/lit/ - Literature

Not sure if this is really what you're looking for, but:
>Complex Organisations - Perrow
>From Max Weber (Chapters VI - X) - Weber
>'Institutionalized Organization' - Meyer
>'The Iron Cage Revisited' - DiMaggio & Powell
>'A Garbage Can Model of Organisational Choice' - Cohen, March, & Olsen
>'The Science of “Muddling Through”' - Lindbolm
>The External Control of Organisations - Pfeffer & Salancik
>'The Nature of the Firm' - Coase
>'Theory of the Firm' - Jensen & Heckling
>'The New Economics of Organisation' - Moe
>'Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans' - Ouchi
>Exit, Voice, and Loyalty - Hirschman
>Street Level Bureaucracy - Lipsky
Start with Perrow because it is basically a survey of the development of organisational theory. I think 'The Logic of Collective' by Olson and 'The Calculus of Consent' by Buchanan would also be a good supplements because their main theses can be quite usefully abstracted for thinking about organisational forms and decision making. Also 'The Origins of Political Order' by Fukuyama is nice, light reading about a lot of historical forms of organisation (focused on political organisation obviously).

Legalism isn't popular because it isn't a popular philosophy. That is, it doesn't appeal to the masses for legitimacy. Say what you will about the hierarchical aspects of Confucianism, it did suggest that the ruler had an obligation to the people to some degree (especially in Mencius). Confucianism could also appeal to people beyond the palace walls by developing a comprehensive moral code everyone should follow, whereas Legalism was silent on issues or moral conduct or any conduct that did not concern the power of the state. Legalism is one of the few comprehensive political philosophies that is unabashedly concerned only with the good of the leader and not at all with the good of the people. It doesn't even have the Machiavellian twist which makes the argument that political expediency is actually good for the people by guaranteeing autonomy. So even though Legalism has a far more modern theory of human nature and mechanisms of governance than Confucianism, its complete rejection of the interests of the people is inimical with an age where all politics claims some sort of popular legitimacy. Plus it's hard to say it is that unpopular when Mao explicitly endorsed it against Confucianism, though no leader has since (well, the tenants of the 2012 'core socialist values' included 'wealth and power' and (depending on how you interpret it) 'rule by law' (more commonly thought of as 'rule of law', but it is ambiguous), which were both explicit Legalist principles).
It also has the stigma of presiding over the shortest lived dynasty in Chinese history and persecuting the group that subsequently became the intellectual class and wrote the history books. Not that post-Qin china completely discarded Legalism, they just clothed it in the robes of the Confucianism to make it more palatable.

>>17932992
You're right, he actually had a public debate with Spengler (i don't think the contents were recorded, so we don't know what what was said). He reportedly called Spengler a 'very ingenious and learned dilettante', which might at first-glance sound like an insult, but in his 'Science as Vocation' he says...
>Normally such an 'idea' is prepared only on the soil of very hard work, but certainly this is not always the case. Scientifically, a dilettante's idea may have the very same or even a greater bearing for science than that of a specialist. Many of our very best hypotheses and insights are due precisely to dilettantes. The dilettante differs from the expert, as Helmholtz has said of Robert Mayer, only in that he lacks a firm and reliable work procedure. Consequently he is usually not in the position to control, to estimate, or to exploit the idea in its bearings. The idea is not a substitute for work; and work, in turn, cannot substitute for or compel an idea, just as little as enthusiasm can. Both, enthusiasm and work, and above all both of them jointly, can entice the idea.
so it isn't necessarily one. Though i'm not sure what they disagreed about (i haven't read Spengler unfortunately).

>>16806148
Basic economics. For those who make their living from begging, you need to be in a place with a high amount of foot traffic. Further, lacking a kitchen, your options for food are limited to fast-food joints and the like, which are more readily accessed in cities. There is also the point of water, which is typically also free and available in public bubblers and taps. And for those few industrious homeless who collect cans and bottles, again more concentrated (and getting change from vending machines and payphones). Ready transportation and foot-travel friendly spaces, plenty of shelter in awnings and shopfronts, discarded goods to scavenge (i see a lot pick up used cigarettes from the pavement). Most public buildings such as libraries that can serve as temporary shelters are also in cities. And as more gather, they can get some semblance of companionship and mutual aid (and many time antagonism, especially in larger cities).
There are simply more benefits to being a bum in a city than a suburb and especially a rural areas. Though i think you're more likely to encounter a true meth-fiend in particular suburbs than city centres.

>>16586936
That isn't safe for work.