Max Weber and the Iron Cage - At the Origins of the Concept of Rationalisierung, by Joseph Belbruno

8/14/2019 Max Weber and the Iron Cage - At the Origins of the Concept of Rationalisierung, by Joseph Belbruno

1/21

At the Origins of the Concept ofRationalisierung -Max Webers Entwurf

Part One

1

Introduction: State and Capitalist ureaucrac! as " Trennung

In a modern state real rule, which becomes effective in everyday lifeneither through parliamentary speeches nor through the pronouncementsof monarchs but through the day-to-day management of theadministration, necessarily and inevitably lies in the hands of officialdom,

both military and civilian. The modern high-ranking officer evenconducts battles from his office. (Parliament and overnment! p."#$ in CWP %

In statistical terms the numbers of office workers in private firms are growingfaster than manual workers! and it is &uite ridiculous for our litterateursto imagine that there is the slightest difference between themental work done in the office of a private firm and that performedin an office of the state.'undamentally they are both e actly the same kind of thing.)ooked at from a social-scientific point of view! the modern state isan organisation (Betrieb) in e actly the same way as a factory* indeedthis is its specific historical characteristic. (p."#+%

,ebers approach to and theori ation of the Rationalisierung e periences a marked and dramatic evolution between the year " "/when he writes and publishes the articles on Parlament und Regierung and the year " 01 when he completes the Vorbemerkung to the

Aufsatzes zur Religionssoziologie . This last contains a definition of theRationalisierung encompassing its origins in both state administrationand in industrial capitalism that reveals a marked deviation from itsabstract 2ideal type3 sociology prior to " "/ traceable back to theProtestantische Ethik . The tide of events 4 the worsening of the military

position of the 5eich and apprehension over its domestic politicalrepercussions together with the revolutionary tumults in 5ussia andtheir significant echoes in ,estern 6urope 4 had forced ,eber to turnhis attention sharply to the re-structuring of 2Parliament andovernment in a e!l"#$rdered 7neu-geordneten8 ermany3! andparticularly to 2the nature of political parties3 (Parteienwesen% and ofthe e isting bureaucracy (9eamtentum! officialdom% within the overallproblematic of the %emokratisierung of the old 6uropean absolutist


2/21

regimes that followed the rise of the industrial working class. Theevolution of ,ebers thought over this period offers a uni&ue vantagepoint from which to trace this entire Problematik of the relationshipbetween capitalist social relations of production! their intrinsic socialantagonism in the dynamic conte t of 2economic growth and

development3! and the mode of political organi ation andrepresentation of the antagonistic forces it pro-duces.

To be sure! 2looked at from a social-scientific point of view! the modernstate is an organisation 79etrieb8 in e actly the same way as afactory3 4 which is why it is of fundamenta l importance to understandtheir symbiosis and 2con-currence3 in the fact that if indeed it is the2specific historical characteristic3 of the 2modern state3 to be2organi ed in e actly the same way as a factory3! it was also the newasset of the 6uropean absolutist nation-state that made possible theconcentration of political power that enabled the bourgeoisie to impose

2the rational organi ation of free labor under the regular discipline ofthe factory3 on the rest of society:

The literati ! the nostalgics and apologists for the aristocratic status&uo! for the 2 re&ubli'ue des notables 3! overlook the reality that 2thereis 7not8 the slightest difference between the mental work done in theoffice of a private firm and that performed in an office of the state3.Indeed! 2the number of office workers in private firms is growing fasterthan that of manual workers3. There is a profound and urgent need tounderstand the transformation of capitalist industry and labor processbecause it is this that forms the foundation of the modern nation-state

4 it is its 2model3 that must be e amined closely so that the2machinery of ;tate3 may adapt to the 2needs3 of society! of its2economy3 in such a way that the 2political will3 of the economicallydecisive parts of society may be e pressed 2powerfully3 4 for there tobe 2positive politics3 and not the present 2negative politics3 wherebyParliament is 2prevented or impeded3 from e ercising the vitalfunctions of 2leadership3 that the 2national economy3 4 the economyunderstood in terms of the achtsstaat 4 demands and re&uires.

The capitalist 2entrepreneur3 here has been already side-lined. It is notthat his 2function3 is unimportant< it is rather that the entrepreneurial

function itself is incapable of 2mediating3 and 2reali ing3 the trans-formation of the economy! of capitalist 2development3 in the broadestsense! even in the manner championed by =oseph ;chumpeter: Thegenial >ustrian economist had sought to identify and describe preciselythe 2mechanism of transformation3 that is specific to the capitalisteconomy and that leads to its 2development3. 9ut this 2development3is dependent on society not ?ust in the sense that it occurs in a socialconte t but also in the far more important sense that the 2trans-


3/21


4/21

from 5ussia to ermany 4 prompting him even to engage in a rapidstudy of the 5ussian language: 9ut now the reat ,ar and the Cctoberrevolution of " "/ in 5ussia bring prepotently to the fore this2problematic3 of capitalism! of how to 2guide3 its development within asocial body that is dramatically more 2interdependent3 and

2interconnected3 than ever before 4 in which capitalist 2development3can provoke 2crises3 that threaten and traverse the entire 2fabric3 ofsociety by reason of its own 2sociali ation3 ( Vergesellschaftung %. The9olshevik 2leap forward3 to the dictatorship of the proletariat inconditions that )enin himself admits are 2premature3 (see *he%e elo&ment of Ca&italism in Russia % shows that 2sociali ation3 neednot mean 2evolution3 4 that it can portend re olution+ - and that itposes 2problems3 not ?ust for capitalism but also for socialism itself:Dapitalist development poses the Problematik of 2rational ;ocialism3.

The central problem of ;ocialism is one posed by capitalist industryitself - the 2anarchy of production3! the une&ual distribution of wealthin society* and both are a direct result of the 2separation3 (the Bar ian*rennung % of the worker from the means of production.

The relative independence of the craftsman or the home-worker! thefreehold farmer! the Commendatar, the knight and the vassal! rested in ("#/%each case on the fact that they themselves owned the tools! provisions!finances or weapons which they used to perform their economic!political or military functions! and lived off them while they werecarrying out those functions. Donversely! the hierarchical dependencyof the worker! clerk! technical employee! the assistant in an academic

institution and also of the official and soldier of the state rests in everycase on the fact that the tools! provisions and finances which areindispensable both for the performance of his work and for his economice istence are concentrated in the hands of an entrepreneur inthe one case! and in those of a political master in the other. ("#+-/%

The former 2autonomy3 of the artisanal skilled worker! of the elernte !belonged to a stage of society in which communities were relativelyself-reliant and controlled the 2totality3 of the labour process. 9ut thisis e actly what capitalist industrial 2development3 has changed 4 whatoccasions its 2crises3 in the e plosive 2sociali ation3 of thereproduction of society itself: The concentration of industry bycapitalism with the Taylorisation of the labor process has determinedthe massification of society to such an e tent that all pining for a lostparadise of 2artisanal3 control over the labour process! of 2totality3! allresentment and ranting against the 2dis-enchantment3 ( Ent#

zauberung % engendered by the rise of capitalist industrialisation aresheer 2romantic fantasy3.

,hether an organisation is a modern state


5/21

apparatus engaging in power politics or cultural politics (-ultur&olitik)or pursuing military aims! or a private capitalist business! the samedecisive economic basis is common to both! namely the separation of the worker from the material means of conducting the activity of the organisation - the means of production in the economy! themeans of war in the army! or the means of research in a university

institution or laboratory! and the financial means in all of them. ("#/%

2The same decisi e economic basis is common to both3: Dommon tothe 2modern state apparatus3 and to 2private capitalist business3.Both are 2organi ations3* they are 2businesses3 or 2factories3 4 andwhat distinguishes them is precisely 2the separation of the workerfrom the material means of conducting the activity of theorgani ation3. This 2separation3! this Bar ian *rennung ! then! maywell seem peculiar to capitalist industry but in reality it e tends to therest of society and in especial mode to the 2modern state apparatus3that we call 2bureaucracy3! including the army and indeed even

2scientific research3.

This apparatus is the common feature sharedby all these formations! its e istence and function being inseparablylinked! both as cause and effect! with the Econcentration of the materialmeans of operationE. Cr rather this apparatus is the form takenby that very process of concentration. #oda! increasing $socialisation%So&ialisierung'ine(itabl! )eans increasing bureaucratisation*Fistorically! too Eprogress towards the bureaucratic state whichad?udicates in accordance with rationally established law and administersaccording to rationally devised regulations stands in the closest

relation to the development of modem capitalism.

9ureaucratisation is the 2inevitable3 outcome of 2sociali ation3 which!in turn! is engendered by 2the concentration of the material means ofoperation3 4 and of course also of 2the material means of production3.Aow! this 2apparatus is the form taken by that very process ofconcentration3< it is this e tensive and pervasive parcelisation of sociallabor! the very inter-connectedness of social functions that cater to2the most basic needs of social life3 that make a nostalgic return to the2artisanal ownership of the means of production3 on the part of theindividual worker more than ?ust a fantasy 4 but a dangerous one as

well: ,ith one fell swoop! ,eber e poses the sheer 2reactionary3content of the utopian ramblings of the .ozialismus .

The modern state emerges when the prince takes this business into hisown household! employs salaried officials and thereby brings aboutthe EseparationE of the officials from the means of conducting theirduties. 6verywhere we find the same thing< the means of operationwithin the factories! the state administration! the army and universitydepartments are concentrated by means of a bureaucratically structured


6/21

human apparatus in the hands of the person who has commandover (beherrscht) this human apparatus. This is due partly to purelytechnical considerations! to the nature of modern means of operation- machines! artillery and so on - bur partly simply to the greaterefficiency of this kind of human cooperation< to the development of EdisciplineG the discipline of the army! office! workshop and business.

In any event it is a serious mistake to think that this separation of the worker from the means of operation is something peculiar toindustry! and! moreover! to &ri ate industry. The basic state of affairsremains the same when a different person becomes lord and masterof this apparatus! when! say! a state president or minister controls itinstead of a private manufacturer. The separationE from the means of operation continues in any case. (2Her ;o ialismus3! p.0 "! DP,%

To seek a remedy to 2the anarchy of private production3 in a2socialism3 whereby the ownership of the means of production is2sociali ed3 by the ;tate is a pathetic and reactionary chimaera for thesimple reason that 4 as ,eber blithely intuits here without perhapsreali ing the full implications of what he is writing 4 it +as the State inthe first place that effected the ,separation of soldiers fro) their)eans of operation. and the State that enabled a class of capitalists ,toseparate the +or/ers fro) the )eans of production0 Indeed. Weber)a! +ell ha(e argued here that it +as so)e of the +or/ers themselves +ho rose fro) the ran/s of artisanr! to beco)e accu)ulators of capitalthereb! ,separating or ,expropriating their erst+hile fello+ +or/ersand huddling the) into factories0

,eber does make this last point in the Vorbermerkungen ! &uoted laterhere 7Baurice Hobb makes it a central plank of his .tudies in the%e elo&ment of Ca&italism 8. In Politik als Beruf ! he is even moree plicit about the first pointnd he wouldalso reason that the 2replacement3 of the private capitalistbureaucracy with the state bureaucracy would bring about thee:tinction of the iron cage as well as of those 2ethics3 and not! as hedoes here! the further 2increasing and irrevocable rigidification3 of this2rigid casing3:

,eber puts the issue beyond doubt when he e&uates 2the fate andcharacter of economic life3 with the 2subordination of the !orkers 3 tothe 2unitary bureaucracy3 that will 2no longer be counterbalanced byanything outside itself3: It is 2the workers3 4 not the professionalethics of the private capitalists or 2the rational conduct of business3 orthe capitalists 4 who 2will be subordinated3 to this proto-totalitarian2unitar" bureaucracy3. >nd in the very ne t sentence! ,eber e plainshow it is most emphatically not the 2rationality3 of the profitability ofthis 2second capitalism3 that is 2the bearer of the specifically modernform of capitalism as an inesca&able s"stem ruling the economy andthereby peopleEs everyday fate3! but rather its 2profitability3 4 which!again! is based on the 2autonomous market demand3 flowing from theformal 2freedom3 of 2the workers3 who are still 2not subordinated to aunitar" bureaucracy3:

It follows that the 2bra en casing3 would be further 2rigidified3 if aunitary bureaucracy replaced private capitalist enterprise based on2sustainable and renewable3 or 2honest and calculable profitability3 forthe evident reason that then 2workers would be wholly subordinated tothe rule of a unitary bureaucracy no longer counterbalanced by (in2o&&osition 3 to% private enterprise that would determine more thanever before the inesca&able s"stem of their needs and !ants 7thebra en casing8 ruling the economy and thereby 2workers everydayfate3 or! what amounts to the same thing! their 2economic work3 4which is the resultant of the necessarily &olitical conflict over wantsand provision.

Perfectly aligned with this interpretation of 2the bra en casing3 or 2ironcage3 is the detailed discussion that ,eber undertakes immediatelyand seamlessl" after this paragraph on the &uintessential role of


16/21

2autonomous3! 2independent3! 2voluntary3 and 2free3 determination of2individual preferences and needs and wants3 in both the political andthe economic spheres for the efficient functioning of government andeconomy! and therefore for the health and power of the nation#state ! instrident opposition to the 2romantic fantasies3 (p."11% of the

proponents of various forms of 2socio-economic corporatism3.It is! however! sheer naivete on the part of our scribbling ideologuesto believe that this is the way"1# .uffrage and %emocrac" in erman" to weaken or eliminate the rule of the Eprofit motiveE and the interestin producing goods Efor gainE which they so despise! and to replacethem with a Enatural! communal economicE interest in providinggood and as far as possible cheap commodities to the &eo&le whodesire and consume them: What ab!s)al nonsense0 #he interest of the capitalist producers and profit-)a/ers represented b! these cartelswould itself then rule the state e$clusively% unless that organisation of producers$ interests is confronted b! a po+er strong enough to controland steer the) as the needs of the population re uire* ut anindi(idual$s needs are not deter)ined b! his position in the )achiner!of goods&production' #he +or/er has exactl! the same needs for bread.housing and clothing. regardless of the t!pe of factor! he +or/s in*#hus if that )ethod of organising the econo)! is i))inent. it isabsolutel! i)perati(e before it begins to function - +hich )eansi))ediatel! - for us to ha(e a parlia)ent elected on the principlethat the needs of the )asses )ust be represented. and not one +hichrepresents the +a! an indi(idual is e)plo!ed in the production of goods - in other +ords a parlia)ent of e ual suffrage. +holl! so(ereignin its po+er. +hich can ta/e an independent stand in relation tothis t!pe of econo)ic organisation . Parliament must be much more

sovereign in its powers than hitherto! for in the past its position of power has not sufficed to break the power of vested commercial interestsnor the inevitable rule of fiscal interests in state-run industries.

This is a negati e reason for e&ual suffrage. (pp."1#-$! D,P%

One could +ish for no better definition fro) Weber of hisidentification of the iron cage +ith ,the s!ste) of needs and+ants based on ,free labor 0 9ut note that both here and in the&uotation above in which ,eber did not notice 2any appreciabledifference between the lives of the workers and clerks in the Prussianstate-run mines and railways and those of people working in large

private capitalist enterprises3! ,eber vehemently emphasises theprimacy of 2consumption needs3 on the part of workers rather thantheir demands over working conditions. 'or him!

an individualEs needs are not determined by his position in the machineryof goods#&roduction0 The worker has e actly the same needs for bread!housing and clothing! regardless of the type of factory he works in. (,ebersemphases.%


17/21

This ske!ed em&hasis on the part of ,eber on the 2consumption3 sideof what we have called here 2autonomous market demand3 of workers!and the relative occultation of the conflict over 2modern industrialwork3 is conclusive evidence of our thesis on the iron cage! but also

an early portent of the insuperable problems that ,ebers formulationof the nature of capitalism will run into once he tries to give it a muchmore systematic and coherent definition in the Vorbermerkungen .Bore specifically! this inability to com-prehend the historical specificityof capitalist social relations of production will rigidify ,eberssociological analysis into a 2value-free positivistic3 formalism of theRationalisierung akin to the e perimental science of Bach! the Aeo-Qantian >orms and orms ! the .ollen of Dohen! ;immel! and Qelsen!and their e&uivalent in economics! the marginalism of Aeoclassical

Theory and the >ustrian ;chool!4 all significantly removed fromAiet sches original and far more coherent critical e position of this

concept. Wltimately! this incomprehension will e pose the intrinsiclimitations of ,ebers plans for &arliamentar" democrac" . ,e willreturn to these themes repeatedly in the remainder of this study.

(Aow that we have cleared some initial theoretical hurdles! it may beappropriate to emphasi e the dramatic departure of this study fromthe almost universally standard manner in which Ba ,ebers politicalsociology is approached in academic disciplines 4 something that willbecome even clearer and more dramatic as the reader venturesfurther into our study when we deal with the ,eberian concept ofcharisma. >lmost invariably! these approaches begin with the

erroneous interpretation of ,ebers stahlhartes ehause as 2modernrationalism3 that turns ,ebers sociology precisely into that 2romanticfantasy3 that he himself denounced so vehemently: It is the mistakene&uation of the iron cage with 2modern rationalism3 that leads to amuch more catastrophic misinterpretation and hypostati ation of,ebers entire work by hiding the immanent materiality and historicalconcreteness of the Aiet schean-,eberian Rationalisierung ! itsfoundation upon 2the system of needs and wants3 (2the care formaterial and e ternal goods3% and the labor needed to provide forthem that is the &roblem not ?ust in ,eber! but also in the greatesttheoreticians of the bourgeois era from Fobbes through to Fegel and

Bar ! and then ;chopenhauer! Aiet sche and ;chumpeter! not tospeak of the 2liberal3 tradition from de Toc&ueville to Droce: )

**************

The 2system of needs and wants3 can be satisfied best! mostefficiently! as well as optimally through the 2rational and systematical3


18/21

application of industrial machinery! or means of production to the2steel-hard casing3! to the 2 increasing and finall"9 ine:orable &o!ero er the li es of men5 on the &art of 3material or e:ternal goods5 . The2opposition3 between private capitalism and the &ro&osed ;ocialist2sociali ation of the means of production3 on the part of a 2state

bureaucracy and its power3 consists precisely in this< - that the2ine orable power of material goods over the lives of men3 4 or theiron cage 4 would then become even more binding ! their 2lives3 or2labor3 even less 2free3 than they are under 2private capitalism3: The2rational organi ation of labor3 on the part of 2private capitalism3allows 2a remnant of individual freedom of movement3 (,eber&uoted below%! of 2autonomy3 to 2the lives of men3 in terms of the2individual choices3 that they make about the production of the2material and e ternal goods3 to which they are now almost2ascetically3 devoted through 2the system of needs and wants3. The2ine orable power3 e ercised by 2material goods3 over 2the lives of

men3 induces the 2rational organi ation of their labor3! of 2modernindustrial labor3 so as to ma imi e the provision for and satisfaction ofthese needs and wants - which leads in turn to 2concentration3! to2sociali ation3 and to 2bureaucratic rule3 in the 2provision of the mostbasic needs of social life3. 9ut the 2market mechanism3 allows at leasta modicum of 2autonomy3 between the 2selection3 of 2materialgoods3! between 2the rational organi ation3 of their production and the2individual choices3 of workers as to the nature and kind and &uantityof the material goods that are produced:

9ecause the 2;ocialists3 understand social relations of production as

governed by a 2scientific3 ?a! of Value ! the only point of disagreementwith capitalists has to be ultimately not so much about the2separation3 of the worker from the means of production! not about2the ownership of the means of production3! but rather about how this2separation3 and 2ownership3 affect the &roduction and distribution ofthis Kalue taken as a 2rationally calculable3 entity: That is why ,ebercan confidently dismiss the protestations of ;ocialists about 2theanarchy3! the Planlosigkeit ! of capitalist industry as the pathetic foiblesof 2la y literati3 and as 2romantic fantasies3: 2;ocialism3 in its currentform! as the 2cult3 of 2labor value3! its 2deification3 in the advent ofthe ;ocialist utopia of 2bureaucratically planned production3 is so

infinitely inferior to the capitalist market system of consumer-drivenproduction that its 2ideals3 can be dismissed with Aiet scheanhaughtiness and contempt: The ;ocialist Wtopia is 2,ille urChnmacht3 (will to powerlessness% right from the very start becauseany velleity toward its implementation would seek to deny the2conflict3 inherent in production and promptly result in the erection ofa 2socialist bureaucracy3 made up of 2technocratic e perts3 that theworkers themselves would be sure to oppose resolutely and violently


19/21

precisely for their absurd denial of the e istence or even the &ossibilit"of 2conflict3 in their 2socialist paradise3: ,eber would have relied hereon the massive studies of the 2massification3 of erman industrycarried out by two of his Archi colleagues! ,erner ;ombart ( %eroderne -a&italismus and .ozialismus und die soziale Be!egung % and

5obert Bichels! whose well-researched %ie deutsche .ozialdemokratie (published in Archi f8r .ozial!issenschaft und .ozial&olitik XXIII(" 1+%! ;. #/"-$$+% he would have appreciated much more than theridiculous anecdotal generalities about the 2Iron )aw of Cligarchy3contained in his later 2theoretical3 compendium Political Parties !instantly translated in many languages: (The 2controversy3 ismentioned by . 5oth in his introduction to Econom" and .ociet" 7atp.)XXI8.%

Aote that ,eber intends the inevitable 2conflict3 over 2the system ofneeds and wants3 to cover not merely the 2distribution3 of material

goods but also their 2production3 in terms of both working conditionsand the choice of material goods produced. Met the overall 2rationalconduct of capitalist business3 will be dictated by the fact that for anygiven level of 2conflict3 there is only a gi en 2rational conduct ofbusiness3 possible for capitalists! related to the degree of marketcompetition with other capitalists. Private capitalism allows this2conflict3 to take place on two levels< - at the industrial level in termsof wages and conditions to be offered in the 2labor market3! and at thebroader market level in terms of workers demand for consumer goods.Private capitalism allows therefore the settlement of the conflictinherent to the wage relation both at the industrial-productive level of

supply and also at the market-distributive level of demand. It is therelative political autonomy of demand for 2labor3 that determines itspolitical 2freedom3 and permits thereby its 2political organi ation andrepresentation3 4 and it is this last that turns 2free labor3 into the real2motor of development3 of capitalist industry and society overall.

If the worker goes to the entrepreneur today and says! ,e cannotlive on these wages and you could pay us moreE! in nine out of tencases - I mean in peacetime and in those branches of industry wherethere is really fierce competition - the employer is in a position toshow the workers from his books that this is impossible< EBy competitorpays wages of such and such* if I pay each of you even only somuch more! all the profit I could pay to the shareholders disappearsfrom my books. I could not carry on the business! for I would get nocredit from the bank.E Thereby he is very often ?ust telling the nakedtruth. 'inally! there is the additional point that under the pressureof competition profitability depends on the elimination of humanlabour as far as possible by new! labour-saving machines! and especiallythe highest-paid type of workers who cost the business most.Fence skilled workers must be replaced by unskilled workers orworkers trained directly at the machine. This is inevitable and it


20/21

happens all the time. (;ocialism! p.0 # in DP,%.

,ere the entirety of private capitalist 2industry3 to fall into the handsof a 2socialist state bureaucracy3! even this 2remnant of individualfreedom of movement3 would vanish! preventing the 2political

organi ation and representation3 of conflict over wants and provisionthat private capitalism utili es as the motor of its development: ,erethe 2consumer choice3 that the 2free market3 allows through its 2pricemechanism3 regulating the allocation of 2labor3 to be abolished 4 laborintended as 2modern industrial labour3! as a 2rationally calculable3entity -! then the 2rational organi ation3 of industrial production wouldnecessarily be eliminated! and so would the competitive dynamic ofinter-capitalist rivalry and industrial conflict over wages and conditions*4 were all this to be abolished through the 2sociali ation of the meansof production3 and 2socialist planning3! the disastrous conse&uencewould be not only that workers! 2labor3! would not achieve their

socialist utopia because its 2implementation3 would be taken out oftheir hands by a 2socialist technocratic elite3! but also that they wouldno longer be even 2free3 to choose which 2material and e ternalgoods3 are 2rationally produced3 by 2modern industrial labour3 or tonegotiate the conditions and remuneration of that labour:

In other words! 2labor3 - a technically calculable &uantity a&&licablerationall" to the production of 2material goods3 - would no longer be2free3 because its rational a&&lication to the production of 2materialgoods3 would also be 2bureaucratically ruled3 through the removal of2individual consumer choice3 and the 2market competition3 between

capitalist employers over wages and conditions that private capitalismallows: The 2difference3 between 2wants3 and their 2provision3 wouldno longer e ist! and yet the conflict between the two - were the safety-valve of 2the market3 to be removed - would swell to the point ofe plosion: The elimination of the 2anarchy3 of capitalist productionwould lead straight to the elimination of 2 free labor3 4 that is! of theability of 2labor3 to be 2free to choose and to negotiate3 the 2materialand e ternal goods3 (that make up 2the iron cage3% and the workingconditions for the satisfaction and provision of those wants and needsthat ?ointly e ercise their 2ine orable power over the lives of men3.

It is entirel! ob(ious here that +hilst capitalist enterprise is able torationali&e the e)plo!)ent of labor po+er and the production processit adopts. it is unable to rationali&e the ,needs and +ants of +or/ers0And this is +h! it is i)perati(e that ,labor re)ain ,free if capitalistenterprise is to be run ,rationall! for profit at all0

9y removing the market pricing mechanism as a system of regulation!of social s"nthesis ! as the ultimate 2rationality3 or 2discipline3 ofprivate capitalism! ;ocialism would remove 2the last remnant of


21/21

individual freedom of movement3 !ithin the iron cage 4 it wouldremove &olitics : -! and all this in the name of 2a society finally free from conflict 3:

The embarrassing thing would be that whereas the political and private-economicbureaucracies (of syndicates! banks! and giant concerns% e ist alongside oneanotherat present! as separate entities! so that economic power can still be curbed bypoliticalpower! the two bureaucracies would then be a single body with identical interestsandcould no longer be supervised or controlled. In an! e(ent. profit +ould not bedonea+a! +ith as the lode-star of production* Met the ;tate as such would then70 +8 haveto take its share of the workersE hatred! which is directed at the entrepreneurs atpresent.(ibid.! ;ocialism! pp.0 $-+%

Documents

Max Weber and the Iron Cage - At the Origins of the Concept of Rationalisierung, by Joseph Belbruno