will lose on these grounds precisely because it is hamstrung and bound to age-old laws and custom.

>>16878714
But while rational authority can undermine traditional legitimacy, charismatic legitimacy that is able to undermine rational domination in turn, as
>Charisma, if it has any specific effects at all, manifests its revolutionary power from within, from a central metanoia of the followers' attitudes. Charisma, in its most potent forms, disrupts rational rule as well as tradition altogether and overturns all notions of sanctity. The mere fact of recognizing the personal mission of a charismatic master establishes his power. Whether it is more active or passive, this recognition derives from the surrender of the faithful to the extraordinary and unheard of, to what is alien to all regulation and tradition. Hence, in a revolutionary and sovereign manner, charismatic domination transforms all values and breaks all traditional and rational norms.
So, to escape the iron cage of rationality you need something which is precisely irrational: affectual domination. A prophetic or heroic figure of such charisma that they are seen as infallible and their word is law. Thus, the iron cage would be shattered by the revolutionary spirit of this figure and their mission.
However—and this may be the source of Weber's resignation—this reprieve is only temporary. Much as charismatic legitimacy has it own disruptive power, so too are there powers which disrupt charisma. In this case, this legitmacy is undone by time. With the previous rational (or traditional) order torn down, people will need new laws and rules to live under. And while the charismatic leader can provide these when they are alive, once they die their teachings are all that remains to guide people. Which is why charismatic authority will always transition into traditional authority: as these teachings are routinised and codified, over time their legitimacy will no longer spring from any affectual feeling, but from becoming traditions. And as mentioned above, traditional authority cannot compete with rational authority, so it will naturally lead again to rational domination, and the iron cage.
TLDR
So that is your answer. According to Weber, the only way out is the appearance of someone with such charismatic force that they can shift the subjective meaning people give to social action away from instrumental calculation towards affectual domination by their own person. In the sense that this isn't very likely, we probably are fucked, yes.
I'm sure all this invokes thoughts of certain regimes in the 20th century. And indeed, there is a saying in sociology that is was lucky Weber died in the 1920's, because we didn't have to see him become a Nazi. I'm personally unsure if these regimes classify as charismatic authorities as much of the analysis of them is so entrenched in Weber's own influence that it is difficult to tell if the hand fits the glove or whether the glove was tailored to fit the hand.
This post became way too long even after cutting it down. I'm so sorry.

>>16875806
it's over, capitalism won

>>16875806
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXCh9OhDiCI
You could ding-a-ding dang your dang-a-long ling-long.

>>16878849
So you are saying, capitalism as a concept became the status quo and is as such indistinguishable from reality, thereby ending itself and allowing us to transcend it by proposing post-capitalist variations to build out of the capitalist status quo?

>>16875806

> Proddies
> not being fucked.

Kek

>>16878705
>>16878714
>>16878725
That's an awful long way to say literally hitler lmao.

>>16878705
>>16878714
>>16878725
I hope that was worth it. I did not and never will read it.

>>16878120
Tell me about this book

>>16875806
>people still read this hit piece
lul

>>16878725
Well I read it all but that's mostly nonsense (4 types of social action... ordered linearly?? Also wtf is a justification for subjective?). I don't know the author but if his issue is w the "rationalization" that biases the system w the system or people, I'd be uninterested to find him not a fan of djt however that's probably the most charismatic representation of his archetypal hero. This would make me imagine his theory deficient.

>>16875975
Sombart is shit

>>16878705
>>16878714
>>16878725
op here, thanks for the answer

>>16878725
>>16878714
>>16878705
Interesting read. made me genuinely curious to read the book now, since all I ever had to read of Weber was "Wissenschaftler als Beruf" which is quite a boring read if you aren't inherently opposed to the points in it.
Glad we still get sincere effort post on /lit/.

>>16878705
>>16878714
>>16878725
Always appreciate your posts, I disagree w him tho

>>16880218
>hit piece
what?

>>16880218
are you capable of speaking in more than twitter catchphrases?

>>16876689
this

>>16876689
>>16882607
Redpill me on Braudal. I see him recommend all the time

Started reading it this morning. Such a good book.
I was of the opinion that hard and dedicated work was natural to the human condition. Nope. It's unnatural as fuck.

>>16875975
Weber refuted Sombart.

>>16878725
Sounds Spenglerist, but to an extent I agree. I can see the public yearns for a cult of personality, that writing is on the wall. "Leadership" should be coming, it's only debatable what form it will take.

>>16883205
There was actually a public debate between Weber and Spengler. I don't think any transcripts exist of it though.

>>16875806
The "iron cage" gets a bad rap because of Parsons shitty translation. Stahlhartes Gehäuse means shell as hard as steel. Think of it as a comfy snail shell

>>16878705
Good effort posts :3

>>16878120
Is this some ancap shit?

>>16881799
Most of it was drawn from Economy and Society, not Protestant Ethic. But ES is very eclectic and not entirely cohesive work, so i think it's something to be read in parts rather than cover-to-cover. The most important parts in my opinion is the entirety of Part One, then for Part Two chapters I, II, IV, VII, IX, X, XI, and XIV. But it contains within it practically independant works (part two, chapter VI is a book length section on the sociology of religion, then VIII on Economy and Law). Useful if you're interested in those subjects, but otherwise not all that important for the central point.

>>16880011
It's a protestant world and you're living in it

>>16876689
based and world system pilled

>>16878705
Wow based intro to sociology

>>16886214
Wallerstein?

>>16885256
Why is nobody calling out unironic avatarfagging?