“The disenchantment of the world is for Weber the disappearance of politics, hence the disappearance of the human, hence the lessening of the role that the non-rational and non-rule-governed play in the affairs of society. “Bureaucracy,” he will proclaim, “has nothing to do with politics.”
How is the term politics being used here? It doesn’t seem to be in the context I’m used to seeing it.
It doesn't fit the dictionary definition of group decision making. It seems to refer more to a meta-physical, ethical, moral framework used to guide decision making -- or here I read it as the replacement of said framework by a "rational" framework.
Logic, and reason alone necessary but insufficient tools for humane decision making. A moral or ethical framework is required - perhaps that is the point being made?
Hi JD, I can see how this could be confusing. Bureaucracies are, of course, subject to "politics" within their organizations. However, the way Weber used the term was as the sharing of state power between various groups as embodied by political leaders. He distinguished between three types of authority: (1) charismatic authority which is familial and religious, (2) traditional authority including patriarchy and feudalism, and (3) rational-legal authority i.e. bureaucratic authority.
The success of bureaucratic authority came at the expense of the other types of authority, including the political authority bestowed through the political process (i.e. voting). In other words, whoever is voted into power no longer has the ability to change the underlying nature of the bureaucracy -- it is *immune* to politics. And when people no longer feel like they can have impact on their society, it furthers nihilism, despair, and disenchantment with society.
I don't follow why the graph showing increases in prices of goods and services after government regulation in the US would lead someone to conclude: "remind me why socialism is so great again". Since this is only the US and the US isn't socialist! It could just as easily demonstrate that the US government is deeply corrupt and colludes with the private sector to drive up prices, certainly in the case of health care at least.
Hi Alistair, you're right that the use of the term "socialism" is a confusing one because there are multiple meanings for it. Would you consider the state's intervention in the market to be a form of socialism? We've had Social Security, Medicaire and Medicaid for decades, and recently Obamacare - are those not forms of socialism? But I do understand your point.
I'm not American so my impression of it is only what I've heard and read, but as I understand it, the socialised systems have to fit into the existing privatised system, which is incredibly expensive. Choosing health insurance sounds like a nightmare! Truly socialised health care systems that don't depend on profit can be some of the best in the world, for example Cuba, or the British NHS (although that's in the process of being ripped apart) but they require long term commitment and investment from government.
I'm always shocked when I hear how much drugs and procedures cost in the US, but that is the result of a deregulated market, which is antithetical to socialised health care.
Alistair, I judge that the medicine in the US is not deregulated, it is in fact hyper-regulated, to enrich the well-connected and impoverish those paying for the care.
Hi, yes I can see how that can also be true. When I think of regulation I think of it in terms of regulating the quality and price to keep them safe and affordable, but of course if regulators are working in the interest of manufacturers rather than 'healthcare consumers' (ugh) then it takes on a very different meaning.
“The disenchantment of the world is for Weber the disappearance of politics, hence the disappearance of the human, hence the lessening of the role that the non-rational and non-rule-governed play in the affairs of society. “Bureaucracy,” he will proclaim, “has nothing to do with politics.”
How is the term politics being used here? It doesn’t seem to be in the context I’m used to seeing it.
It doesn't fit the dictionary definition of group decision making. It seems to refer more to a meta-physical, ethical, moral framework used to guide decision making -- or here I read it as the replacement of said framework by a "rational" framework.
Logic, and reason alone necessary but insufficient tools for humane decision making. A moral or ethical framework is required - perhaps that is the point being made?
Hi JD, I can see how this could be confusing. Bureaucracies are, of course, subject to "politics" within their organizations. However, the way Weber used the term was as the sharing of state power between various groups as embodied by political leaders. He distinguished between three types of authority: (1) charismatic authority which is familial and religious, (2) traditional authority including patriarchy and feudalism, and (3) rational-legal authority i.e. bureaucratic authority.
The success of bureaucratic authority came at the expense of the other types of authority, including the political authority bestowed through the political process (i.e. voting). In other words, whoever is voted into power no longer has the ability to change the underlying nature of the bureaucracy -- it is *immune* to politics. And when people no longer feel like they can have impact on their society, it furthers nihilism, despair, and disenchantment with society.
I don't follow why the graph showing increases in prices of goods and services after government regulation in the US would lead someone to conclude: "remind me why socialism is so great again". Since this is only the US and the US isn't socialist! It could just as easily demonstrate that the US government is deeply corrupt and colludes with the private sector to drive up prices, certainly in the case of health care at least.
Enjoying the read though
Hi Alistair, you're right that the use of the term "socialism" is a confusing one because there are multiple meanings for it. Would you consider the state's intervention in the market to be a form of socialism? We've had Social Security, Medicaire and Medicaid for decades, and recently Obamacare - are those not forms of socialism? But I do understand your point.
I'm not American so my impression of it is only what I've heard and read, but as I understand it, the socialised systems have to fit into the existing privatised system, which is incredibly expensive. Choosing health insurance sounds like a nightmare! Truly socialised health care systems that don't depend on profit can be some of the best in the world, for example Cuba, or the British NHS (although that's in the process of being ripped apart) but they require long term commitment and investment from government.
I'm always shocked when I hear how much drugs and procedures cost in the US, but that is the result of a deregulated market, which is antithetical to socialised health care.
Alistair, I judge that the medicine in the US is not deregulated, it is in fact hyper-regulated, to enrich the well-connected and impoverish those paying for the care.
Hi, yes I can see how that can also be true. When I think of regulation I think of it in terms of regulating the quality and price to keep them safe and affordable, but of course if regulators are working in the interest of manufacturers rather than 'healthcare consumers' (ugh) then it takes on a very different meaning.