Politics as a Vocation: Pre-class Reaction

The concept that struck me the most from this essay is first mentioned on the 2nd page. And that is where Weber states that every state is based on force, and it has always been that way, the only way that would not be the case is when states did not exist and there was anarchy. I found it interesting that when “anarchy” is said many people assume total chaos , people going crazy, violence, and insanity. However, if one looks at the definition, anarchy is just when everyone is able to govern themselves, there is no higher authority that has a “legitimate” right to force. And anarchy doesn’t mean total absence of rules, people can agree on rules the difference is no higher authority is imposing them on the population. Which is why anarchy can’t exist in this world, in theory it sounds nice, but humanity is nowhere near that responsible. Which goes back to Weber and the constant theme of power in his essay, as I was reading it that fact sank into my mind more and more. Humanity is in large pushed by a desire for power; most humans want that prestigious status and that ability to control others. It is hard to imagine a world where someone wouldn’t try to gain power and control, whether that’s just for personal satisfaction or to further a cause. And many people do need to be lead or guided; they would be lost on their own, and nothing would get done, there would be little progress.

I would also love to hear what Weber would have to say about current status of politics with the pressing forces of globalization. In IR many scholars talk about how the state is dying and how globalization and international actors undermine the state. And that is true, but the state is still the only one that has a legitimate right to violence. So then in a world where “international” is becoming more and more important how will power and politics have to shift to accommodate for this international situation.