DemocritusBoard

Lendenburgh wrote:

I'll have to read further to get to the actual content of his theory, but having read the framework at the outset, it's quite interesting.

He's very much in that Marxian materialist tradition talking about structures of power which actualize the human will into the material world, but I'm surprised how much he attributes to a kind of heirarchal distribution of the different modes of power, be they economic, social (in his words the power of "honor"... very Rousseau), or "raw" legal power. It implies that, aside from economic class which he goes on to talk about, he also believes that social classes based on prestige are inherent/necessary, and legal stratification (i.e. 'us' and 'them', in the case of the nation, citizens and non-citizens) always has to exist to order society.

It's also tres materialist/rationalist to say that these stratum must have some causal component to them- no idealist human rationality for him...

https://pdfhost.io/v/AlxfTsUg6_Weber_1922_Economy_and_Society_Vol_1_pages_5356_212216
https://pdfhost.io/v/pk6eJUV~z_Weber_Politics_as_a_Vocation
https://pdfhost.io/v/ArBkmz761_Weber_1905_The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism_pages_836_and_105122

Here are all my Weber readings, since you seem interested.

Lendenburgh wrote:

I'll have to read further to get to the actual content of his theory, but having read the framework at the outset, it's quite interesting.

He's very much in that Marxian materialist tradition talking about structures of power which actualize the human will into the material world, but I'm surprised how much he attributes to a kind of heirarchal distribution of the different modes of power, be they economic, social (in his words the power of "honor"... very Rousseau), or "raw" legal power. It implies that, aside from economic class which he goes on to talk about, he also believes that social classes based on prestige are inherent/necessary, and legal stratification (i.e. 'us' and 'them', in the case of the nation, citizens and non-citizens) always has to exist to order society.

It's also tres materialist/rationalist to say that these stratum must have some causal component to them- no idealist human rationality for him...

A bit of a side-tangent, but
Some of the basis for his later theory about economy, power, and society came from studying the religious, social, and economic structures of India and China, especially the Hindu Caste System. The western materialist understanding of stratification by means of economic class, e.g. relationship with the means of production and property-ownership, doesn't explain how the Hindu caste-system came into being; the highest and most prestigious caste is dirt-poor and are prohibited from engaging in basic economic actions (making money, owning property, etc.), focused purely on spiritual and religious education and ascension; their caste must maintain a connection that is within the spiritual realm, not the material. From Weber's perspective, the Brahmins would be a caste that has a poor class situation, but are extremely high in status and prestige. Conversely, the Vaishya, the ones in charge of mercantile, trade, and business endeavors, are in a much better class situation (own property and the means of production) but are of a low status group; and in the Hindu caste-system, status maintenance is much more important than economic class position. Interestingly enough, in Hinduism, how good someone preforms in their caste translates to mobility into the next class during reincarnation; one could say this is a religious excuse to retain the social and economic status-quo, discouraging true mobility economically and keeping the powerful rich elite in place, but that concept breakdown when you analyze the hierarchical structure of the caste-system.

The Vaishya are the merchants, landowners, and bankers of whom are the 3rd ranked caste. One of the highest economic classes are ranked only above the Shudra, the caste to which laborers and workers belonged to, beneath the Kshatriya, who were the Kings, administrators, and leaders (who often times weren't the ruling caste, as many Indian rulers and leaders came from the Shudra caste and sometimes their wealth was tenuous as they had to rely on donations from the other castes)and the highest social caste (and thus status group) is arguably the lowest economic class. A Hindu practioner that is part of the Shudra caste who lives their life committed to their role is rewarded in the next life by being reincarnated into the Vaishya caste, who are the wealthy landowners and merchants. They live their life as a good Vaishya and is then reincarnated into the Kshatriya, rulers and leaders with tenuous wealth and at times tenuous power. Then after that, you are reincarnated into the highest most spiritually oriented caste of the Brahmins, a caste that is strictly bound to austerity and voluntary poverty. This doesn't seem to be a justification of the economic status-quo by a rich and powerful class when the highest most prestigious caste is composed of poor monks with zero ownership. Even in modern times, 50% of Brahmins make less than $100 a month.

The Hindu caste-system is just a form of social stratification that is difficult to be explained purely by economic class as the principal form of social stratification; if you separate stratification along more Weberian lines, specifically by separating status group from economic class, then the Hindu Caste-System begins to make more sense, as the Caste is independent from the economic class and the class situation. In Western capitalist societies, status and class overlap quite a lot, creating a perception of identicalness, but in the pre-colonial Hindu societies, and even in modern times to a degree, the caste-system doesn't follow the pattern of what would be expected of a purely class-oriented stratification (property-owners and controllers of the means of production on top, propertyless on the bottom), as those who controlled the means of production and property belonged to a caste that was near the bottom.

Got a lil' post for ya

Orostan wrote:

https://i.imgur.com/UfrGwlA.png

You just posted cringe! You must read "The State and Revolution" by Lenin!

*poor man has social influence*
weber: obviously, this means power can be non-economic
lenin: haha, means of production go brrrrrrrr

All of you need to read Lenin. Stop doing whatever you are doing right now and read this first chapter at least. It isn't even that long.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm

The Underground Movement Union wrote:

You learned business law to get involved with business

I learned business law so I can hate the rich more accurately

We are not the same

You read political theory to expand your worldview and understand things better.

I read political theory to win internet arguments.

We are not the same.

Orostan wrote:

https://i.imgur.com/UfrGwlA.png

You just posted cringe! You must read "The State and Revolution" by Lenin!

i get the feeling you didn't read past the first paragraph, let alone the entire document.
At least read the entire document before you start critiquing it.

Losconia wrote:

i get the feeling you didn't read past the first paragraph, let alone the entire document.
At least read the entire document before you start critiquing it.

in what context is what i posted in any way correct?

United Democratic Christian States, Anxiety Cafe, or anyone else in a red state.

Have you ever seen anyone believe or joke about QAnon? Or is it mostly an online thing?

Arela wrote:

United Democratic Christian States, Anxiety Cafe, or anyone else in a red state.

Have you ever seen anyone believe or joke about QAnon? Or is it mostly an online thing?

I know some people who believe in that type of thing, yes. Wouldn't say it's common though, at least in my area.