Southern Political Science Association
Robert Michels's Political Parties in Perspective
Author(s): Philip J. Cook
Source: The Journal of Politics, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Aug., 1971), pp. 773-796
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Southern Political Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2128281
Accessed: 13/10/2010 13:11
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Cambridge University Press and Southern Political Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Politics.
http://www.jstor.org
RobertMichels's
Political Parties
in Perspective
PHILIP J. COOK
RobertMichels'sPoliticalParties'and the "ironlaw of oligarchy"
have enjoyeda minor,but strangelyrespected,and somewhat
uncritically
acceptedpositionin Americansocial scienceoverthe
past 20 years. The workstillfillsan obviousgap in theliterature
ofparties,and has interested
a numberofpeoplebecauseofitspossiblenegativeimplications
fordemocratic
theoryin general. It has
becomea minorclassic.
Manyyearshave passed (especiallyin thehistory
of thesocial
sciences) since the writingof PoliticalParties. The simplepassage oftimecreatesmoreproblems
forthestudentthanmayat first
be realized.
'Unless otherwiseindicated,all referencesin this article are to Robert
Michels,PoliticalParties(New York:The Free Press,1962).
774
THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS,
VOL.
33, 1971
Lipset,2Linz,3Cassinelli,4May,5and manyothershave discussed
and explicated the Michels thesis. The distinguishingpurpose of
thisessay is to place Michels and his thesisin the settingof his own
period. When this conceptualand intellectualhistoricalanalysisis
performed,many of the difficulties
discussed and impliedby others
become clearer.
Since the book is in part polemical,it mustbe understoodin the
contextof past ideological debates. Since it is contemporarywith
the beginningsof manyof the social sciences,the conceptualframeworksand vocabularyhave changed. The studentmustnot merely
locate false assumptionsand allow forsimplistictreatmentof data,
mustrelate dated conceptsand forgottenconbut, more important,
textsto currentwork. Some of the seductive quality of Political
Partiescan, forinstance,be ascribedto a sense of power that arises
froma conceptual unitythat is no longerappropriateto the study
of politicalparticipationin membershiporganizations.
An examinationof the publishinghistoryand the criticalliterature clearlyshows that Americaninterestin Michels and the "iron
law" dates fromthe republicationof PoliticalPartiesin 1949.6
2S. M. Lipset, Michels Theoryof PoliticalParties (Berkeley:Instituteof
IndustrialRelations,Universityof California,1962); "Introduction,"
to R.
Michels,PoliticalParties; and "Introduction"
to M. Ostrogorski,
Democracy
and theOrganization
ofPoliticalParties(Chicago: QuadrangleBooks,1964).
3JuanLinz, "Robert Michels,"InternationalEncyclopediaof the Social
Sciences (17 vols.; New York: Macmillanand Free Press,1968), X, 265-271.
4C. W. Cassinelli,"The Law of Oligarchy,"
AmericanPoliticalScience Review, 47 (September1953), 773-784.
5JohnMay,"Democracy,Organization,
Michels,"AmericanPoliticalScience
Review,59 (June 1965), 417-429.
6Michels,PoliticalPartieswas firstpublishedin Germanin 1911; it was
thenpublishedin Englishin the UnitedStatesby HearstInternational
Library
Companyin 1915. At the timeit seemsto have had littleeffecton American
scholars. The book was republishedby the Free Pressin 1949. Earl Latham,
"The GroupBasis of Politics:Notesfora Theory,"AmericanPoliticalScience
Review,46 (June1952), 376-397 containsa referenceto an editionwhichhe
simplynotesas "(New York,1925)," 377, whichis not listedin the Library
of CongressCatalogue. Now in the public domain,it has since been republished as well by Crowell-Collier
PublishingCompany(1962) and by Dover
Publications(1959). A few earlierAmericanreferences
notwithstanding,
the
book's widestreadingin Americaclearlydates fromits 1949 republication.
MICHELS
S POLITICAL
PARTIES
775
The time was ripe for its revival. Schumpeter7had awakened
in Americaan interestin the elitistformulationof democracy.Key8
and otherswere revivingan interestin the study of parties. Empirical and behavioralresearchin voting,politicalparties,and local
power structureswas leading to pluralismas a new theoryof democracy. Pluralismin turnled to a new interestin privatepolitical
organizationsand gave renewed significanceto Michels's apparent
findingof invariabletendenciestowardsoligarchyin privateorganizations.9 Reexaminationsof the nature of democracy,a renewed
interestin parties and in the political life of privateorganizations,
to elite theoriesrepresentthe roughcharacterand a new receptivity
istics of the environmentin which Political Parties was received.
In manyrespectsthe apparentfitbetweenthe originalworkand the
new environmentwas illusory.
Since Political Parties is, perhaps above all, a polemical -attack
of reconciling
on syndicalismand an expositionof the difficulties
at the University
Michels'svisitingprofessorship
of Chicago in 1928, and the
subsequentpublicationof a portionof his FirstEssays in PoliticalSociologyin
the AmericanPoliticalScience Review (the publishedportionis now Chapter
VII-See 21 [December1927],753-772) keptAmericanpoltical scienceaware
of his work,but did not create a vogue.
The book was, perhaps,best knownamongsocialistsand studentsof the
labor movementfor whom its critiquestill rankles. Those scholars,mostly
studentsof sociologicaltheory,who maintainedan interestin European
thought,knew the work. The frequently
cited worksdealing with Political
Parties prior to 1949 are: Philip Selznick,"An Approachto a Theory of
Bureaucracy,"American Sociological Review, 8 (February 1943), 47-54;
Sylvia Kobald, Rebellionin Labor Unionm(New York: Boni and Liveright,
1924); and JamesBurnham,The Machiavellians(New York: The JohnDay
Company,1943).
7JosephSchumpeter,
Capitalism,Socialismand Democracy(2nd ed.; New
York: Harcourt,Brace, 1947).
8V. 0. Key, Jr.,Politics,Partiesand PressureGroups (New York: Thomas
Crowell,1942) and SouthernPolitics(New York:A. Knopf,1950).
9Dahl in particularraisesthe questionof the internaldemocraticcharacter
of the groupswhosecompetition
he findsto be the chiefsourceof democracy
in New Haven. Lipset's initialworkin union democracywas begun in the
late 40s. RobertF. Dahl, Who Governs(New Haven: Yale University
Press,
1961). See S. M. Lipset,"Democracyin PrivateGovernment,"
BritishJournal
of Sociology,3 (February1952), 47-63.
776
THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS, VOL.
33, 1971
the position of Rousseau and Proudhon with modern democracy,
its contemporaryimportancecan be elusive. Withoutcaution the
dangerof anachronismsis great. Its polemical qualities also suggest
the need for a carefulexaminationof the author'sown position at
the time of writing. Several authors,concernedto undertakethat
inquiry,have tended to proceed froma textualexaminationof the
book and have sometimesproduced inaccurateresults.10The fact
that Political Parties is a study of the German Social Democratic
partyrequiresthat some attentionbe paid to the author'srelations
withinthe party and to the adequacy of his study of it. Michels
reportsboth social psychologicalpropositionsabout the nature of
elite-massrelationsin organizationsand propositionsabout the limitationsof the structuralformsof an organized divisionof labor for
democracy. Here, especially, Michels's conclusions must be examined in the light of dated terminologyand the impQrtanceof
changes in conceptual approaches.
With many of these considerationsin mind this paper discusses
brieflythe circumstancessurroundingthe genesisof PoliticalParties
and thenexaminesitsthesisin the lightof recentscholarship.
We turnfirstto a considerationof Michels'slifeand the earlyinfluenceson his intellectualdevelopment. As James Meisel wrote,
"It is more than idle curiosityto seek to detect the genesis of an
idea, to findout when it occurredand how it grew and changedor failed to change. The originsof ideas reveal more about a man's
mindthanhis ultimate,definitiveconclusions.""
I
Robert Michels (1876-1936)12 was born to a Catholic manufacthatMichels
lOSuchas Lipset'sview thatit was socialism,not syndicalism,
was rejecting.
"James Meisel,Paretoand Mosca (EnglewoodCliffs:PrenticeHall, 1965),
5.
121n biographicaldetails,and elsewhereas noted,thisessayis indebtedto
WernerConze, "Nachwortzur Neuausgabe" in R. Michels,Zuer Sociologie
des Parteiwissens
(2nd ed.; Stuttgart:AlfredKroenerVerlag,1957), 397-406;
gerichteteUnterJuan Linz, "Michels"; R. Michels, "Eine syndikalistisch
fuer Carl
stroemungim deutschenSozialismus(1903-1907)," in Festschrift
Gruenbergzum 70. Geburtstag(Leipzig: Verlag von C. L. Hirschfeld,
MICHELS
S POLITICAL
PARTIES
777
turing family of Italian extraction. His mother was of mixed
French,German,and Italian backgroundand his fatherof GermanItalian parentage. Born in Cologne, he had initiallyelected to
followsome of his uncles and seek a career in the PrussianArmy.13
He was educated in Paris,Munich,Leipzig, and Halle.
In 1904 he quit the armyand then made his home in Marburg
forthreeyears where he was a PrivatDozent at the university.He
also taught at the UniversiteNouvelle in Brussels (1905-08) to
whichhe commutedirregularly
fromMarburg.
Rejectinghis bourgeoisbackground,he joined the German Social Democraticpartyin 1903 and shortlythereafterbecame somethingof a syndicalist. He was fora numberof yearsboth an active
rank-and-filemember and a critical observer of the party. He
servedas a delegate at the partycongressesof 1903, 1904,and 1905.
In the electionsof January1907 he was an unsuccessfulcandidate
for ParliamentfromAlfeld-Lauterbach(not a party stronghold).
In 1907 he migratedto Turinwherehe brieflyjoined the syndicalist
wing of the Italian Socialist party. He attended the International
StuttgartSocialist Congress of that year as an Italian delegate. In
the fall of 1907,14 he resignedfromboth the Italian and German
parties.
In 1907, Michels foundhimselfbarredfromteachingat German
universitiesbecause of his political views and activities. He took
an appointmentas a librodocente at the Universityof Turin. Max
Weber, incensed at Michels's continuingtroubles,wrote a piece in
the Frankfurter
Zeitungproclaimingthat theyconstitutedpersecution.-5 But they persisted. When Michels returnedfromItaly to
1932), 343-364; A. H. Cook and Hedwig Wachenheim,"RobertMichelsReassayed: Of What Stuffis the Iron Law." (Manuscript.) It was the late Fr.
Wachenheim'shistoricalreferences
thatstimulatedthe firstresearchleadingto
this paper.
13See R. Michels,"Peter Michelsund seine Taetigkeitin der rheinischen
Industrie,in der rheinischen
Politikund im rheinischenGesellschaftsleben,"
Jahrbuch
des KoelnerGeschichtsvereins,
12 (1929), 29.
14Inhis autobiographical
essayhe places his resignation
in 1908,but it appears to have been in the fall of 1907.
15"Die sogenannteLehrfreiheit,"
Frankfurter
Zeitung, September1908.
Weber was apparentlyintenselyoccupied withthe matterforseveralmonths.
778
THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS,
VOL.
33, 1971
Germanyin 1913, he was still barred fromacademic appointment.
Weber made him a co-editorof the prestigiousArchivfuer Sozialwissenschaft
und Sozialpolitik.16Theirfriendship,
however,ended
in 1914 when, unable to support the war, Michels broke with
Weber, and elected to sit it out in Basel where he had received an
appointmentat the Universitysome six monthsearlier.17
Political Partiesis a productof the Turin period. No part of it
seems to have been writtenbeforehis resignationfromthe socialist
party. The rejectionin Political Parties of the possibilitiesfor democracy,syndicalism,and socialism documents a critical turning
point in his life. Afterhis resignationfromthe party,Michels became increasinglydisillusionedwith the masses and with socialist
movements. In 1928,he returnedto Italy at the personalinvitation
of Mussolini,where he became an apologist for fascism. He received a chair at the Universityof Perugia and then at the Universityof Rome, where he died in 1936.
The German historian,Werner Conze, sees Michels as a man
tornbetween opposing forces.
Even thoughMichels had clearlychanged froma politicianof
subversiveconviction(of course,always in the sphereof argument
and notin thatof responsibleaction) to a theoretician
of politicalsociologythat unveilstruth,he apparentlyneverescaped the tensions
with whichhe had lived since his youth. These tensionswere: repudiationof his Catholicfamilytradition;
oppositionto Prussianstate
authorityand Germannationalism,an oppositionderivedfromhis
See Hans H. Gerthand C. WrightMills,"Introduction,"
to FromMax Weber:
Essays in Sociology (New York: OxfordUniversityPress, 1946), 19 and
MariannaWeber,Max Weber: Ein Lebensbild(Heidelberg: Verlag Lampert
Schneider,1950), 395.
16Fromabout 1908 until1915 the Archivservedas Michels'smajoroutlet
forhis scholarlypublications. Both he, and after1910, his wifeGisela,published somethingin almosteveryissue.
17The Archiv fuer Sozialwissenschaft
and Sozialpolitik(originallythe
ArchivfuerSoziale Gesetzgebung)came underthe editorshipof Max Weber
in 1903 (jointlywith W. Sombartand E. Jaffe). Michels'sname appears
firston the titlepage of Volume 37 (1913) and continuesuntilVolume 39
(1915), which due to wartimeprintingproblemsappeared afterVolume40.
But the actual breakwithWeber tookplace veryshortlyafterthe beginning
of the war, sometimein the fall of 1914.
MICHELS
S POLITICAL
PARTIES
779
heritage(somewherebetweenthe Germanand the Italian) and from
exchangeof the
to the socialistInternational;
a deep commitment
homelandof Italy; the change
Germanempirefor the self-selected
of the disfromthe bourgeoisieto socialism;the painfulrecognition
continuity
between ideal and reality,firstin Germanand then in
the relationsand interrelations
Italian social democracy;and, finally,
of Marxism,syndicalismand fascism. All of these contradictions,
the politicaltheoriesof our author,
which are vital to understanding
reflectthe overall crisisof democracyon the continentof Europe
which,alreadybefore,but especiallyafter,the FirstWorldWar and
the closelyconnectedeventsin world politics,was the centralunpolitics.18
solvedproblemofpracticaland theoretical
Alfredde Grazia wrote:
to European democracywas complex. If
Michels' relationship
of values,I believe
forhis hierarchy
one searchedhis lifeand writings
even anarchy,first
one would have to place extremeindividualism,
and derive fromthat his succeedingvalues. An energeticanticharacterizedhis earliestlife and one findsin his
Authoritarianism
references
to the unattainableideal
later writingspensive,regretful
of the Jeffersonian
or Rousseauiandemocrat.19
It is partlythe persistenceof portionsof his earlier beliefs in his
later, more anti-democraticworks (the tension between earlier
ideals and later conclusions) and partly his acceptance of Rousseau's analysisand his involvementwith syndicalismthatled May20
and othersto describe Michels as a "romantic." There was, however, in Michels's time, an active syndicalist movement-the
writingsof Proudhonwere fresherthen-and many believed that
the syndicalistpositionand its Rousseauian originshad, at least, to
be dealt with. Michels was not alone in going beyond its studyto
its advocacy.
While the searchforthe sourcesof intellectualinfluenceis specespeciallywhen combinedwith a careful
ulative,it is oftenfruitful,
analysisof an author'sargument. The best documentedof Michels's
intellectualrelationswas that with Max Weber, whom he met as
'8WemerConze, "Nachwort,"307. (Translationmine.)
'9Alfredde Grazia's "Introduction"
to FirstLecturesin PoliticalSociology
(New York: Harper and Row, 1965), 7.
20JohnMay, "Democracy."
780
THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS,
VOL.
33, 1971
editorof the ArchivfuerSozialwissenschaftund Sozialpolitik,probably early in 1904. Weber was apparentlyan early stimulusto
Michels's study of political parties, and the author acknowledged
that debt by dedicating the firstedition of Political Parties to
Weber.
Michels and Weber had a considerable correspondenceon the
subject of German socialism throughoutmuch of 1906 and 1907.2
Anotherportionof their discussion was carried on in the Verein
fuer Sozialpolitikin the period 1906-08.22 GuentherRoth has furthersuggestedthat a briefpostscriptby Weber to an articlein the
magazine,outliningthe researchtasksahead in the studyof parties,
may have served as the point of departurefor Michels. As Lipset
remarks,most of the points raised by Weber there are dealt with
by Michelsin PoliticalParties.23
Whetherthisdirectinfluenceis correctlyattributedor not, the piece certainlydefinedWeber's views
of a properresearchfocusforthe studyof politicalsociology.These
were more oriented towards the organizationof parties and the
empiricalstudyof theirmembersthanwere Michels's,but the views
of the two men were nonethelessquite similar. The empirical
workin Political Parties,spottyas it is, may well indicate the influence of Weber.
Mosei Ostrogorski,an early studentof political parties whose
21Juan Linz, "Michels," puts the date of their firstmeeting at 1904, but
Michels himselfin "Eine syndicalistischgerichteteUnterstroemung,"357, gives
it as the winterof 1906-07. Both Weber's correspondence and Michels's active
role as a contributorto the magazine show Linz to be correct. However, their
important correspondence and conversations on German socialism apparently
did take place in the winter of 1906-07. Portions of the Weber-Michels correspondence may be found in Wolfgang Mommson, Max Weber und die
deutsche Politik: 1890-1920 (Teubingen: Mohr, 1959). Weber's letters have
been preserved,but Michels's do not appear to be available.
22See Verhandlungen:
Schriften
des VereinsfuerSozialpolitik,
116 (1906),
389 for a part. Much of the debate was not published.
23Guenther
Roth,The Social Democratsin ImperialGermany:A Studyin
WorkingClass Isolationand NationalIntegration(Totowa: Bedminster
Press,
1963). The "Raedaktionelle Bemaerkungen" by Weber were to an article by
R. Blank, "Die soziale Zusammensetzung der sozialdemokratischen WaehlerschaftDeutschlands,"in ArchivfuerSozialwissenschaft
und Sozialpolitik,20
(1904), 550-553. Lipset, "Introduction" to Ostrogorski,Organization of Po-
liticalParties.
781
MICHELS'S POLITICAL PARTIES
work predates Michels's book by about 15 years, made observations on structuralinfluencestowards oligarchywithin American
and Britishparties similarto those that Michels later developed in
his studyof the German Social Democraticparty.24 Michels infrequentlycitesOstrogorski
on some of theseobservations.25
Perhaps most important,because it is still little known in the
United States and yet is vital to an understandingof Michels's conceptual framework,was the influence of syndicalism upon his
thought. Michels was more a syndicalistthan an orthodoxsocial
democrat.26
From 1904 on he came increasinglyunder Sorel's influence.He
subsequentlybecame friendswith Lagardelle,27Barth, Delesalle,
and Griffuelhes,
key leaders of French syndicalism. In 1907 he attended a meetingof syndicalistsin Paris. His remarksduring a
lectureprogramat thismeetingreveal somethingof his considerable
disaffectionfromthe German Social Democratic party.28 In his
autobiographicalarticle,he discusses his activitiesat Marburgas a
240strogorski,
Organizationof PoliticalParties. The intellectualdebt is
discussedat some lengthin Theodore Schneider,The State and Societyin
ModernTimes (London: ThomasNelsonand Sons,1962), 84.
1962), 122n.,
25R. Michels,PoliticalParties (New York: Crowell-Collier,
328, and 328n.
26Thesyndicalists
were Marxistssave fortheirbeliefin the importanceof
movementand theirreservathe democraticprocesswithinthe revolutionary
tions about the possibilityof representation.This made them advocatesof
at this
loose associationsof comparatively
small local groups. Their strength
timewas in the trade-union
movement
in France,Italy,and Spain. In a sense
they representedthe primacyof the vision of Marx's futurestate,i.e., the
witheredstate.
27Largardelle
was a colleagueat the NouvelleUniversite.
28Michels,"Le Syndicalismeet la Socialismeen Allemagne,"in Syndicalismeet Socialisme(Paris: Bibliothequedu MouvementProlitarien,
M. Riviere,
1908). He says,speakingof Germansocialism,forinstance... "ce qu'elle est
aujourdhui:un socialismeverbale et lache, aux phrases redondanteset a
l'actionaplatie,un socialismeau jour le jour,terrea terre,sans idees et practiquescoherentes.... (27)
indecise,prudente,
" . . . La tactique actuelle de la social-democratie,
legalitaireet parlementaire,
ne peut que prolonguerle systemregnantet
arreter l'essor des forces jeunes."
(27)
He ends with " . . . en Allemagne
. . . le socialismene renaitraque par le syndicalisme."(29)
782
THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS,
VOL.
33, 1971
social democratand demi-syndicalist.29 He depictshimselfas working with the partyon behalfof the syndicalistpoint of view. While
writingPolitical Parties,he had syndicalistsympathieswhich,in a
nostalgicway, he retaineduntilhis death. Michels's doubts about
social democracy and his loyalties to syndicalismcast important
new lightupon several points in his writingand in his career. Political Parties, for instance,is not, as is sometimessupposed, an
analysisof oligarchicaltendencieswithinthe GermanSocialistparty
by a convinced,thoughdisillusioned,socialist. The analysis is by
a disillusionedmemberof the party'sinternalsyndicalistopposition.
The fact that Michels nonethelessremainedin the German Social
Democratic party is not inconsistent. First, the party had at the
time a virtualmonopolyon left-wingpolitical activityin Germany.
Second, the partydid not until 1908 forbidmembershipto the syndicalistswho earlierhad formeditsso-called"localist"faction.30
His autobiographicalessay,especiallytaken in conjunctionwith
his reportson the Germansocialistsin the French syndicalistmagazine Le Mouvement Socialiste (edited by his friend Hubert Lagardelle) 3 shed a good deal of lightupon Michels's political life.
He was never primarilya politician, although for several years
clearlyan active rank-and-file
memberof the Marburgparty. His
main career was always academic. Althoughclose to many of the
French syndicalistleaders, he had few contactswith the German
to French
syndicalists. He was, forinstance,a frequentcontributor
syndicalistjournals,but only infrequentlywrote for Einigkeit,the
organ of the German syndicalists.
29Michels,"Eine syndikalistisch
gerichteteUnterstroemung,"
351.
3OMichels,"Le Syndicalismeet la Socialisme,"(28) while speaking of
GermanSyndicalism,
casts some lighton his participation
in the Social Demo-
cratic party. "(the German syndicalists) ne sont . . . que les mouvements
embroyonnaires
a peine perceptiblesencore, sans influenceefficasesur les
masses organizees,et, lorsqu'ilssont dans le partie socialistetout au plus
tolerespar lui. Et leur action est d'autantplus limiteequ'en Allemagneles
chefsdu mouvementsocialisteou ouvrier,les Bebels et compagnie,jouissent
de la confienceillimiteedu proletariat,
qui les supportepassivementet leur
obeit aveuglement."Therewere at thattime,accordingto Michels,15,000to
20,000 "localists"in the Germanpartyof a totalmembership
of 1,300,000.
31He was a regularcontributor
from1905-10. His last pieces were dialogueswithLagardelleon PoliticalParties.
MICHELS
S POLITICAL
PARTIES
783
Within the German party nationally,he was an opponent of
Bebel, Bernstein,and the centrists. It is perhaps this simplefactof
oppositionthat explains his friendshipswith Kautskyand Luxemburg, neitherof whom were sympatheticto his syndicalistgoals.32
He was on the whole not influentialin the party,but was respected
for his academic writings.
Michels's perspectiveon the party,even as a member,was a
criticalone. His active career withinit was one of opposition,yet
thisoppositiondid not lead him to an intenseinvolvementin practical politics. Always primarilyan academic, his oppositionwithin
the party was based upon an academic support of syndicalism.
Thus, his theoreticalinterestin syndicalismled him to an intellectual relationwith the leaders of the French syndicalistmovement,
but not to active political conflictwithinthe German party,where
and associationslay outsidethe syndicalistfaction.
his friendships
Michels became acquainted withMosca and his workwhile they
were colleagues at the Universityof Turin. This influencewas decisive forhis life and workfrom1907 on. While it is not clear that
Mosca influencedhis already advanced disillusionmentwith the
Italian and German socialistparties,it did importantlyshape Po-.
litical Parties.33
It was Mosca's work that provided two importantelementsin
that book: (1) the emphasison the inevitabledivisionbetween the
leaders and the led and (2) the impossibilityof the syndicalist
dream.34 In large part because of Mosca's influence,Michels was
led to cast his observationin the formof an "iron law." Michels
was caught on the one hand by the clear abstractlogic of Rousseau
and on the otherby that of Mosca and Pareto. Weber, who was
361-362.
32Michels,"Eine syndikalistisch
gerichteteUnterstroemung,"
33Michelsrefersto Mosca's Questionipractichedi Dirittoconstitutionale,
Sulla Theoricadei Goviernie su Goviernoparlamentare,
"RiformaSoziale,"
and Elementidi Scienza Politica(cited in PoliticalParties,76, 344, and 354).
Michelsdeals moreextensively
withhim and his writingsin "Gaetano Mosca
und seine Staatstheorien,"
SchmollersJahrbuch,
53 (1929), 111-130. See J.
Meisel, The Mythof the RulingClass: Gaetano Mosca and the Elite (Ann
Arbor:University
of MichiganPress,1958), 183-189 for a discussionof the
intellectualdebt.
34Michels,
PoliticalParties,76, 344, 346, 347, and 354.
784
THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS,
VOL.
33, 1971
involvedin a similaranalysis,35
managed to avoid being ensnaredby
theirpremisesby recognizingthat neitherbegan froma firmbase
in practice. Michels lacked the experienceor the perspective,or
perhaps both,to make that analysisand thus remainedtrappedbetween the two.
II
Michels's personal history,especially his involvementwith syndicalism,provides explanationsfor many thingsthat are ptherwise
obscure in Political Parties. His personal experience,for example,
led to his very special and limited uses of such termsas "representativeness,"
"oligarchy,"and "democracy." Seen in thislight,his
special usage takes on new meaning.
Political Parties is a discussionof the possibilitiesfor "democracy" withinsocialistparties,in the face of theirinternalpower relations, their increasing complexity,and a perceived tendency
towards oligarchy. The research method Michels chose was an
examinationof the history,structure,and behavior of the German
Social Democratic party,which he posited as the prototypeof all
socialistparties. It is, thus,not preciselya book about oligarchy,
nor one about bureaucracy,but rathera studyof a particularparty
that highlightsthose themes. Hence, its claims to broader significance require scrutiny.
Michels,himself,was the firstto promotethe view thatPolitical
Partieshad broad implicationsfor"democracy"36(in the sense that
the development of strong workers'-i.e., socialist-organizations
are a preconditionfor democracy) and for all "democratic"organizations. But this suggestion (except when applied to trade
unions) is not a partof the workitself. It is firstcontainedin a 1915
"Author'sPreface."
35The point that an incompleteunderstanding
of practiceunderliesthe
argumentsof Rousseau and Mosca is not made directlyby Weber, but his
critiqueis based upon the fact thatpracticedoes show otherways. See M.
Weber, GesammelteAufsaetzezur Soziologieund Sozialpolitik(Tuebingen:
Mohr,1924).
36Michels'suse of the word"democracy"is discussedlater. When used in
his specialsense,it-willappearin quotesthroughout
thisessay.
MICHELS'S
POLITICAL
PARTIES
785
It is thewriter'sopinionthatdemocracyat once as an intellectual
has todayenteredupon a critical
theoryand as a practicalmovement,
difficult
to discoveran exit.
phase fromwhich it will be extremely
obstacles,notmerelyimposedfromwithDemocracyhas encountered
surgentfromwithin. Onlyto a certaindegree,
out,but spontaneously
perhaps,can theseobstaclesbe surpassedor removed.37
Both his life and a close reading of the book reveal the importanceof viewinghis analysisfirstas Marxist(and, withinMarxism,as syndicalist)and finallyas academic. The importanceof his
syndicalismis nowhere clearer than in his discussion of "democracy"and the dilemmasit poses fororganizations. Underlyingthe
discussionis the polemical presentationnot of democracyas an institutionalformor as a decision-makingprocess, but of "democracy,"the syndicalistegalitariansocial and political ideal. Thus, in
a sense,the dilemmapresentedby PoliticalPartiesis not a dilemma
of democraticgovernmentas a whole, but of the syndicalists'ideal
egalitariangovernment. The greatestsingle contributionof Political Parties was in clearly pointingout for the firsttime that the
execution of socialist programswould involve special theoretical
problems. But even amongMarxistscholars,forwhomthisproblem
attentionhas been paid to the syndicalist
is critical,insufficient
natureof his premisesand theireffectupon his totalthesis.38
He formulatedthe problemin these words,
classaredirectly
Theimportance
andtheinfluence
oftheworking
of
to its numericalstrength.But forthe representation
proportional
areindispensiand coordination
thatnumerical
strength
organization
condiof organization
is an absolutely
essential
ble. The principle
tionforthepolitical
struggle
ofthemasses.
Yet this politicallynecessaryessentialof organization,while it
overcomesthatdisorganization
of forceswhichwould be favorableto
37The"Author'sPreface"to the EnglishEditionof PoliticalPartiesdated
"Basel, 1915,"republished
in theCrowell-Collier
edition,6.
381t was this contribution
that has made Michels so widely discussedin
Marxistliterature
forhalf a century. See S. M. Lipset'sdiscussionof Marxist
repliesin his "Introduction"
to the Crowell-Collier
edition,25. The parallel
betweenMichels (who is referred
to forsome of the argument)and the early
chaptersof Milovan Djilas, The New Class (New York: Praeger,1957), is
striking.
786
THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS,
VOL.
33, 1971
the adversary,
bringsotherdangersin its train. We escapeScylla
onlyto dashourselves
on Charybdis.Organization
is, in fact,the
sourcefromwhichtheconservative
currents
flowovertheplainof
democracy,
occasioning
theredisastrous
floodsand rendering
the
plainunrecognizable.39
It is necessary for us to examine more closely what Michels
means both by "democracy"and by "organization." For unless we
understandthe special meaningsthat he assigns to these concepts
it is impossibleto place his thoughtin perspectiveand derive from
it the originalimplications. This task,however,is made difficult
by
thefactthathe nowheredirectlytacklesthe definitional
problem.
Political Partiesbegins with a chapterentitled"Aristocracyand
Democracy." Here he comes closest to a definitionof democracy.
BorrowingfromRousseau's Social Contract,he writes,"For democracy can eitherembrace all of the people or be restrictedto half of
them;aristocracy,
on the otherhand, can embracehalfof the people
or an indeterminately
smallernumber."40 And later,
The firstappearanceof professional
leadershipmarksthe beginning of the end, and this, above all, on account of the logical
impossibility
of the representative
system,whetherin parliamentary
life or in party delegation.
. .
.
A mass which delegates its sov-
ereigntyto the hands of a few individualsabdicates its sovereign
functions.For thewill of thepeopleis nottransferable.41
This conceptionof democracy(derived directlyfromRousseau and
Sorel) is central to his thesis, but in applying it to the socialist
movement,he found an irreconcilabledilemma. The masses need
organizationin orderto attain"democracy." But, in the veryact of
organizing,the syndicalistMichels perceives a forfeitureof "democracy"and with it of Marx's futurestate. Anythingshort of
directparticipationof the entiremembershipof the partyand decisionby pure and simplemajoritarianism
is not democratic.
The dilemma,however, depends upon the force of the Rous39Michels,PoliticalParties,62.
4OMichels,
PoliticalParties,43-44, citingJ. J. Rousseau,Le ContratSocial
(6th ed.; Paris: BibliothequeNationale,1871), 91.
41Michels,PoliticalParties,73.
MICHELS
S POLITICAL
PARTIES
787
seauian premise. If democracyis defineddifferently,
if one admits
of the possibilityof degrees of democracy,or if one speaks of republican formsas democratic,then the argumentis weakened and
no longer resultsin a classic dilemma. Since no countryand few
organizationspursue the Rousseauian ideal (certainlythe German
social democratsand trade unionistsdid not), Michels's argument
is politicallyunrealisticfromthe beginning.
By "organization"Michelsmeans,not the mass of people banded
together,but ratherthe superstructure
of leadershipand the system
of representation.42Thus, his famousphrase,"Who says organization says oligarchy,"includesboth the conclusionthat the existence
of a leadership leads to oligarchy,and the premise that representation,i.e., the formaldelegation of authority,is by its nature
oligarchic. To Michels, the very existenceof professionalstaff,of
representatives,of leaders elected for long terms,or, indeed, of
posts, whetherelective or not, that require special skills and are
thus not open to everymemberof the group,lead to oligarchyand
yet are indispensabletrappingsof politicalorganization. Who says
the persistenceof a complexpolitical divisionof labor, says oligarchy.
It is importantto interjectat thispoint thatthe English version,
"Who says organization,says oligarchy,"is a noticeably stronger
formulationthan the originalGermanwhich reads "Wer Organizationsagt,sagt Tendenz zur Oligarchie." While thissomewhatmitigates the baldness of the English version,the problem,of course,
remainsessentiallythe same.
While some portions of the work are largely polemical and
based upon premises that the modern reader, especially if he is
neither Marxist nor syndicalist,may be reluctant to concede,
otherportionsare empiricaland analyticaldiscussionsof the sources
of bureaucraticand oligarchicaltendencieswithinthe party. Yet
some of the analysesof the data, and the uses to which these analyses are put, are neverthelesssuspect. If one adopts Rousseau's
42"In certainisolated cases, where the questionsinvolvedare extremely
simple,and where delegatedauthority
is of briefduration,representation
is
possible. But permanentrepresentation
will alwaysbe tantamount
to the exercise of dominationby the representatives
over the represented."Michels,
PoliticalParties,77.
788
THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS,
VOL.
33, 1971
premises,forinstance,one is led inevitably,almosttautologically,to
conclude that modern organizationis oligarchic. Based on that
premise,even the soundestdata mustproduce a distortedpicture.
The discussion of "democracy"and "organization"centers on
the irreconcilableconflictbetween the means and ends of socialism.
The text of Political Parties depicts this conflictin terms of the
structuraland psychological components of elite-mass relations,
which are deemed characteristicof all leadershiprelationsin mass
organizations. The mere existence of an elite creates the most
seriousproblemsforMarxistsof all sorts,but especiallyforsyndicalis the leadership?How
ists. Such questionsas: How representative
responsive is the leadership? How accessible is the leadership?
How oftenand how easily does its membershipchange? mightall
be asked by a more modern scholar. Michels deals with certain
parts of these questions empirically,and other parts theoretically
(i.e., at the level of interests),but mostparts (e.g., the question of
representativeness
in most respects) are excluded fromconsiderationbecause his initialpremisesprecludeposingthem.
The centralproblem posed for socialism by Michels's analyses
lies in its goal of a classlesssociety. To the considerableextentthat
egalitarianismis a part of the popular ideologyof the United States,
Michels's argumenthas a special appeal to Americans.Since the
American position tends, however, to support equality of opportunityratherthan equality of condition,Michels poses somewhat
less of a problem for Americansthan for socialists.The extentof
this special problem is difficultto evaluate furtherbecause the
Americanconceptionof equality is more culturaland less ideological than the socialist.It is, however,a mistaketo assume that the
argumentis directlyand totallytransferableto Americanpolitical
thought,or thatits conclusionholds trueforAmerica.
There is some secondaryevidence that Michels did not, at first,
intend to push his conclusionsquite so far as to damage his own
syndicalistposition. But the logic of his findingspushed him from
an indictmentof the German Social Democratic partyto an indictmentof the idea of the revolutionary
masses upon whichboth social
democracyand syndicalismrested.43
43Michels, for instance, continued to publish in the syndicalist journal, Le
MICHELS
S POLITICAL
PARTIES
789
The workbegan to appear in partsbeginningin 1907. The tone
of the articlesshowed a uniformly
criticalattitudetoward the German party. The views of Mosca on the inevitabilityof elite formation and the beginningsof the formulation
of the Iron Law firstappear in 1908.44 While the basic argumentis developed in the 1909
articles,the tone is strongerin the firsteditionof the book itselfin
1911. The 1915 Preface, changes in the second edition (1925),
and writingin the interveningyearsindicatethat the process of rejectingdemocraticsolutionsdid not reach its finalphase untilsometimeduringthe FirstWorldWar.45 In PoliticalPartiesthe introduction of a social psychologicalelementinto the analysisof relations
withinthe partywas criticalin turningthe strongcritique of democracyas it existedinto a rejectionof the idea itself. Thereafter
it seemed meaninglessto attemptto increase the awareness or capacity of the mass. He concluded that he had discovered the
mass's inherentincapacityto rule.46
Beyond the conflictof means and ends within socialism, Michels'sbasic argumentis straightforward
and similarto thatof some
MouvementSocialist,until his book appeared in French. Then Lagardelle
publisheda seriesof articlesattempting
to showthat,while Michelswas right
aboutthe social democrats,
the thesisdid not hold forthe syndicalists.It was
onlythen (1913) that Michelsexplicitlyattackedthe syndicalists
and ceased
to publishin the journal. The synopsisof Michels'sbook is in 29 (No. 227),
21-33 and 30 (No. 228), 87-97. The Lagardellearticlesappear in Vols. 31
and 32 and Michels's attack is "Oligarchieet Syndicat: reponse 'a Hubert
Lagardelle,"33 (No. 247-248), 90-96.
44SeeMichels,"Die oligarchische
Tendenzender Gesellschaft,"
Archivfuer
und Sozialpolitik,
27 (1908), 73-135.
Sozialwissenschaft
45Thepre-publication
articlesthat I have located include: "Die deutsche
Sozialdemokratie,"
ArchivfuerSozialwissenschaft
und Sozialpolitik,
24 (1906),
189-258; "Einige Randbemerkungen
zum Problem der Demokratie,"SozialistischeMonatshefte,13 (1909), 361-368; "Der konservativeGrundzug
der Parteiorganization,"
Monatschrift
fuerSoziologie,1 (1909); "Die deutsche
Sozialdemokratie
im Internationalen
Verbande,"ArchivfuerSozialwissenschaft
und Sozialpolitik,27 (1908), 73-135. Michels'sremarkson the preliminary
workin a noteto the "Introduction"
to the 2nd Germanedition,407.
46See Michels, "Psychologieder antikapitalistischen
Massenbewegung,"
der Sozialoekonomnik,
Grundriss
9 (1928), Part I, 241-359. In an aside in his
earlierProblemeder Sozialphilosophie(Berlin: Verlag von B. G. Teubner,
1913) he voices the same doubts,20.
790
THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS,
VOL.
33, 1971
other students of bureaucracy and organization. Organizational
size is a determiningfactorin the creationof bureaucracyand hierarchy. Once an organizationreaches a certainsize it needs a staff,
which eventuallyevolves into a paid professionalgroup. As it
grows larger,the organizationneeds more and more staff. As its
business becomes more complex,its functionariesand leaders become more specialized and professionalizedand hence entrenched
behind barriersof skill and experience. As size increases,the distance between the leaders and the led increasesand theirinterests
diverge. The leaders no longer have the same class position and
interestsas the rankand file: theyare now bureaucratsand professionals. Specializationis a majorfactorcontributing
to bureaucratization. With specializationcomes a need for training. The need
fortraining,whethersimpleor complex,limitsthe numberof people
in the organizationwho are effectively
eligible forpositions. Training and specialized skills,once acquired and competentlyexecuted,
tend to encourage reelectionand permanentincumbency. Thus,
with the developmentof specialization,an elite-massrelation-i.e.,
one based upon the leader'sprivateand presumablysuperiorknowledge and the rank-and-file's
collectiveignorance-is created.
Finally,as organizationsgrow,the means of internalcommunication tend to become increasinglyformaland are less and less
based on face-to-facecommunication. A dependence upon newspapers and on the printed word in general grows. The presses
and means of communicationare in the hands of the leaders. Both
the organizationof debate and the timing,agenda, and even the
means of discussiongravitateinto the hands of the leaders. A relativelysmall numberof people determinethe characterand content
of organizationaldiscourse.
These, briefly,are the general points that Michels makes directlyfromhis empiricalinquiries,but he does not formulatehis
ironlaw solelyon the basis of thesefindings. He toucheson several
otherpointsin his analysis,thoughthese emerge less directlyfrom
the data.
The firstof these pointsis a theoryof leadershipbehaviorbased
upon a perception of self-interest:as leaders become separated
from the mass they develop a distinct and even exclusive self-
MICHELS'S
POLITICAL
PARTIES
791
interest.47This self-interest
is perceived to be at the root of both
theirgrowingunrepresentativeness
of the mass and theireffortsto
perpetuatethemselves. Self-interest
eventuallyleads to a proprietaryfeelingtowardsthe leadershiprole and office. This last stage,
Michels conceded, was not yet fullydeveloped in the Germanparty
at the time of his writing,althoughhe contendedthat the psychological mechanismswere already at work.
Anotherof these psycho-socialpropositionspertainsto the psychology of the mass. Following Pareto, Mosca, and Le Bon, he
postulatednot merelyan apathyon the part of the mass but also a
dependency. This expressesitselfin a certainlack of mass interest
in public affairs,in a correspondinglack of initiative,and in a cult
of veneration,i.e., in a need to personalize the organizationand a
desire for both heroes and villains.48
Michels sees the partyas an instrument
of revolution. Yet the
partyorganizationfrustratesthe sources of radicalism (the mass)
withinthe party. And worse, it caters to the weaknesses of the
mass. Both the interestsof the leaders and the natureof the mass
demand this behavior. Thus, in Michels's eyes, organizationmust
inevitablybe conservative:to a syndicalist,even radical action on
the part of the partyleadershipis self defeating. To Michels there
can be no radical action thatis not mass action. We mustnot mistake his meaning. He is not sayingthatthe social democraticparty
cannotmake a revolution,but ratherthatit cannotmake a syndicalist revolutionor even a revolutionthat leads to the othervisionsof
the Marxistfinalstate.
It is in his discussionof the mass that the conflictbetween his
47Michelswas particularly
incensedby what he deemed the outrageously
self-interested
behaviorof the parliamentary
party,in his autobiographical
essay; in "La Greve Generale de la Ruhr," Le MouvementSocialiste,15
(No. 149), 481-490;and in "Aproposde la Grevede la Ruhr,"Le Mouvement
Socialiste,16 (No. 158), 341-344.
48Thenatureof the Marburgpartyorganizationmay have somewhatinfluencedMichels'sviews of the mass apathy. He reportson the social compositionof the organizationin 1905 in "Proletariatund Bourgeoisiein der
SozialistischenBewegung Italiens,"Archivfuer Sozialwissenschaft
und Sozialpolitik,21 (1905), 347-416. The partyorganization,
althoughdominated
in its leadershipby craftsmen-bourgeois
of varioustypes,was composedof
54% unskilledfactoryworkers.
792
THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS,
VOL.
33, 1971
formersyndicalistideals and his new belief in the incompetenceof
in his argument.When
the mass createsthe mostseriousdifficulties
discussingthe divergenceof interestsbetween the leaders and the
led, he views the workingclass as a collectionof dedicated revoby careerlutionarieswhose social and political goals are frustrated
ist bureaucrats. In his social psychologicalpositions,however,he
holds that these membersof the workingclass are inherentlyinert,
action,and worshipfulof their
apathetic,incapable of self-initiated
betters.
Michels's assertionof the revolutionarynature of the working
class is to be understoodin the lightof historicalmaterialistanalysis. The mass was not necessarilycomposed of actual advocates of
revolutionarypolicies (although there were such advocates), but
historicalmaterialismhad shown that the objective class interests
that events were
of the mass were revolutionaryand furthermore
convergingtowards revolution. Michels's argumentis then twofold. First,the leaders suppressthose who already have a revolutionaryconsciousnessand, second, they advance policies that have
the effectof diminishingthe revolutionaryconsciousness of the
mass as a whole. His critiqueof the workingclass does not then
centeron its actual behavior,but on its perceivedinherentinability
to behave differently.
At this level the argumentis almostentirelypolemical. Modem
scholars,seeking to read into Michels the notion that the leaders
of the mass, will note,however,thathe is
become unrepresentative
sayingjust the opposite. Michels is assertingthatthe partyleadership is unfitbecause it catersto the perceived needs of the masses,
despite an ideological injunctionto pursue revolutionarypolicies.
It does not, of course, follow (at least withoutfurtheranalysis of
theiractual historicalbehavior) that the partyleadershipis representativeof the mass will, but Michels's assertionto the contraryis
basedl in a metaphysicalpolemic.
This uneasy coexistenceof contradictoryattitudestoward the
masses revealsthe uneven developmentof Michels'spersonalanalysis of the futilityof syndicalisthopes.49 It is in part the uneven de490therworksof thisperiodindicatethathis ambivalencetowardsthe revolutionary
image of the mass,which his syndicalistideas demanded,was al-
MICHELS'S
POLITICAL
PARTIES
793
velopmentof the analysis and in part the strangejuxtapositionof
syndicalistpremisesand elitistconclusionsthat permitboth the discouraginginterpretation
of Michels'sworkby Lipset and Cassinelli
and the quite optimisticinterpretation
by May.50
The methodologyand several of the basic assumptionsof Michels's studyhave been the subject of a small,but important,dissentingliterature.51
The series of ideological factorsthat interposedthemselvesbetween his workand any considerationof whetherthe leaders of the
Germantrade unions and the Germanpartyaccuratelyrepresented
the mass of theirmembersis challengedby a substantialliterature
that asserts the opposite, namely,that the move away fromthe
party'srevolutionaryplatformwas in response to improvedliving
conditionsand changing aspirationsof the rank and file.52 The
thesisof the Cook and Wachenheim53
manuscriptis thatthe German
Social De*inocratic
partyarose, thrived,and continuesto existamid
a set of unique historicalconditions,not all of which are accurately
representedin, and some of which are not even taken into account
by, Michels's analysis.
One importantquestion is whetherthe conclusions,once acready advanced. In "Das Proletariatin der Wissenschaft
und die oekonomischanthropologische
Synthese,"an introduction
to the German edition of
Niceforo'sAnthropologie
der nichtbesitzenden
Klassen (Leipzig: Maas & Van
Suchten,1910) he says thatthe workposes forthe reader"a weightydouble
question. Is the spiritually
and bodilydefectiveproletariat,
presentedin the
studiesof politicaland social anthropology,
ready for its emancipationas a
class and, if we mustreplyno, whatmustwe do in orderto makeit ready?"
(160) [Translationmine.] Withina few years he was to conclude that
nothingcould be done.
50Lipset,"Introduction,"
to PoliticalParties;C. W. Cassinelli,"The Law of
Oligarchy";and May, "Democracy."
51S. M. Lipset et al., UnionDemocracy(Glencoe: The Free Press,1956);
A. H. Cook, Union Democracy(Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 1961); S.
M. Lipset,"Some Special Requisitesof Democracy,"AmericanPoliticalScience
Review,53 (March 1959), 69-105.
52See Hedwig Wachenheim,Die deutscheArbeiterbewegung
1844-1914
(Koeln: Koeln und Opladen, 1966), 566-571; GuentherRoth, The Social
Democrats,esp. chs. 8 and 10; and Peter Gay, The Dilemma of Democratic
Socialism(New York:ColumbiaUniversity
Press,1952), esp. ch. 8.
53Cookand Wachenheim,
"RobertMichelsReassayed."
794
THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS,
VOL.
33, 1971
cepted, can be applied to other socialist parties (as Michels assumes) and to all partiesor even all membershiporganizations(as
is sometimesimplied in various writingson Americanparties that
excerptor quote his work). Michels's argumentgoes something
like this: of all the European parties,the socialistpartiesmost ferventlyseek "democratic"goals. Thereforethe socialistparties are
or should be the most "democratic"parties. The German Social
Democraticpartyis the largestand "mostadvanced" of the socialist
parties. Thus the Germanpartyshould be the prototype,not only
of "democratic"parties,but also of all "democratic"organizations.
While the reasoningis a bit metaphysicalhere, it is perhaps only
fair to point out that elsewherehe makes both the historicalcase
that the German party was the acknowledged leader of the 2nd
Internationaland that its by-laws and procedures were copied
throughoutEurope.54 But substantialas thisrationaleforselection
may be, it failsto meet the objectionsconcerningthe generalapplicabilityof the argument.- Both the historicityand the general applicabilityof the studyare in question.
The metaphysicalapproach used here also appears in othersections of Political Parties and is attributableto the polemic that is
interwovenwith the researchthroughoutthe treatise. To the contemporaryreader, a series of empirical questions present themselves, and the answers are by no means entirelyfavorable to
Michels'spoint of view. In what ways are socialistpartiessimilar?
What are the causes of their similaritiesand dissimilarities? In
specifictermshow representativeare they of the mass? Of their
own rankand file? Of theirstaffs? Of theirleadership? To what
extentare theysimilarto otherworkingclass organizations?
Separated fromthe contextof Political Parties,these issues are
the stuffof numerous contemporarytreatmentsof democracy in
organizations. To a modernstudent,the question of the degree to
which unions and parties reflectthe views and desires of their
membersis an empiricalmatter. But for Michels these were not
mattersto be examined empirically. For him "democracy"was a
54Michels,"Die deutscheSozialdemokratie
im Internationalen
Verbande."
The argumentappears chieflyat p. 150. See also R. Michels, "L'ancien
Hegemoniedu SocialismeAllemand,"Le MouvementSocialiste,28 (No. 225),
241-257.
MICHELS
S POLITICAL
PARTIES
795
condition,not a process. One could not discuss with him degrees
withoutfirstconceding the major point that
of representativeness
an organizationinherentlydefeatsthe expressionof the will of the
majorityand hence is necessarilyundemociatic.
If one views democracyas a process,thenit does not necessarily
follow that an undemocratic organization is unrepresentative.55
True, the argumentthat one cannot achieve socialismby undemobut when this argumentis apcraticmeans has a certainattraction,
organizationsit loses muchof its strength.
plied to limited-objective
with Michels's argumentthat the GerAnotherseriousdifficulty
man Social Democraticpartymay serve as the test of democracyin
general arises in connectionwith the comparabilityof private governmentwithpublic politics. While the issue of generalapplicabilitywas raised earlierin the contextof the methodologicalinferences
made by Michels,thereis a special problemhere.56
The issue is raised nicely in Robert Merton'sdiscussionof the
functionsof the politicalmachine.57The urbanmachinehad chiefly
and only secondarilypolitical functions. When
nongovernmental,
with
a
privateorganization,one must always ask the quesdealing
tions,"What does it do?" "Why do people join it?" fortheyare not
born membersand theirreasons forjoiningare not necessarilypolitical.
Michels, himself,discussed these questions in the course of
examiningthe compositionof the party,but chieflyin relationto his
premiseabout the frivolousnessof the masses. It did not occur to
of social
him thatthe partywas anythingotherthan the instrument
it
for
join
purposes
might
legitimately
revolutionand that people
otherthan,or secondaryto, makingthatrevolution. This, of course,
preventedany analysisof its precise function.58
Thus, the polemic against socialism conducted simultaneously
55Thisis the case thatLipset soughtto make fordemocraticelitismin his
"Introduction"
to PoliticalParties,33-39.
56Foranotherdiscussionof the issue of comparability
see Cook, UnionDemocracy,ch. I, esp. 22-30.
57Robert
K. Merton,"Manifestand LatentFunction,"in Social Theoryand
Social Structure(New York:The Free Press,1949), 75.
58A thesisof the Rothbook is thatthe partyprovideda social,intellectual,
economic,and culturalcentralinstitution
fora class thatwas almosttotallyisolated fromthe restof imperialGermansociety.
796
THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS,
VOL.
33, 1971
fromthe leftand fromthe rightinterferes
repeatedlywith the presentationand analysis of data.
It is not the presentauthor'sintention,of course,to sum up the
points made in this essay by assertingthat Michels'sfindingshave
no referentsin the real world,or that theyare unimportantforthe
studyof organizationsin America. It is the intentionhere to question the quality of the analysis,and to point out its rootsin an intellectualbackground,now so far removedas to allow severe misinterpretationsand anachronismson the part of contemporary
readers.
The power relationsinherentin the divisionof labor,differences
of interestsbetween leaders and led, the developmentof proprietaryinterestsin officesheld, and low levels of politicalparticipation
are all real, and we are indebtedto Michels fortheirforcefulexplication. They are not, however,in themselvesfatal to democracy,
in the sense that that word applies to any historicalor existingsystem of government,
and it was a distinctset of intellectualpremises
that led Michels to assertthe contrary.
Nor can it usefullybe said that they constitutecollectivelyan
iron law. They are certainlyanti-democratic
tendencies,but their
strengthappears to vary greatlywith settingand circumstance.59
The iron contentof the "law," too, depends upon the special nature
of Michels's argument.
59See esp. Lipset,"Some Special Requisitesof Democracy";Lipset et al.,
Union Democracy;Cook, Union Democracy.