He's right, you know? I like his essays on Might is Right

>>24529830 (OP)
This is just mental masturbation. Every time you read a book on a non-STEM subject, you are just reading the mental masturbation of another man, and letting him fill up your brain with his thoughts.

>>24529841
That's called learning, but of course anon at /lit( doesn't actually read.

>>24529843
Maybe you should read a book on English grammar, ESL faggot.

>>24529830 (OP)
Noam Chomsky makes a more thorough analysis than Weber ever could do on Nature of Power

How powerful is the impact of language to influence a population? Weber seems to imply its not as important

>>24530005
According to Chomsky its essential to understand how the government apparatus operates

>>24530117
Chomsky was a linguist, he has no right to be talking political science given his lack of background and credentials.

>>24529830 (OP)
qrd?

>>24530262
The State has the right to hold a monopoly on violence and ensure its will is enacted upon the citizens so things remain fair, democratic and comfortable for them as they have until now.

>>24530262
>>24530305
I was on the verge of buying it this week.
If you talk a little bit more or show us some pages I might jump into it.

>>24530312
Totally worth it, Weber perfectly encapsulates how the State works and why its important that it exists. It seems he was quite pro-fascist

>>24530333
What is the theoretical basis for it?

>>24529830 (OP)
>politics as a vocation
I've heard that this faggot justifies making politics a career, i.e. having people whose whole life is dedicated to politics. well, if that's correct, and if I had a time machine, I'd kill this fucker with my bare hands.
most western politicians and people involved in poltiics today are lawyers and "political scientists". the ones that actually lead society are not politicians but ultra-rich people who use economists and business admins to pass on orders and justify whatever bullshit they do to steal shitloads of money from one each other and from the state.
lawyers and economists are cancer. all of these people are farther and farther away from knowing what "real life" means for the 99.99% of people out there. these people are mostly useless retards that only know how to steal, cheat and lie, and they don't even hide it. they have no technical knowledge about anything at all except made-up bullshit created to convince others of their "authority", yet they, as a whole class, manage whole groups of professionals and technicians (engineers of all kinds, medical doctors & nurses, chemists, teachers, ...) and workers in general, and impose their dumb ass opinions onto us all.
our society is collapsing not because of the lack of knowledgeable people (so called "competency crisis"), but because there are too many layers of bureaucracy. guess who are the ones creating more and more layers of bureaucracy, and for what purpose??? politicians and rich people, to cover their own asses, to avoid public scrutiny by appearing more and more invisible to the citizenry, to extract more money from people and to make sure wagies suffer the nonsensical wrath of big corps and their drones. and if what I've this fucker justifi
fuckers deserve to be hanged on public square, mussolini style, or shot in the back of the head, china style.

>>24529906
Foucault knew the best. Chomsky was just trying to reduce all of it to a linguistic construct instead of an all enveloping historical shaper.

>>24530486
Any good references on what Foucault wrote about the government and State enforced violence?

>>24530486
Agreed, linguistics and politics don't mesh

>>24530781
Why not? I'd argue politics is simply a sub branch of linguistics but applied towards social systems. I'd say political science may even be a form of math and thus subject to the interpretation of language!

>>24530825
Is math really linguistics?

>>24530305
This is just Hobbes but with extra steps.

>>24531240
He improved upon Hobbes' thoughts and realized why the State is the most important thing

>>24530479
I dare say politician is the most honest career path there is. They provide for the city and ensure the sheeple don't kill each other and keep feeding the capitalist machine.
All problems in the world are due to rich people but politicians exist to keep them in check. Politicians come from the top, only the smartest, fittest and most capable get to reach office. A marvel of darwinian selection at work.

>>24530688
The intellectual biography The Last Man Takes LSD is a good all in one trajectory of his evolving thought

>>24531652
politicians are glorified managers. there is nothing honest about pretending to be the one that will change things only to end up implementing whatever measures your jewish superiors tell you to.
professional politicians are basically leeches of the worst kind. imagine living off the state forever while claiming to understand the society you want to improve. though I'm thinking of the average 3rd world corrupt shithole politician that gets paid 10x+ the minimum wage, not the minimum wage politician that you see in some european countries.

>Politicians come from the top, only the smartest, fittest and most capable get to reach office
anon... politicians are elected, to some degree at least.

>>24531724
>imagine living off the state forever while claiming to understand the society you want to improve
According to Weber they're a necessary evil, if at all, because they have a wide knowledge over how the State works compared to say a plumber that only knows and experiences his narrow worldview.
If anything, being a politician may be more heroic than being a plumber or a medic because they have to know everything about everything and be the peak in every arena (physical, mental, spiritual). In a way they have to be the Chosen People to properly work.
>anon... politicians are elected, to some degree at least.
Yeah, from the best of the best in human beings.

>>24531781
>According to Weber they're a necessary evil, if at all, because they have a wide knowledge over how the State works compared to say a plumber that only knows and experiences his narrow worldview.
what's the difference between that and, say, CEOs or managers in companies? all companies have different structures, cultures, bureaucracies and so on. anyone who's smart enough can learn that shit in a few months or years if they put enough effort.
also, why even assume that politicians know how the state works at all? I've read about politicians who were lawyers and career politicians that had no clue about legal shit, to the point of making grave mistakes (that were pardoned... because they were politicians).
I'd bet some engineers are better (able to learn quickier, more precise in defining stuff and managing processes, more efficient at managing resources...) than retarded lawyers, braindead business people and useless political "scientists". the major problem engineers have is their autism that translates to poor communication and social skills, and lack of charisma.

>from the best of the best in human beings
lol. if you say so... lmao

>>24531816
>CEOs or managers in companies
CEO's and businessmen are greedy, its in their nature because they only care about profit. Meanwhile Weber explains how politicians only care about the wellbeing of their country and their people, which makes it their divine right to rule.

>>24531962
Chosmky mentions in "Understanding Power" that democracies are democracies because the right people are running them; and if the right people are not running them, then they are not democracies.

>>24531962
>CEO's and businessmen are greedy, its in their nature because they only care about profit
ok. then explain to me what is the relationship between knowing/learning how a company (or some other big for-profit org) works and being greedy.

>>24532047
That's precisely what makes businesspeople greedy and not fit to rule a country

>>24532047
NTA, but it's a matter of self-selection. If you like X, you are, if given the choice, going to engage in matters that expose you to X. If you want to get wealthy, you're going to pursue goals that focus on gaining and keeping wealth. Simple.
Statistically, the people most likely to learn how businesses work are people who intend to learn how to make money. Their core motivation is wealth.
Unfortunately, the motive for most people seeking political office is power. As they are focused on gaining and maintaining power rather than performing the alleged duties of their office, they will devote the majority of time to shoring up and improving their position of power and only doing what they must in order to keep their position (which very often means not doing anything at all).
Some people do seek political office for the betterment of the world and others, but since those people are focused on doing their job and not gaining and maintaining power, power increasingly becomes concentrated with ambitious megalomaniacs, ergo the last people who should have it.

>>24529830 (OP)
Thought it was Hitler for a moment

>>24532297
>self-selection makes you good at something
>this somehow makes SOME people good at managing a state or at discussing new laws
I'm sure Biden, or what was left of that fucking zombie, was an excelent politician

>Unfortunately, the motive for most people seeking political office is power.
cool. I've been arguing about this, precisely. knowing how the state works doesn't make you the best person to be a politician. in fact, this might promote corruption. that's where I was going to, but the other retard kept deflecting the point.

career politicians are cancer. politicians should be normal people that have been selected from and by their communities to represent them and take positions of power. maybe have them do some course before allowing them to become representatives or whatever, idk. it shouldn't take long for a respectable, educated member of a community to learn how things are actually managed. things are complex, but not THAT complex. in the end, politicians delegate and discuss shit. the closer they are to earth, the better they understand the real world. politicians are supposed to try to solve political problems, but current politicians are retarded, corrupt, and have no clue about anything. money and their greed make things even worse.

>>24532490
Any system of that kind can be 'hacked'- it has, as you've pointed out.
Let me devil's advocate here:
>politicians should be normal people that have been selected from and by their communities to represent them and take positions of power
How do you define 'a normal person'? Even if you can select a 'normal person', such as by lottery, what guarantee do you have that
>the means of selection won't themselves be compromised
>the training won't possess inherent biases or, again, be compromised by special interests
>someone selected for this position will be competent enough to perform their task by the end of the training
>that once they are in a position of power, they won't be influenced by factions, self-interest, or lobbyists
Things have become far too complex for a single person to understand everything there is to know. True polymaths no longer exist. Taking someone from the comfort of their day to day lifestyle to serve in a position they have no previous experience in and were not initally motivated to seek out does work, but it requires a level of civic participation that was more common in smaller communities and simply isn't possible for managing huge swathes of people.
What is most likely to happen in this situation is that those officers will either take bribes directly or benefit from their position in a way that aligns them closer towards the concentration of power. Instead of controlling the individual, corruption attempts to manipulate the system itself. Knowing where and where not to cross lines, what will and will not get reported, exploiting apathy, self-interest, tribalism, and dissatisfaction.

>>24532514
I didn't mean "normal" as in some random retard. I meant to say people known to work for their community. people aren't stupid enough to select some drug addicts as representatives.
there could be some requirements: experienced workers, technicians and professionals could be a basic one.

regarding your list: some of those things already happen, some don't. I don't see how changing the system from one where people appoint themselves as candidates or join political parties to become candidates would make any difference to the system i'm thinking of.

you are right that things have become really complex. this is the reason why I'd prefer having assemblies of experienced technicians and professionals rather than a bunch of brainlet lawyers and business admins as representatives. what do lawyers know about reality anyway? they only know how to talk about their ideologies (if they have one at all), listen to lobbyists, and pay people to read and write reports, policies and laws for them to argue about and vote on.
if you have ever had a technical job or at least studied technical stuff, you'd know that most things are actually abstractions and interfaces. that's our current "reality". you have to understand what you are talking about to know the products of human work, otherwise you'd be talking about black-boxes. most lawyers are deeply ignorant. they also suck at basic math so they are unable to see and compare things in their real proportions and depth. they already listen to lobbyists from many industries anyway. why not cut the middlemen?

let's talk about reality of politicians now:
- I have known and read the biographies of a few young career politicians in my country. they sucked in university because they worried more about politics and making themselves be known and become famous rather than about studying. most of these mediocre retards went to law school and yet they make basic, obvious legal missteps, most likely because they never worked a single day in their lives and were unable to leave the parallel reality of university politics. they were voted and appointed to different positions in the state, and their fuckups are being or will, most likely, be paid by the poor and middle class. they already forgot most of the ideological crap they vomited for many years, gave way (assuming they didn't get paid under the table or who knows what else) to the pressures of a few special interests and, more importantly, to the interests of a few owners and representatives of big corporations. these are the crappy "career politicians" we have to deal with these days. the old ones were just as corrupt.
some completely different examples:
- you have people like trump or biden, boomers that should have been driven away from politics.
- also people like obama, a so-called "democrat" who influenced politics EVERYWHERE by promoting crap like neofeminism, education policies that only made things worse, bombed multiple countries "for peace", etc.

>>24532514
Basically this. At least with a politician you know what you're getting. That's the essence of Max Weber's ideology he perfectly describes in Politics as Vocation

Disgusting
All statists should be killed
God I wish we could be rid of you scum

>>24533036
>At least with a politician you know what you're getting
what a mediocre state of things. fucking hell.

>>24533035
>why not cut out the middlemen?
Because the middlemen serve to make specific requests about what ought to be done, based on the policies they claim to have been elected to implement. They act as the customer for those who serve the government on behalf of the governed. They should theoretically only buy products the countery actually needs, although we know that's not the case.
The presumed aim of political structure is to align the interests of the rulers with the interests of the governed.
The actual aim of political structure is to align the interests of the governed with the interests of the rulers.
>Well, why hasn't this caused everything to collapse? They're clearly incompetent and selfish!
The advantage of modern systems is that they are extremely stable. However, the disadvantage is that their stability allows corruption to fester until the system fails in so many places at once that the impact is devastating.
Imagine the loss of a single major individual. By distributing responsibility, the system itself stays intact because removing one individual doesn't generally change the structure of the system as a whole. Normally, this works, but since people are lazy, major components are left to rot because the rest of the system compensates. That's how corruption sinks in. The corrupt don't take responsibility or act competently because THEY DON'T HAVE TO. The system works 'without them', they just direct a portion of it.
Again, this works.. At first. Then, eventually, you get to the point where there's a single point of failure for a major portion of the political and economic system: Everyone kept passing the buck, but now there's too many issues for passing off responsibility to make sense anymore- and nobody else is going to help because they've stacked up issues of their own. A fire in one part of a house can be contained. A fire in multiple locations will almost certainly become an inferno- focusing on one issue allows the remainder to become even more problematic.
Reform allows this damage to be mitigated and detected ahead of time, but if too many unexpected events happen all at once, an unprepared system can be left crippled and unable to respond, or even keep itself alive. The US national debt, for instance, wouldn't be nearly as catastrophic if COVID hadn't reared its ugly head. Whatever you want to assume about the disease, the economic damage was undeniable.
This is where we are slowly finding ourselves, if we are not already there. The big problem is that the people that are best equipped to legally change the system to run clean are the same people that benefit from it running dirty. The transition cost/repair cost is too much for them personally to justify to themselves, so they're basically trying to pretend that things aren't tied together by duct tape.
It's the tragedy of the commons, where individuals make selfish decisions because they believe they either must or deserve to, dooming everyone.

>>24533050
The evil you know is better than the evil you don't. At least Weber seemed to think so

>>24533421
>>24534047
so you guys admit that politicians are tools for the powerful to maintain the statu quo and pretend that things are "stable", and even that can fail and end up in crises and complete corrupted countries.
IMO, liberalism is some sort of constant technological revolution, basically the ideological defense of capitalism. the problem with it are the same problem as with capitalism: constant crises. I'd rather have people who can solve problems at the top, including the ones inherent to capitalism. which is why I'd prefer organized technicians, professionals and workers in general to decide on stuff.
but what do I know, I'm kind of ignorant about these topics.

>>24534559
>I'd rather have people who can solve problems at the top, including the ones inherent to capitalism. which is why I'd prefer organized technicians, professionals and workers in general to decide on stuff.
We do have a name for leadership by experts: It's called oligarchy.
The problem with trying to tune a system against corruption is that but the people in control of the system need to have a vested, enforceable interest in keeping things working well. People are lazy: It's a natural instinct to do the least amount of work possible for the best yield you can. To do otherwise is a waste. You need a system that not only pulls competent people into positions of competence and removes the incompetent, but requires by necessity that the competent leaders stay competent and focused on their goal.
If you have a 60% chance of being re-elected by doing your job and an 80% chance of being re-elected by focusing on your re-election campaign, then most people will eventually spend the majority of their time trying to stay elected instead of doing their job. The same kind of problem applies to expert leader groups- they become experts at staying in power, instead of experts at their job.
Even if everyone is making optimal choices based on their expertise, they can collectively come to a destructive conclusion because each is interested in their own ends. Here's an exaggerated scenario.
>Everyone wants widgets
>Widget factory generates widgets made up of substances A and B
>Widget factory generates substance A and also generates substance B, but not as cheaply as it can be bought
>The reason why the factory generates B instead of buying it is to give themselves a buffer from the market
>Widget factory captures the widget market because they're the cheapest producers by far
>Widget factory is now the only business that buys substance B
>Owner of widget factory decides that it's now more optimal to only buy B instead of make it
>Because everyone wants widgets, it doesn't make sense to sell B at a price point that makes producing widgets unprofitable
>However, since the widget factory is the only group that buys substance B and they stopped making it themselves, there's an increase in demand: Substance B prices go up
>Since substance B price increased, the owner of the widget factory raises the price of widgets
>Substance B producers see the raised price of widgets and decide they can charge more
>The widget and substance B prices both fluctuate until stable again
>During this period, because of the struggle for profits between the widget factory and substance B generators, the price of widgets has fluctuated and is probably worse now than it used to be
>Widgets have now gotten so expensive that nobody wants widgets anymore
>Even if the factory now sells widgets at a loss, customers are convinced that if they buy widgets again, the prices will skyrocket back up
>The market for widgets collapses because they can't recapture customer interest in time

>>24534713
>*pulls competent people into positions of power
bleh. But you know what I mean.
A system is only resistant to corruption as long as the trusted agents running it benefit more from keeping it ethical than they benefit from corruption. This is teeth-shatteringly difficult to actually accomplish, because the whole point of corruption is that it benefits the individual, while collective systems tend to exist to benefit the group (usually at some minor expense to individuals).

>>24529830 (OP)
I will share some of the information I read from Chomsky as a counter to your arguments OP
>Well, the Thirties were an exciting time-it was deep economic depression, everybody was out of a job, but the funny thing about it was, it was
hopeful. It's very different today. When you go into the slums today, it's nothing like what it was: it's desolate, there is no hope. Anybody who's my
age or more will remember, there was a sense of hopefulness back then: maybe there was no food, but there were possibilities, there were things that
could be done. You take a walk through East Harlem today, there was nothing like that at the depths of the Depression-this sense that there's
nothing you can do, it's hopeless, your grandmother has to stay up at night
to keep you from being eaten by a rat. That kind of thing didn't exist at the depths of the Depression; There's really something qualitatively different about contemporarypoverty, I think. Some of you must share these experiences. I mean, I was a kid back then, so maybe my perspective was different. But I remember
when I would go into the apartment of my cousins-you know, broken family, no job, twenty people living in a tiny apartment-somehow it was
hopeful. It was intellectually alive, it was exciting, it was just very different from today somehow.
>WOMAN: Do you attribute that to the raised political consciousness of that era as compared to now?
>It's possible: there was a lot of union organizing back then, and the struggles were very brutal. I remember it well. Like, one of my earliest childhood memories is of taking a trolley car with my mother and seeing the police wade into a strike of women pickets outside a Philadelphia textile mill, and beating them up-that's a searing memory. And the poverty was extreme: I remember rag-pickers coming to the door begging for money, lots of things like that. So it was not pretty by any means. But it was also not hopeless. Somehow that's a tremendous difference: the slums are now hopeless, there's nothing to do except prey on one another.
Thus according to Chomsky, politics used to be more hopeful

>>24535117
I'd be inclined to say that the X factor he's describing is a sense of community that no longer exists due to the dominance of individualistic thinking.

>>24535242
Could be the case, Chomsky also mentions something about the polarization and fanaticism in America
>But the point is, if things ever really come to a crunch in the United States, this massive part of the population-I think it's something like a third
of the adult population by now-could be the basis for some kind of a fascist movement, readily. For example, if the country sinks deeply into a recession, a depoliticized population could very easily be mobilized into thinking it's somebody else's fault: "Why are our lives collapsing? There
have to be bad guys out there doing something for things to be going so badly"-and the bad guys can be Jews, or homosexuals, or blacks, or Communists, whatever you pick. If you can whip people into irrational frenzies like that, they can be extremely dangerous: that's what 1930s
Fascism came from, and something like that could very easily happen here.

>>24529830 (OP)
Yet another point against Weber's proposal is this by Chomsky, OP
>Imagine yourself working in some public relations office where your job is to help corporations make sure that the annoying public does not get in the way of policy-making. Here's a brilliant thought that nobody ever had before, so far as I know: let's make elections completely symbolic activities. The population can keep voting, we'll give them all the business, they'll have electoral campaigns, all the hoopla, two candidates, eight candidates-but the people they're voting for will then just be expected to read off a teleprompter and they won't be expected to know anything except what somebody tells them, and maybe not even that

>>24535294
But in truth everyone has their chance to vote. That's where Chomsky is mistaken

>>24535294
>>24535567
That's because Chomsky is a linguist, not a true political scientist and writer.

>itt retards with no grasp on reality arguing about the best way to be ruled over

>>24535981
Its not about politics, its a discussion on Weber's literary ideas and how they contrast with his critics like Chomsky.

>>24535117
That's exactly how I feel today. Hopeless. Did Chomsky realize this a long time ago or did he provide the guideline for what's happening with the world?

Chomsky seems to imply in chapter 1 that politics is pointless since private interests can throttle any reforms anytime. Weber is a faggot, anon!

>>24537702
Does Chomsky provide a solution?

>>24537870
He says people should join together and enact change

>>24538108
I don't know anon...that sounds dangerously close to communism

>>24538232
And what's so bad about it?

>>24538515
because its anti-white

>>24538943
...as I said, what's wrong with that?

>>24533050
Agreed. When did a ruler who lies and steals become an "acceptable standard"? I'm with Chomsky in that its a bad state of affairs in general

>>24529830 (OP)
Weber's literature is just sooo dry. I'm not a fan of his style, too academic for my liking

>That's it exactly-if you ask, "Why have an empire?" you've just given the answer. The empire is like every other part of social policy: it's a way for the poor to payoff the rich in their own society. So if the empire is just another form of social policy by which the poor are subsidizing the rich, that means that under democratic social planning, there would be very little incentive for it-let alone the obvious moral considerations that would become a factor at that point. In fact, all kinds of questions would just change, radically
Chomsky's prose is dangerously communist

From Chomsky's Understanding the Nature of Power
>any state, any state, has a primary enemy: its own population. If politics begins to break out inside your own country and the population starts getting active, all kinds of horrible things can happen-so you have to keep the population quiescent and obedient and passive. And international conflict is one of the best ways of doing it: if there's a big enemy around, people will abandon their rights, because you've got to survive

>>24540977
>>24541007
Sounds like conspiracy bullshit

>>24541195
You should read it anon. Chomsky's analysis is really interesting

>>24541619
Any other excerpts from the book that may be interesting?

>>24540303
I marathoned all 400 pages of Economy And Society in one or two weeks at my old job.

>>24541856
What was the experience? Worth it in your opinion, anon?

>>24529841
>letting another man just fill his thoughts in your mind, opening your mind up so that other men can do the same. An endless cycle of men stuffing thoughts inside your head till you implode from all the knowledge...

>>24541938
yeah. I'd say so. I ain't spoiling it though.

>>24541964
I hope its better than the shit Weber wrote in Politics as a Vocation

>>24535117
When did he write that? It feels so much like what's happening in my neighborhood.

>>24530229
But his analysis on the geopolitical sphere are on point.

>>24529830 (OP)
civil wars are violent
who knew??

>>24543508
>civil wars
is this a bot?

>>24543508
What do you think of keynesian stimulation, anon?

>>24541946
I bet you've had men stuff your behind constantly

>>24543601
jelly much?
>>24543698
http://www.google.com/search?q=keynesian+stimulation

>>24543866
What is that folder for?

>>24541856
Where should I go if I want to understand Weber better, anon? Should I read Economy?

>>24541007
When Chomsky says
>any state, any state, has a primary enemy: its own population
This is ultimately a reflection of dysfunction rather than function. Even the so-called "slave" and "master" moral code dynamic is a distortion of the natural fraternal nature that exists between members of a collective culture.
Why doesn't this brotherly nature emerge? Because people see each other as "others". They see their rulers or their subordinates as either monstrous hungry wolves that need to be appeased (not always inaccurate) or as foolish docile sheep (ignoring that those sheep are the people actually accomplishing the majority of useful tasks). However, both of those individuals are simply human. A bullet can and has killed the most powerful individuals on Earth.
Suppose you had all the power in the world, both personal and political: You can kill anyone with a wave of your hand, for instance. Your natural instinct will probably be to collect power and wealth for yourself to generate as much pleasure for you now, or to produce as many descendants as possible. Either way, you end up running in place: You always can want more, and even if you are the sire for all of humanity, they may turn on each other just like you turned on your species. No matter what you do with power, you still live in the universe. We're all stuck in here together. Ramblings about master or slave morality lose their teeth when you really sit down and realize that even if you "win", you haven't really gone anywhere.
>people will abandon their rights, because you've got to survive
This is a very typically individualist idea: The idea that the collective takes away rights. But WHY does "the collective" take away an individual's rights? Because that collective does not see the individual as part of their collective. They're not family, so to speak.
This is the real hat trick: Getting everyone to speak as if they're a collective but act as if they're an individual. When you do this, the small group that is coordinated (the rulers) can do as they like, because when they attack a dangerous individual, everyone else will step aside out of their own self-interest. Anyone threatening to the rulers is threatening to themselves, after all. The obvious hypocrisy of collectives being dominated by individuals is demonstrated best through dictatorships: The reason why those in power allow the dictator to dominate them is because they want to make sure the powers of the dictator would be retained for themselves, as they aspire to take control.
The atomization of the individual, far from supporting democratic ideals, is the foundation of enslavement and empire. It makes every man a nation of one.
Distance, apparent differences between people, as well as arguments about priorities and an understanding of the situation make this kind of conflict and, therefore, rule, emerge. By pitting different factions against one another, you can command everyone even when nobody wants you in charge.

Why do people want to be ruled over so badly? Are they sheep?

>>24544725
Most people are, anon. That's why Weber's ideas are so on point and relevant to the modern world.
>>24544522
Chomsky was a pseud trying to analyze topics far beyond his understanding. Should have used his fancy linguistics title to teach grammar to school children.

>>24543508
Civil wars according to Chomsky are desirable. Weber was against them

>>24545370
Chomsky didn't want Civil Wars, retard. He said people had to unite to make things more democratic and take a bigger role in their countries.

>>Among sort of middleclass organizers, there are three or four people I know who would get the Nobel Peace Prize if it meant anything, which of course it doesn't, in fact it's kind of an insult to get it-take a look at who it goes to
kek Chosmky is hilarious

>>24529841
Chomksy seems to imply this is correct
>These are funny words, actually. I mean, the way it's used, being an "intellectual" has virtually nothing to do with working with your mind: those are two different things. My suspicion is that plenty of people in the crafts, auto mechanics and so on, probably do as much or more intellectual work as plenty of people in universities. There are big areas in academia where what's called "scholarly" work is just clerical work, and I don't think clerical work's more challenging mentally than fixing an automobile engine-in fact, I think the opposite: I can do clerical work, I can never figure out how to fix an automobile engine.

>>24546901
What if I think democracy is gay?

>>24547804
Well according to Weber it is, because the point is to get a proper politician to rule us. Chomsky seems to also be in favor of fascist movements since he mentions how they are more resistant to change and subversion.

>>24547905
Chomsky seems more like a radical given his almost community ideas

>>24547804
Why do you think its gay?

>>24547804
>>24549231
Same. I mean if a bunch of retards vote, then at the end of the day what you'll get is just a retarded choice. Its the tyranny of the majority and that's something Weber and Chomsky failed to detect

According to Chomsky being politically conscious is reserved for the rich, so I guess you're right, anon

>>24550018
Chomsky is an example of privilege, so no shit

>>24529830 (OP)
Sorry op, this thread seems to be a chompsky thread now. Oh Chomsky anons, my grey matter is confooosed! Since I showed up here I can't tell if I innately learned linguistic cues or if it's the result of my environment. The chatgpt anon who spams the board everyday, where the hell are you when you might actually be useful? Yeah I'm talking about you, the Chompsky anons might want a word about AI linguistics with you. I know demonstration is difficult for you and you have a case of the why me's but maybe Chomsky can find something innate in you to fix this.

>>24550494
>this thread seems to be a chompsky thread now.
Lets admit it, Chomsky >>> Weber anytime

>>24550494
>>24550562
Except Chomsky provides no basis for what he mentioned. He was only a linguist, not a political scientist unlike Weber

>>24550562
Empirical analysis > metaphysics

>>24551041
The chatgpt anon doesn't know how to do dialectic and can't demonstrate. It's back in it's guenonian circlejerk looking for metaphysics.

>>24551335
>Empirical analysis > metaphysics
This so much. Weber has no idea what he's talking about since he didn't work a day in his life.

>>If the constructive criticism leads to the point where mass popular movements form that do something to change the system, sure, then there's hope. I mean, there wouldn't have been an American Revolution if people had been writing pamphlets but not doing anything more than that
Seems like Chomsky believes in useful pawns to be discarded like that Fawkes guy

>>24552558
Shame on him, people are important in a democracy

>>24553960
People are retarded 9 times out of 10, that's why the world is in such a bad state now. Weber and Chomsky both presented non empirical ideas

>>24529830 (OP)
Was his book really that relevant in the modern era?

>>24551666
Nice satanic digits. Whether Weber worked or not by your standards is completely irrelevant. He basically said empirical analysis is unavoidable, and made it a point to distinguish the social structure from the individual for just this reason.

>>24529841
>Implying masturbation is bad

>>24529841
>Implying reading STEM isnt mental masturbation

>>24529841
You are a homo

>>24555699
Reading in general is mental masturbation, that's why /lit/ doesn't read!

>>24555668
That's why I think maybe Weber and Chomsky's failure was in not treating this more like a STEM subject. They didn't properly measure, just made ontological dialogues that didn't really bring anything relevant in the end.

>>24556119
Weber ended the metaphysical state and Chomsky is rapidly being phased out by AI. You will likely see Weber resurface.

>>24556243
I can't imagine a possible application to what Weber wrote.

>>24556308
I'm not remotely interested, you clearly haven't read anything. I'll try and give you something though, think of it as esoteric since for some reason that seems to possess a penchant for drawing interest. If you thought Nietzsche was a black hole for metaphysics then Weber was the political scientist version of Nietzsche for that field. Weber made a number of conjectures and he didn't live long enough to see some of his paradoxes pan out, you will likely live long enough to see a repeat.

>>24529830 (OP)
Forget about these losers, anon and read The Republic. It has far more insight than Weber could ever hope to acquire.
>>24556378
Nietzsche is pop philosophy and the lowest of the low. The Greeks at least got quality like Plato who has better and more proven management ideas than Weber, Chomsky or Nietzsche ever could hope to attain.

>>24556526
Yeah you get back to metaphysics without dialectic.

>>24556243
I like Weber but let's not forget Tonnies or Simmel, who i think explain much more about the conditions of society than Weber does

>>24556552
They were a close knit group, but I'm guessing this is about Weber claiming how one reacts to Nietzsche is a measure for how well one is going to do? Tonnies was almost enraptured by him but later despised him and Simmel ended up loving him. I'm not necessarily inclined to argue the other 2 weren't as influential but Weber was also influenced by Marx, and the other 2 were left conjecturing over the cost of Nietzsche's no cost autocratic methods and how to deal with modernity. Weber was the foundational thinker of the 3, and the other 2 assembled individual and community thought.

>>24556589
How come there were times where such cool minds got together but it doesn't happen as commonly as it should?

>>24556749
What is the equivalent of this on writers? George R. R. Martin and Tolkien? Was there ever a time they met with Isaac Asimov?

>>24557214
>Implying George could in any way match Weber
Never gonna make it, anon. Weber is on another level compared to the manatee

>>24556749
Literal proximity within a developing field of study would be my guess. If you toss in Durkheim you can easily see why this rarely happens anymore but I doubt his optimism and ideas about moral solidarity re-emerging are still tossed around. The only reason I'm conjecturing Weber will resurface is due to the prevailing attitude across all political spectra that bureacratization and nationalization are signs of of some progress and when filtered down to an individual level seem to possess a sort of divine mandate but this includes willful ignorance on all parties of history and the only outcome is bleak uncertainty. Progress is made on the Marx side.

>>24557655
>Marx
Chomsky seems to also lean on that side, dangerously communist if you ask me.

Why should the State hold a monopoly on violence? It doesn't even use it properly

>>24558594
I think that's my main issue and Chomsky's too. The State is inefficient in everything it does

>>24558283
I didn't ask. It sounds like you're still trying to know things. Seek initiation at the Guenonian metaphysical institute for advanced hermetics. The guenonians work tirelessly around the clock to ensure proper initiation protocols are in order.

>>24558703
B-but anon, communism is illegal and unamerican!

>MAN: Mr. Chomsky, I'm wondering what specific qualifications you have to be able to speak all around the country about world affairs?
>Chomsky: None whatsoever. I don't pretend to have qualifications, nor do I pretend that qualifications are needed. I mean, if somebody were to ask me to give a talk on quantum physics, I'd refuse-because I don't understand enough. But world affairs are
trivial: there's nothing in the social sciences or history or whatever that is beyond the intellectual capacities of an ordinary fifteen-year-old.
Social science and Weber apologist chuddies btfo! Even the man admits it, Weber shall be irrelevant and owned by ChatGPT using teenagers in a few years

>>24558959
>In fact, I think the idea that you're supposed to have special qualifications to talk about world affairs is just another scam-it's kind of like Leninism [position that socialist revolution should be led by a "vanguard" party]: it's just another technique for making the population feel that they don't know anything, and they'd better just stay out of it and let us smart guys run it. In order to do that, what you pretend is that there's some esoteric discipline, and you've got to have some letters after your name before you can say anything about it. The fact is, that's a joke
Shots fired!

>>24558959
>>24558966
Why this much Chomsky apologism? Credentials exist for something and its not that easy to be a sociologist. You have to learn hard math like stochastics and discrete, and ALSO understand society. So I venture to say its more difficult than STEM

>>24559468
That's what makes "influencers". Credentials at least limit who is able to propose

>>24531652
In reality, the types most likely to reach the top, whether by election or through bureaucracy, are always the most dull, neurotic and pathetic sycophants and women. The Western ruling class isn't made up of some uber-competent masterminds you imagine Schwab to be because you watched a bitchute video by some trailer park white trash conspiratard.
The system isn't even nearly as rigid and Darwinian as you wrote. Trump won two elections off nothing but his charisma and one billion in net worth, while the entire media spread lies against him, so it doesn't even gatekeep against rich people.

>>24532490
the system you are describing sounds very similar to athenian democracy, which lasted for less than a century and everyone who actually lived under it hated it. and greeks were the most capable people in history, mind you.

>>24559881
Any good book about analysis on this and alternatives?

>>24561277
Why would there be? The system is broken, anon. Face it

>>24562176
Chomsky just proposed a union based system. Read the thread, anon

>>24558594
What do you think about duels and having quarrels sorted by duels?

>>24564095
It worked fine until politicians added the rule that you could hire someone to duel for you. I mean what's the point then?

>>24529830 (OP)
Would a career politician really notice the issues people face everywhere?

>>24565221
>career politician
Nah those are all nepobabies as Chomsky described them in "Understanding Power"

>>24565629
Nepotism is simply an example of natural selection. Only the best politicians reach the top as Weber stated, and that is sort of divine right to rule over all of us.

>>24565903
But according to Chomsky that natural selection will ensure that only the most sociopathic and best liars get to survive the "democratic process"

>>24529830 (OP)
I see nothing lower than a career politician

>>24567259
I can, the sheep who follow them which Weber knew all too well. Same with Nietzsche as discussed by anon >>24556378

>>24529830 (OP)
Any other essays by Weber you'd recommend, anon?

>>24568828
I recommend "From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology" to all my friends. Its a great place to start

>>24569739
Is it really all that complete?

>>24535117
His judgment may be clouded by nostalgia. I bet there are otger people who disagree

>>24534713
>leadership by experts: It's called oligarchy
That's literally a technocracy. Oligarchy is rule by the few, it does not specify which few (such as, experts).

>>24534742
What is, empirically, time and again the most relevant indicator whether some territory has any chance of economic success or not? That's right: a lack of corruption in public institutions. If it is all so blatantly utterly corrupt that the whole system is in place to benefit the corrupt, how is it that you can sit on your fat ass and slap your greasy drumsticks to the iScreen™ to type this horse shit instead of bending that spine towards the village crops to pay the gentry for your leased ability to feed your skinny carcass from their inherited estates? Oh, right, what (you) say! It is specifically because of corruption that your civilized colleagues have to drag you along for that welfare check and every other public facility that the self-interestedly corrupt have secured you!

>>24530688
I'd say his top notch historical research is done in the third chapter of discipline and punish about the supervision during the plague called The Panopticism (- I guess that's the title, I haven't read the book in English). In the first couple of paragraphs he already mentions state enforced violence and government, and its a good read. He's not a very good political philosopher though, I'd say.

>>24570955
Thanks for the info anon, will check more about him

You worship zionist Jews.

I do not, I worship God.

God is the mightiest.

>>24571849
What does that have to do with Weber?

>>24529830 (OP)
>>24529906
Power is le bad