What do you think?
Rate this book
Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy
This is a book by the sociologist Robert Michels, published in 1911 and first introducing the concept of iron law of oligarchy. It is considered one of the classics of social sciences, in particular sociology and political science.
This work analyses the power structures of organizations such as political parties and trade unions. Michels's main argument is that all organizations, even those in theory most egalitarian and most committed to democracy – like socialist political parties – are in fact oligarchical, and dominated by a small group of leadership. The book also provides a first systematic analysis of how a radical political party loses its radical goals under the dynamics of electoral participation. The origins of moderation theory can be found in this analysis.
(This is a translation. Book was first published in German under the title Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie; Untersuchungen über die oligarchischen Tendenzen des Gruppenlebens.)
This work analyses the power structures of organizations such as political parties and trade unions. Michels's main argument is that all organizations, even those in theory most egalitarian and most committed to democracy – like socialist political parties – are in fact oligarchical, and dominated by a small group of leadership. The book also provides a first systematic analysis of how a radical political party loses its radical goals under the dynamics of electoral participation. The origins of moderation theory can be found in this analysis.
(This is a translation. Book was first published in German under the title Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie; Untersuchungen über die oligarchischen Tendenzen des Gruppenlebens.)
379 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1911
64 people are currently reading
1667 people want to read
About the author
Robert Michels
77 books37 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Robert Michels was a German-born Italian sociologist who contributed to elite theory by describing the political behavior of intellectual elites.
He belonged to the Italian school of elitism, and is best known for his book Political Parties, published in 1911, which contains a description of the "iron law of oligarchy."
Michels was considered a brilliant pupil of Max Weber, who began publishing his writings in the Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik in 1906 and appointed him as co-editor in 1913, but they disagreed over Michels' opposition to World War I.
Michels accepted a professorship at the University of Turin, where he taught economics, political science and socioeconomics until 1914. He then became professor of economics at the University of Basel, Switzerland, a post he held until 1928.
Robert Michels was a German-born Italian sociologist who contributed to elite theory by describing the political behavior of intellectual elites.
He belonged to the Italian school of elitism, and is best known for his book Political Parties, published in 1911, which contains a description of the "iron law of oligarchy."
Michels was considered a brilliant pupil of Max Weber, who began publishing his writings in the Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik in 1906 and appointed him as co-editor in 1913, but they disagreed over Michels' opposition to World War I.
Michels accepted a professorship at the University of Turin, where he taught economics, political science and socioeconomics until 1914. He then became professor of economics at the University of Basel, Switzerland, a post he held until 1928.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
December 2, 2018
This is now probably one of my favorite books of political theory. It contains some excellent insights into the oligarchical nature of democracies (and of human organization in general) from a psychological and sociological point of view.
The author, Robert Michels, was a member of the Social Democratic Party in Germany and later the Italian Syndicalists until he left both in 1907. This book was published in 1911. Later in life (in 1924) Michels joined the fascist party in Italy.
The book sets out to discover why it seems that even the most professedly egalitarian and democratic of organizations -- socialist and revolutionary groups in 19th/ early 20th century Europe, who considered themselves the heirs of the French Revolution's "liberté, egalité, fraternité" -- all seemed to devolve into oligarchical organizations where the party leaders put their own interests ahead of the general will; this was without exception across Europe.
He says: "At the outset, [revolutionary] leaders arise spontaneously; their functions are accessory and gratuitous. Soon, however, they become professional leaders, and in the second stage of development they are stable and irremovable."
The book is famous for its proposition of the 'iron law of oligarchy,' which, in the author's words, states: "Reduced to its most concise expression, the fundamental sociological law of political parties may be formulated in the following terms:... Who says organization says oligarchy."
He concludes that oligarchies arise out of organic necessity in human organization, and that democracy eventually necessitates aristocracy. Ideally, he says, the ideal government would be an aristocracy that is morally good and technically efficient; however, based upon the study of history one realizes that this is never possible in the long run, and rarely possible in the short run. Therefore, Michels believes that democracy is the lesser of two evils (between itself and outright aristocracy) because, in democracy, at least the public can occasionally exert its will and convince the aristocracy to act in the interest of the masses.
It would be interesting to see how Michels' thought developed over the next 13 years of his life, at which point he joined the fascist party. Unfortunately his other books are difficult to acquire even in Italian and French -- the languages which he originally wrote in.
The author, Robert Michels, was a member of the Social Democratic Party in Germany and later the Italian Syndicalists until he left both in 1907. This book was published in 1911. Later in life (in 1924) Michels joined the fascist party in Italy.
The book sets out to discover why it seems that even the most professedly egalitarian and democratic of organizations -- socialist and revolutionary groups in 19th/ early 20th century Europe, who considered themselves the heirs of the French Revolution's "liberté, egalité, fraternité" -- all seemed to devolve into oligarchical organizations where the party leaders put their own interests ahead of the general will; this was without exception across Europe.
He says: "At the outset, [revolutionary] leaders arise spontaneously; their functions are accessory and gratuitous. Soon, however, they become professional leaders, and in the second stage of development they are stable and irremovable."
The book is famous for its proposition of the 'iron law of oligarchy,' which, in the author's words, states: "Reduced to its most concise expression, the fundamental sociological law of political parties may be formulated in the following terms:... Who says organization says oligarchy."
He concludes that oligarchies arise out of organic necessity in human organization, and that democracy eventually necessitates aristocracy. Ideally, he says, the ideal government would be an aristocracy that is morally good and technically efficient; however, based upon the study of history one realizes that this is never possible in the long run, and rarely possible in the short run. Therefore, Michels believes that democracy is the lesser of two evils (between itself and outright aristocracy) because, in democracy, at least the public can occasionally exert its will and convince the aristocracy to act in the interest of the masses.
It would be interesting to see how Michels' thought developed over the next 13 years of his life, at which point he joined the fascist party. Unfortunately his other books are difficult to acquire even in Italian and French -- the languages which he originally wrote in.
July 14, 2020
“The democratic current of history resembles successive waves. They ever break on the same shoal. They are ever renewed”. So is the sobering message Michels leaves us with at the end of this book. Political Parties is about the so-called ‘Democratic Problem’—That every attempt at democratic political organisation is doomed to decay into the very oligarchy it was meant to combat. In a word, that democracy is impossible. Drawing on his own long history in the Socialist Party of Germany, Michels aims to demonstrate this ‘Iron Law of Oligarchy’ through the institution of the political party. In doing so, he hits on many enduring questions of political power and participation. Michels initially outlines three causes for the development of oligarchy in political parties: Organisational, Psychological, and Intellectual. Of these, the most spurious and least interesting are the psychological causes, which follow the typical late nineteenth-century crowd psychology of le Bon. The two other causes are less dated, more compelling, and fitting of the idea of an ‘iron law’.
Organisational causes are the chains and strictures introduced in any kind of collective social organisation. If a political party is to have any coherent direction and force, it requires a nucleus that can mobilise and impel all its members in a single direction. While the party is still small, it is likely that this could be accomplished by all members meeting to discuss important matters frequently to reach a resolution. But the more the party grows in numbers, the more difficult spontaneous agreement becomes, the more difficult frequent meetings become, and the more important this directing nucleus becomes. This nucleus is more properly known as the bureaucracy, and has been a feature of any political organisation of appreciable size throughout history. With the swelling size, the perfunctory tasks of this nucleus become full-time affairs, get dissected and divided between several people, and a hierarchy begins to develop. Quickly this bureaucracy sprawls so extensively and specialised that it becomes impossible for the rank and file of the party to easily replace or even supervise properly; every problem with the division of labour is realised in-micro within the party structure itself. The party leaders—having at their disposal the entire bureaucratic apparatus— now stand at such a disproportionate advantage to the common member that their position at the top becomes defacto beyond reproach. And just like that, the transformation from a democratic to oligarchical structure is fait accompli.
Intellectual causes spring from these organisational changes. The distinction between the majority of the political party and its bureaucratic apparatus grows ever wider with time as the complexity of their tasks grow. As complexity grows and party work more intensive, the once voluntary positions are converted to payed positions. Freed from ordinary labour, the leaders and bureaucrats can dedicate themselves to politicking full-time and quickly become adept in the management of opinion and men. The ordinary party member has no such advantage: exhausted from their ordinary labour, they have no time or energy to attend properly to these subjects. Consequently, they must defer in decision making to the technocratic elite forming in the upper echelons on the party. Soon deserters of the old ruling classes are drawn into the apparatus as the native leaders are in their turn slowly converted by the ruling class through their interactions in politics. With every incentive to hold onto their position, the bureaucracy becomes conservative and self-serving, tending more to its own preservation than the good of the members they ostensibly serve. These disparities in political and social education simply repeat the prevailing wind of oligarchies past.
Michels calls this tendency or democracy towards oligarchy “simultaneously depressing and encouraging”. I’m not sure what is so encouraging about it, but it certainly is a depressing account.
The book hits on a perennial problem of politics, and one that has been discussed since politics has been written about: The practice of politics is a demanding task that requires a great deal of attention and education, how do we guarantee that the political class is adept enough to attend to them. In much of history this has been achieved through exclusion: the political class is simply a single royal family or a collection of wealthy plutocrats comprising an aristocracy who can attend to politics at their own expense. Aristotle solved it by having the citizens supported by a vast underclass of slaves à la the helots of Sparta, Plato by having a sole Philosopher King. But as the franchise expanded and ideas of moral equality started taking root, the problem of political participation and education compounded—how do you transform a nation dominated by uneducated subsistence farmers into a liberal utopia of knowing and educated voters? Rousseau seemed pessimistic on this front, as shown by his problem of the lawgiver; Mill was more optimistic, thinking that participation in the political process will serve itself as an education over time; Kant and all the other champions of enlightenment optimism put their trust in the melioristic impulse of rationality.
All this reminded me of a quote from Baudrillard: “after several revolutions and a century or two of political apprenticeship, in spite of the newspapers, the trade unions, the parties, the intellectuals and all the energy put into educating and mobilising the people, there are still only a thousand persons who stand up and twenty-million who remain passive.” Though great gains have been made since the early enlightenment, the average citizen of any democratic nation still falls far short of the dreams of democratic theorists. And Michels has perhaps hit on several of the reasons. It may be that until resources are so plentiful, and moral advancement so divine, true democracy and representation isn’t possible. And in lieu of these a pseudo-oligarchic structure will have to do. And that is the problem with democracy, though I’m not sure if it constitutes an ‘iron law’.
Unfortunately, much of the book itself is bogged down in problems peculiar to the socialist parties of Europe at the time, making it a slog to get through. It also tended to be quite repetitious and polemical. But an interesting and sobering perspective nonetheless. Elitist sociology a strange mirror to the writings of anarchists; both make the same prognosis about the state, but suggest vastly different cures.
Organisational causes are the chains and strictures introduced in any kind of collective social organisation. If a political party is to have any coherent direction and force, it requires a nucleus that can mobilise and impel all its members in a single direction. While the party is still small, it is likely that this could be accomplished by all members meeting to discuss important matters frequently to reach a resolution. But the more the party grows in numbers, the more difficult spontaneous agreement becomes, the more difficult frequent meetings become, and the more important this directing nucleus becomes. This nucleus is more properly known as the bureaucracy, and has been a feature of any political organisation of appreciable size throughout history. With the swelling size, the perfunctory tasks of this nucleus become full-time affairs, get dissected and divided between several people, and a hierarchy begins to develop. Quickly this bureaucracy sprawls so extensively and specialised that it becomes impossible for the rank and file of the party to easily replace or even supervise properly; every problem with the division of labour is realised in-micro within the party structure itself. The party leaders—having at their disposal the entire bureaucratic apparatus— now stand at such a disproportionate advantage to the common member that their position at the top becomes defacto beyond reproach. And just like that, the transformation from a democratic to oligarchical structure is fait accompli.
Intellectual causes spring from these organisational changes. The distinction between the majority of the political party and its bureaucratic apparatus grows ever wider with time as the complexity of their tasks grow. As complexity grows and party work more intensive, the once voluntary positions are converted to payed positions. Freed from ordinary labour, the leaders and bureaucrats can dedicate themselves to politicking full-time and quickly become adept in the management of opinion and men. The ordinary party member has no such advantage: exhausted from their ordinary labour, they have no time or energy to attend properly to these subjects. Consequently, they must defer in decision making to the technocratic elite forming in the upper echelons on the party. Soon deserters of the old ruling classes are drawn into the apparatus as the native leaders are in their turn slowly converted by the ruling class through their interactions in politics. With every incentive to hold onto their position, the bureaucracy becomes conservative and self-serving, tending more to its own preservation than the good of the members they ostensibly serve. These disparities in political and social education simply repeat the prevailing wind of oligarchies past.
Michels calls this tendency or democracy towards oligarchy “simultaneously depressing and encouraging”. I’m not sure what is so encouraging about it, but it certainly is a depressing account.
The book hits on a perennial problem of politics, and one that has been discussed since politics has been written about: The practice of politics is a demanding task that requires a great deal of attention and education, how do we guarantee that the political class is adept enough to attend to them. In much of history this has been achieved through exclusion: the political class is simply a single royal family or a collection of wealthy plutocrats comprising an aristocracy who can attend to politics at their own expense. Aristotle solved it by having the citizens supported by a vast underclass of slaves à la the helots of Sparta, Plato by having a sole Philosopher King. But as the franchise expanded and ideas of moral equality started taking root, the problem of political participation and education compounded—how do you transform a nation dominated by uneducated subsistence farmers into a liberal utopia of knowing and educated voters? Rousseau seemed pessimistic on this front, as shown by his problem of the lawgiver; Mill was more optimistic, thinking that participation in the political process will serve itself as an education over time; Kant and all the other champions of enlightenment optimism put their trust in the melioristic impulse of rationality.
All this reminded me of a quote from Baudrillard: “after several revolutions and a century or two of political apprenticeship, in spite of the newspapers, the trade unions, the parties, the intellectuals and all the energy put into educating and mobilising the people, there are still only a thousand persons who stand up and twenty-million who remain passive.” Though great gains have been made since the early enlightenment, the average citizen of any democratic nation still falls far short of the dreams of democratic theorists. And Michels has perhaps hit on several of the reasons. It may be that until resources are so plentiful, and moral advancement so divine, true democracy and representation isn’t possible. And in lieu of these a pseudo-oligarchic structure will have to do. And that is the problem with democracy, though I’m not sure if it constitutes an ‘iron law’.
Unfortunately, much of the book itself is bogged down in problems peculiar to the socialist parties of Europe at the time, making it a slog to get through. It also tended to be quite repetitious and polemical. But an interesting and sobering perspective nonetheless. Elitist sociology a strange mirror to the writings of anarchists; both make the same prognosis about the state, but suggest vastly different cures.
April 18, 2024
“In democracy as elsewhere success signifies the death of idealism” (253)
Read
January 28, 2013Great commentary on the crustiness of political parties, the emergence and maintenance of political power. Makes a great foundation for current literature by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson ("Why Nations Fail").
Great quotes:
"It is not the principal aim of science to create systems, but rather to promote understanding."
"Democracy leads to oligarchy, and necessarily contains an oligarchical nucleus."
"With democratic mien he must descend into the electoral arena, must hail the farmers and the agricultural labourers as professional colleagues, and must seek to convince them that their economic and social interests are identical with his own. Thus the aristocrat is constrained to secure his election in virtue of a principle which he does not himself accept, and which his soul abhors. His whole being demands authority...Nevertheless, since he recognizes that in the democratic epoch by which he has been overwhelmed he stands alone with this political principle, and that by its open advocacy he could never hope to maintain a political party, he dissembles his true thoughts, and howls with the democratic wolves in order to secure the coveted majority."
"The democratic external form which characterizes the life of the political parties may readily veil from superficial observers the tendency towards aristocracy..."
"...the pathology of the crowd. The individual disappears in the multitude, and therewith disappears also personality and sense of responsibility."
"For technical and administrative reasons, no less than for tactical reasons, a strong organization needs an equally strong leadership...For democracy, however, the first appearance of professional leadership marks the beginning of the end."
"All power thus proceeds in a natural cycle: issuing from the people, it ends by raising itself above the people."
"...establishing his strength with the weapon of his indispensability."
"...among the citizens who enjoy political rights the number of those who have a lively interest in public affairs is insignificant."
"Though it grumbles occasionally, the majority is really delighted to find persons who will take the trouble to look after its affairs."
"The crowd always submits willingly to the control of distinguished individuals."
Great quotes:
"It is not the principal aim of science to create systems, but rather to promote understanding."
"Democracy leads to oligarchy, and necessarily contains an oligarchical nucleus."
"With democratic mien he must descend into the electoral arena, must hail the farmers and the agricultural labourers as professional colleagues, and must seek to convince them that their economic and social interests are identical with his own. Thus the aristocrat is constrained to secure his election in virtue of a principle which he does not himself accept, and which his soul abhors. His whole being demands authority...Nevertheless, since he recognizes that in the democratic epoch by which he has been overwhelmed he stands alone with this political principle, and that by its open advocacy he could never hope to maintain a political party, he dissembles his true thoughts, and howls with the democratic wolves in order to secure the coveted majority."
"The democratic external form which characterizes the life of the political parties may readily veil from superficial observers the tendency towards aristocracy..."
"...the pathology of the crowd. The individual disappears in the multitude, and therewith disappears also personality and sense of responsibility."
"For technical and administrative reasons, no less than for tactical reasons, a strong organization needs an equally strong leadership...For democracy, however, the first appearance of professional leadership marks the beginning of the end."
"All power thus proceeds in a natural cycle: issuing from the people, it ends by raising itself above the people."
"...establishing his strength with the weapon of his indispensability."
"...among the citizens who enjoy political rights the number of those who have a lively interest in public affairs is insignificant."
"Though it grumbles occasionally, the majority is really delighted to find persons who will take the trouble to look after its affairs."
"The crowd always submits willingly to the control of distinguished individuals."
November 27, 2016
Groundbreaking in its time and still worth delving into, if you can stomach the near constant bombardment of repetition about various minutia of long dead political parties that is.
July 19, 2018
Really interesting and lots of great information that shows, things have not changed a lot. Everything you think is new or cool in the modern socio-political sphere, isn't. It has all been done and thought of before, and more than once. You should have a dictionary,and a translation program, Michels quotes a number of people in their original language. That is something that has changed, I am sure he thought people would still learn other languages. This has some dry sections, and you may want a notepad for all the names, but there are sections that made me laugh. This is 113 years old, and still a very useful read. Check it out.
August 24, 2023
A protege of Max Weber goes through one aspect after another of the operation of pre-WWI German Social Democracy, generalizing the operation of power struggles in each one. By this extrapolating from the socialist party, which to him should be the height of democracy, Michels hopes to show that democracy always degenerates into rule by a few over a fungible mass. This is indeed how democracy works, but Michels cannot demonstrate it. He merely takes evidence and asserts that it shows an inherent tendency of democracy - indeed of all human beings since time immemorial- to minority rule. Michels never bothers to model the historical dynamics that would lead to this supposed iron law. The development of the German Social Democracy is never historically situated. He just extrapolates and asserts.
By this impoverished and unscientific method, Michels convinces himself of the apparently inherent limits of the movement of the proletariat towards socialism. Most interesting in the book is his recognition that charismatic dictatorship by “great men” claiming to exercise the will of the People is part of the dynamics of democracy, not a departure from those dynamics. His discussion of Napoleon III is thus worth reading. He remained a committed democrat, though, and thus followed his conclusions to become a supporter of the great democrat Mussolini!
Another reviewer points out that Michels sort of mirrors the views of anarchists - self-consciously, I would say. I also noticed this.
Michels was a eugenicist, too. The book’s section on Jews’ predominance in politics is a sight to behold - and he clearly intended it to be defensive of Jews rather than antisemitic!
No surprise this guy is an influence on Mencius Moldbug.
By this impoverished and unscientific method, Michels convinces himself of the apparently inherent limits of the movement of the proletariat towards socialism. Most interesting in the book is his recognition that charismatic dictatorship by “great men” claiming to exercise the will of the People is part of the dynamics of democracy, not a departure from those dynamics. His discussion of Napoleon III is thus worth reading. He remained a committed democrat, though, and thus followed his conclusions to become a supporter of the great democrat Mussolini!
Another reviewer points out that Michels sort of mirrors the views of anarchists - self-consciously, I would say. I also noticed this.
Michels was a eugenicist, too. The book’s section on Jews’ predominance in politics is a sight to behold - and he clearly intended it to be defensive of Jews rather than antisemitic!
No surprise this guy is an influence on Mencius Moldbug.
June 3, 2023
組織為達至目的之手段，待其淪為目的，便為寡頭統治。
December 4, 2012
Why this is considered some sort of landmark text in any sort of genre is beyond me. At best its an early text in political science (not sociology), and a fairly demagogic version at that. Think the first Ann Coulter not the first Hannah Arendt. Political Parties is less an analysis of how political organizations form and evolve based on specific metrics or a scientific analysis of populations, and more a tirade against Socialists (capital S). The pertinence of these arguments today is on the one hand on the specifics so devoid of correlation to contemporary culture as to be essentially useless, but on the other hand in general so eerily reminiscent of current accusations of socialism as to certainly evoke the facepalm. The sad fact that our political discourse has not evolved much beyond a century ago really gives one pause; although for conservatives, I guess by definition this is the strategic aim of their actions.
As I read Michels analysis of politics in a foreign land across numerous decades and cultural developments, the commutation of their signifiers for political groups to today is remarkable. By just translating Michels arguments on anarchists into the Libertarians of today, or Socialists into the Democrats of today you basically have the trappings of just about any off-the-shelf, right-wing best-seller of today. So while their tactics have remained about the same, fill some dead air with hand-waving arguments supposedly based on deep psychological or sociological truths; make an incessant, unending barrage of baseless accusations; intersperse some meaningless and sourceless data on all kinds of arcane facts, and you too will have a political scree worth doping up the masses with.
Although the context and structure of the book is complete garbage, the actual substance of the thesis, that organization leads to oligarchy is an important issue. There are some points where you can glean something of value from this work on why this is the case such as a group organized for a certain end becoming a mean in-itself, or the glorification of leaders and the structures developed to wean such leaders to the forefront of such an organization. But they are so buried in a pile of nonsense about the true nature of humans or some conspiratorial purpose to socialist organization as to be not worth the time to investigate.
I am imagining a future 100 years from today in the year 2112 where a young boy manages to find a corrupt, but eventually recoverable ebook by a nameless ideologue of old named Glenn Beck and reads the rantings of a deranged mind so contextualized in the dogma of its day, yet inspired by teachings nearly a half-century older than it as to be almost uninterpretable to the boys ultra-post-modern life yet so oddly familiar to the nonsense spouted by a neo-puritanist of his time named something like Abe Zolan and feeling like maybe nothing has changed despite their technological advances such as jet packs for personal travel and bases on the moon. Lets just hope there is a Corey Robin of his time to console that poor boys mind to say that history does not have to repeat itself, merely to endure. As long as the labor that has built those moon colonies are organized against the trans-planetary corporatists of the day such as Megaburton and Solarsanto, or a rabble-rouser named Buck Rader is circulating a exonet site called Unsafe At Any Elevation against those jet pack manufacturers, then so be it.
As I read Michels analysis of politics in a foreign land across numerous decades and cultural developments, the commutation of their signifiers for political groups to today is remarkable. By just translating Michels arguments on anarchists into the Libertarians of today, or Socialists into the Democrats of today you basically have the trappings of just about any off-the-shelf, right-wing best-seller of today. So while their tactics have remained about the same, fill some dead air with hand-waving arguments supposedly based on deep psychological or sociological truths; make an incessant, unending barrage of baseless accusations; intersperse some meaningless and sourceless data on all kinds of arcane facts, and you too will have a political scree worth doping up the masses with.
Although the context and structure of the book is complete garbage, the actual substance of the thesis, that organization leads to oligarchy is an important issue. There are some points where you can glean something of value from this work on why this is the case such as a group organized for a certain end becoming a mean in-itself, or the glorification of leaders and the structures developed to wean such leaders to the forefront of such an organization. But they are so buried in a pile of nonsense about the true nature of humans or some conspiratorial purpose to socialist organization as to be not worth the time to investigate.
I am imagining a future 100 years from today in the year 2112 where a young boy manages to find a corrupt, but eventually recoverable ebook by a nameless ideologue of old named Glenn Beck and reads the rantings of a deranged mind so contextualized in the dogma of its day, yet inspired by teachings nearly a half-century older than it as to be almost uninterpretable to the boys ultra-post-modern life yet so oddly familiar to the nonsense spouted by a neo-puritanist of his time named something like Abe Zolan and feeling like maybe nothing has changed despite their technological advances such as jet packs for personal travel and bases on the moon. Lets just hope there is a Corey Robin of his time to console that poor boys mind to say that history does not have to repeat itself, merely to endure. As long as the labor that has built those moon colonies are organized against the trans-planetary corporatists of the day such as Megaburton and Solarsanto, or a rabble-rouser named Buck Rader is circulating a exonet site called Unsafe At Any Elevation against those jet pack manufacturers, then so be it.
December 10, 2018
Michels' work is undoubtedly one of the cornerstones of elite theories in political sociology - his greatest contribution being the "iron law of oligarchy" which ha has set out in this work. Although his work largely centers around the socialist party structures, himself being one and thus having the experience to write on these parties specifically, the lessons learnt and conclusions drawn are definitely of a more universal nature. Although his focus leaves out solutions to the oligarchical tendencies - which would have made him wildly utopian - he masterfully manages to dissect the political leadership and understand the dynamics which necessitate and help create the political elites which come to dominate over the masses.
Some reviewers have found this work "polemical", "not deep [enough]", "cyclical", "hard to read", and (my personal favourite) "rambling on about people long dead". Criticisms of the first four type - in my opinion - show an impatience towards reading and the expectation that Michels hold the key to life and everything. While he most certainly does not have such omnipotence, what he has is a clear grasp on facts and a keen sense of authorship, which makes this book a delightful and insightful read. For the last type of criticism, you can laugh until you drop dead because someone expects a book on politics - especially one that uses such in depth knowledge of firsthand knowledge of politics, and published in 1911 - to not make reference to people of the era - which are long dead. (Perhaps they would have like it if the names of Lasalle, Proudhon, and Bebel were exchanged for Trump, Clinton, and Obama!) One cannot ask for what is such a masterful qualitative work to act as if it was simply theoretical or quantitative, and then whine because it includes the names and acts of so many long dead people!
Some reviewers have found this work "polemical", "not deep [enough]", "cyclical", "hard to read", and (my personal favourite) "rambling on about people long dead". Criticisms of the first four type - in my opinion - show an impatience towards reading and the expectation that Michels hold the key to life and everything. While he most certainly does not have such omnipotence, what he has is a clear grasp on facts and a keen sense of authorship, which makes this book a delightful and insightful read. For the last type of criticism, you can laugh until you drop dead because someone expects a book on politics - especially one that uses such in depth knowledge of firsthand knowledge of politics, and published in 1911 - to not make reference to people of the era - which are long dead. (Perhaps they would have like it if the names of Lasalle, Proudhon, and Bebel were exchanged for Trump, Clinton, and Obama!) One cannot ask for what is such a masterful qualitative work to act as if it was simply theoretical or quantitative, and then whine because it includes the names and acts of so many long dead people!
November 24, 2011
I am desperate for a serious and comprehensive (and non-partisan) modern exploration of elite theory, which to me at this point looks obvious and grossly under-explored.
The issue is: due to division-of-labor efficiencies (Smith), the logic of collective action (Olson), and uneven quality distributions across a population (Plato, Aristotle, Pareto, Murray, etc etc.), human society of any scale will require an elite to coordinate behavior (even a free market economy seems to require substantial non-market agglomerations (Coase) within the purely economic sphere). Then, within these constraints, come the social/cultural methods of selecting, retaining, and reproducing elite, which include the frictions that get in the way of an efficient allocation of human resources (ranging from idiosyncratic individual favoritisms to nepotism to [racial, ethnic, sexual, confessional] caste structures, which, even in fairly open societies, can make or break marginal elite aspirants).
Ostensibly egalitarian political movements will find, as Michels points out, that to be effective they must incorporate some hierarchical structures within their organizations (aside from, of course, the natural factors that are automatically leading them down that path). Although the "spice" of elite theory, as Pareto knew well, was in describing out how socialist and radical democrat movements were a. led by an elite, and b. in the service of replacing one elite with another, I feel like this tu quoque special case is in the end a waste of what should be a comprehensive model of human social structures.
The issue is: due to division-of-labor efficiencies (Smith), the logic of collective action (Olson), and uneven quality distributions across a population (Plato, Aristotle, Pareto, Murray, etc etc.), human society of any scale will require an elite to coordinate behavior (even a free market economy seems to require substantial non-market agglomerations (Coase) within the purely economic sphere). Then, within these constraints, come the social/cultural methods of selecting, retaining, and reproducing elite, which include the frictions that get in the way of an efficient allocation of human resources (ranging from idiosyncratic individual favoritisms to nepotism to [racial, ethnic, sexual, confessional] caste structures, which, even in fairly open societies, can make or break marginal elite aspirants).
Ostensibly egalitarian political movements will find, as Michels points out, that to be effective they must incorporate some hierarchical structures within their organizations (aside from, of course, the natural factors that are automatically leading them down that path). Although the "spice" of elite theory, as Pareto knew well, was in describing out how socialist and radical democrat movements were a. led by an elite, and b. in the service of replacing one elite with another, I feel like this tu quoque special case is in the end a waste of what should be a comprehensive model of human social structures.
June 21, 2012
It's provocative to assign two stars to one of the classics of political theory, but I am just reacting to the arguments as I found them. I was hoping for something that went deeper than standard left-wing criticisms of staid, bureaucratic Social Democratic parties of pre-war Europe, but found uninspiring polemics. One would probably say to me that the arguments seem familiar today but were novel when the book was written in 1915. But how novel is it to suggest that working people are too busy and ignorant to study the political and social questions of the day? Or to say that once someone gains a cushy salaried position in an established organization, he'd like to keep it? Or that modern life is so complicated that you need training to manage a political career? Those are the sorts of observations Michels makes, and his references to current events, while intelligent, do not constitute a thorough-going sociological analysis.
February 26, 2011
The iron law of oligarchy. Who says organization says oligarchy. Roberto Michels enunciated such thoughts. This work, Political Parties, is a real classic in the study of politics.
He examined democratic (socialist) political parties, assuming that here democratic practices would be at their zenith. However, he found a small cadre of party leaders most influential. He used these observations to develop his theory of hierarchical leadership. The end result? The iron law of oligarchy, stating that all organizations--even if nominally democratic--become oligarchies with a few having power and the multitudes not having power.
Still worth rereading after the many decades since its publication.
He examined democratic (socialist) political parties, assuming that here democratic practices would be at their zenith. However, he found a small cadre of party leaders most influential. He used these observations to develop his theory of hierarchical leadership. The end result? The iron law of oligarchy, stating that all organizations--even if nominally democratic--become oligarchies with a few having power and the multitudes not having power.
Still worth rereading after the many decades since its publication.
December 15, 2017
This book has some important stuff in it, but it is not an easy nor particularly pleasant read. Probably most useful for researchers doing serious work on late 19th-early 20th century socialist political parties in Europe. There is some useful and easily-gleaned content, e.g. Michels' "Law of Oligarchy", but I think the summary of his work in Burnham's The Machiavellians is sufficient, to be honest.
December 4, 2025
3.75 Stars.
Michels is the Machiavelli of the political party. Whether or not you like him, you are forced to engage with him or his ilk through sheer force of argument.
Oligarchy means "rule by the few," which of course can take an almost endless variety of forms depending on the social forms, history, technology and geography surrounding the particular organisation.
Michels brings receipts (oh boy does he bring receipts), giving empirical example after example of the oligarchical tendencies in explicitly and devoutly democratic organisations.
Because ultimately, even in a democracy you need people with skills doing particular tasks, and you need it more and more the bigger and more complex your organisation, and also the bigger or more powerful your enemies become. Just as the bigger the animal the thicker and stronger the leg bones, the more moving parts in an organisation, the more streamlined bureaucracy and organisational capacity are required to even keep said organisation alive and functioning as one giant organism.
The people with the special skills required to do so are not easily replaceable, and become their own closed little cadre who have their own interests to look out for, not just the organisation's.
Additionally, by the very material difference of their circumstances from that of the common people, new forms of consciousness emerge amongst these people: they naturally and almost irrevocably start to see themselves as different and separate. This is because they *are* different and separate.
This part of his argument I agree with. Competency takes experience and fluency, and that requires authority and specialisation.
The utopian democracy fetishism of anarchists and the like has no recourse against these arguments either historically or theoretically. The best you ever get in response is "but the people will decide!“ without ever discussing how they would come to a decision, nor about how informal oligarchs can own the room without any formal title.
Even those who tried to grapple with this issue, such as Bakunin with his "in matters of shoes I defer to the shoemaker," completely ignore issues of multiple disagreeing shoemakers, or, even better, debates over who really counts as a legitimate shoemaker in the first place.
--------\
The problem with Michels' piles and piles of receipts are all about Second International vulgarity, which is fine so far as it goes, but he wrongly infers that the failures of the Second International are inherent first to socialist organisation and then to organisation in general. He focuses extensively on the compromises of previously radical orgs with the establishment.
If only, one must think, this book had been written a decade later. Obviously the experience and history of the Russian Revolution does not in the slightest rebut the big, shiny central point of authority being effective. Rather, his whole long section about capitulation and integrating into the existent elite structure of society.
To the extent that such merging did happen, in Russia it was the co-opting of existing structures into the Party, not the integration of the party into dominant capitalist social life, as he assumes must be necessary.
Lenin and co were very well aware of this danger and maintained an iron party discipline unseen before or arguably since.
------\
Michels' study does have one flaw, separate from the time it was written in, and that is a lack of cultural and economic form-analysis.
Now Michels does engage with Marx here and there (the quality of the engagement also being here and there): he understands broadly historical materialism, and seeks to deepen it with his analysis of the party and the state.
On this front, in and for itself he is successful. The problem is his entire analysis is internal to superstructural organisation. Ceteris paribus he is completely correct, but without discussing the base and its internal contradictions, as well as the various exogenous shocks from other intervening factors, one cannot draw as strong a conclusion as he would like.
Again returning to the Russian revolution, the Party under Lenin was able to avoid being co-opted and integrated into the state, and in fact managed to co-opt various elements into itself, which it then largely purged (along with far too many others) in the Great Purge.
It is only when Michels' evolutionary analysis is combined with economic and cultural/ideological analysis that useful conclusions can be drawn.
For example, had lesser people than Lenin and his cohort led the Russian revolution, they may well have been co-opted and ossified far earlier than they actually did.
Or, another question, what more or less sovereign organisations exist in a particular society? Without an analysis of economics, one might expect that all societies would ultimately end up as ultra-unified command economies, near-perfectly triangular. But that is clearly not what happens, and more factors other than centralisation lead to success or failure (for any given definition thereof).
This is not to say that Michels thought that the above paragraph was a real option, rather that merely understanding the law of oligarchy does not teach one who is going to win and why, nor how many different organisations a society will end up with.
And this is an inherent problem when trying to do inference based on murky surface-phenomena: it's not even his fault really, it comes with the territory.
------\
Michels also touches, right at the end, on how a society could avoid the trap of oligarchy, or at least avoiding it being eternal. This is especially relevant to those who, like me, advocate for the vanguard party model. It is our responsibility to explain how this will not result in eternal tyranny.
Now the answers Michels gives are obviously speculative given the state of the world both then and now, but essentially, the more free and educated people are, the more control they have over their life and work, and the more free time they have, the more they will be willing and able to stand up to oligarchialisation.
I would add that, where possible, it is vital to give the common people real control over their lives. A Maoist mass line, a deeply inculcated psychology of achievement and innovation, as well as direct responsibility for and involvement in local civic governance and maintenance (eg, you live on this street? The area outside your home is your and your housemates' responsibility to weed and keep somewhat clean).
Hopefully things like this would provide a counter-pressure to oligarchialisation.
Michels is the Machiavelli of the political party. Whether or not you like him, you are forced to engage with him or his ilk through sheer force of argument.
Oligarchy means "rule by the few," which of course can take an almost endless variety of forms depending on the social forms, history, technology and geography surrounding the particular organisation.
Michels brings receipts (oh boy does he bring receipts), giving empirical example after example of the oligarchical tendencies in explicitly and devoutly democratic organisations.
Because ultimately, even in a democracy you need people with skills doing particular tasks, and you need it more and more the bigger and more complex your organisation, and also the bigger or more powerful your enemies become. Just as the bigger the animal the thicker and stronger the leg bones, the more moving parts in an organisation, the more streamlined bureaucracy and organisational capacity are required to even keep said organisation alive and functioning as one giant organism.
The people with the special skills required to do so are not easily replaceable, and become their own closed little cadre who have their own interests to look out for, not just the organisation's.
Additionally, by the very material difference of their circumstances from that of the common people, new forms of consciousness emerge amongst these people: they naturally and almost irrevocably start to see themselves as different and separate. This is because they *are* different and separate.
This part of his argument I agree with. Competency takes experience and fluency, and that requires authority and specialisation.
The utopian democracy fetishism of anarchists and the like has no recourse against these arguments either historically or theoretically. The best you ever get in response is "but the people will decide!“ without ever discussing how they would come to a decision, nor about how informal oligarchs can own the room without any formal title.
Even those who tried to grapple with this issue, such as Bakunin with his "in matters of shoes I defer to the shoemaker," completely ignore issues of multiple disagreeing shoemakers, or, even better, debates over who really counts as a legitimate shoemaker in the first place.
--------\
The problem with Michels' piles and piles of receipts are all about Second International vulgarity, which is fine so far as it goes, but he wrongly infers that the failures of the Second International are inherent first to socialist organisation and then to organisation in general. He focuses extensively on the compromises of previously radical orgs with the establishment.
If only, one must think, this book had been written a decade later. Obviously the experience and history of the Russian Revolution does not in the slightest rebut the big, shiny central point of authority being effective. Rather, his whole long section about capitulation and integrating into the existent elite structure of society.
To the extent that such merging did happen, in Russia it was the co-opting of existing structures into the Party, not the integration of the party into dominant capitalist social life, as he assumes must be necessary.
Lenin and co were very well aware of this danger and maintained an iron party discipline unseen before or arguably since.
------\
Michels' study does have one flaw, separate from the time it was written in, and that is a lack of cultural and economic form-analysis.
Now Michels does engage with Marx here and there (the quality of the engagement also being here and there): he understands broadly historical materialism, and seeks to deepen it with his analysis of the party and the state.
On this front, in and for itself he is successful. The problem is his entire analysis is internal to superstructural organisation. Ceteris paribus he is completely correct, but without discussing the base and its internal contradictions, as well as the various exogenous shocks from other intervening factors, one cannot draw as strong a conclusion as he would like.
Again returning to the Russian revolution, the Party under Lenin was able to avoid being co-opted and integrated into the state, and in fact managed to co-opt various elements into itself, which it then largely purged (along with far too many others) in the Great Purge.
It is only when Michels' evolutionary analysis is combined with economic and cultural/ideological analysis that useful conclusions can be drawn.
For example, had lesser people than Lenin and his cohort led the Russian revolution, they may well have been co-opted and ossified far earlier than they actually did.
Or, another question, what more or less sovereign organisations exist in a particular society? Without an analysis of economics, one might expect that all societies would ultimately end up as ultra-unified command economies, near-perfectly triangular. But that is clearly not what happens, and more factors other than centralisation lead to success or failure (for any given definition thereof).
This is not to say that Michels thought that the above paragraph was a real option, rather that merely understanding the law of oligarchy does not teach one who is going to win and why, nor how many different organisations a society will end up with.
And this is an inherent problem when trying to do inference based on murky surface-phenomena: it's not even his fault really, it comes with the territory.
------\
Michels also touches, right at the end, on how a society could avoid the trap of oligarchy, or at least avoiding it being eternal. This is especially relevant to those who, like me, advocate for the vanguard party model. It is our responsibility to explain how this will not result in eternal tyranny.
Now the answers Michels gives are obviously speculative given the state of the world both then and now, but essentially, the more free and educated people are, the more control they have over their life and work, and the more free time they have, the more they will be willing and able to stand up to oligarchialisation.
I would add that, where possible, it is vital to give the common people real control over their lives. A Maoist mass line, a deeply inculcated psychology of achievement and innovation, as well as direct responsibility for and involvement in local civic governance and maintenance (eg, you live on this street? The area outside your home is your and your housemates' responsibility to weed and keep somewhat clean).
Hopefully things like this would provide a counter-pressure to oligarchialisation.
April 6, 2024
Dans ce classique des sciences politiques , Michels y propose sont analyse du phénomène dirigeant, de la tendance humaine de l’oligarchie dans l’organisation sociale et de sa fameuse loi d’arain de l’oligarchie. Pour citer Wikipedia :
Selon Michels, « l'organisation est la source d'où nait la domination des élus sur les électeurs, des mandataires sur les mandants, des délégués sur ceux qui les délèguent. »
Toute organisation engendre des relations de domination. Des processus de différenciation interne et de division du travail se mettent en œuvre, et à mesure que l'organisation partisane se développe, on voit émerger une bureaucratie peuplée par des dirigeants professionnels. Ceux-ci vont s'appuyer sur la maîtrise des ressources collectives dégagées par l'organisation et vont développer des savoir-faire qui leur permettent de recueillir des mandats et des responsabilités. Ils deviennent presque des chefs inamovibles. Cela signifie que l'organisation crée des dirigeants qui deviennent indépendants des masses et coupés de leur contrôle. C'est un processus de captation du pouvoir.
Tout y est : psychologie du dirigeant et ses effets sur l’idéologie du mandaté, dialectique entre travailleur intellectuel et manuel dans l’ascension des professionnels permanent du parti, amélioration de la position sociale et matérielle des permanents, attitude conservatrice de ceux-ci pour pérenniser leur acquis durant l’ascension, renouvellement et reproduction de l’élite gouvernant le parti sur les masses. Compétition des partis et des dirigeant du parti pour accéder au pouvoir de l’état. Etc
J’ai adorer x 1000. Un livre indispensable pour comprendre le fonctionnement de la pseudo démocratie représentative, des partis, du parlementarisme et de l’état.
Selon Michels, « l'organisation est la source d'où nait la domination des élus sur les électeurs, des mandataires sur les mandants, des délégués sur ceux qui les délèguent. »
Toute organisation engendre des relations de domination. Des processus de différenciation interne et de division du travail se mettent en œuvre, et à mesure que l'organisation partisane se développe, on voit émerger une bureaucratie peuplée par des dirigeants professionnels. Ceux-ci vont s'appuyer sur la maîtrise des ressources collectives dégagées par l'organisation et vont développer des savoir-faire qui leur permettent de recueillir des mandats et des responsabilités. Ils deviennent presque des chefs inamovibles. Cela signifie que l'organisation crée des dirigeants qui deviennent indépendants des masses et coupés de leur contrôle. C'est un processus de captation du pouvoir.
Tout y est : psychologie du dirigeant et ses effets sur l’idéologie du mandaté, dialectique entre travailleur intellectuel et manuel dans l’ascension des professionnels permanent du parti, amélioration de la position sociale et matérielle des permanents, attitude conservatrice de ceux-ci pour pérenniser leur acquis durant l’ascension, renouvellement et reproduction de l’élite gouvernant le parti sur les masses. Compétition des partis et des dirigeant du parti pour accéder au pouvoir de l’état. Etc
J’ai adorer x 1000. Un livre indispensable pour comprendre le fonctionnement de la pseudo démocratie représentative, des partis, du parlementarisme et de l’état.
February 20, 2018
Este es un libro antiguo que habla de las interioridades de los partidos políticos y, en general, las grandes empresas o asociaciones donde hay una serie de líderes que mandan y una masa que está sometida a su voluntad. Pero aunque el libro tenga más de 100 años, lo que dice es totalmente actual, aunque cambiando los nombres.
Y es que, en toda asociación de muchas personas se crea una oligarquía que son quienes realmente mandan. Y aunque haya democracia, realmente no la hay en el interior de un partido, pues hay gente que tiene que dedicarse a él y llega un momento en que hay que luchar para que el partido se perpetúe. Y aquí está el quiz de la cuestión, porque, para que se perpetúe, hacen cosas que no están en sus ideales iniciales.
Por momentos, se ve realmente que no es reciente, pero en su mayor parte es totalmente actual.
Y es que, en toda asociación de muchas personas se crea una oligarquía que son quienes realmente mandan. Y aunque haya democracia, realmente no la hay en el interior de un partido, pues hay gente que tiene que dedicarse a él y llega un momento en que hay que luchar para que el partido se perpetúe. Y aquí está el quiz de la cuestión, porque, para que se perpetúe, hacen cosas que no están en sus ideales iniciales.
Por momentos, se ve realmente que no es reciente, pero en su mayor parte es totalmente actual.
January 31, 2019
Etude sociologique du début XIXe siècle sur la nécessaire dérive oligarchique de tout parti politique: par une analyse froide et très lucide du fonctionnement des associations politiques, il montre que non seulement la démocratie directe est impossible, mais qu'elle dérive nécessairement vers une oligarchie. L'analyse est très complète, et très accessible. La connaissance intime de l'auteur avec les partis socialistes de la fin XIXe est un gros bonus de ce livre.
Au final, le livre pose davantage le problème que la solution: comment -surtout avec ces exigences de démocraties qui nous travaillent- éviter de virer à l'oligarchie? Le livre de Robert Michels est un classique de théorie politique, et c'est à juste titre. Très content de l'avoir lu, même si la deuxième moitié à moins de pertinence que la première.
Au final, le livre pose davantage le problème que la solution: comment -surtout avec ces exigences de démocraties qui nous travaillent- éviter de virer à l'oligarchie? Le livre de Robert Michels est un classique de théorie politique, et c'est à juste titre. Très content de l'avoir lu, même si la deuxième moitié à moins de pertinence que la première.
November 24, 2020
More of a long essay than an actually researched and sourced study, though that may be owing to the time it was written. Feels at times like the minutes of every single socialist meeting of the early 20th century, less scientific study and more name-dropping every pertinent name of that time.
Still, and although the book says nothing that common sense doesn't already tell you except for its central thesis (the more organised you get, the more indispensable and therefore oligarchic leaders become), it's a decent exercise to actually read about it, as well as how the common solutions to such problems (like decentralisation) don't actually negate the oligarchical direction every organised group takes.
Still, and although the book says nothing that common sense doesn't already tell you except for its central thesis (the more organised you get, the more indispensable and therefore oligarchic leaders become), it's a decent exercise to actually read about it, as well as how the common solutions to such problems (like decentralisation) don't actually negate the oligarchical direction every organised group takes.
March 25, 2025
Los partidos politicos de robert michels sociólogo) un estudio sociologico de las tendencias oligarquicas de la demoscrscia moderna. Quien dice organizacion dice oligarquia ( muy fuerte). Asi arranca. Habla tambien q todas las clases intentan mantener elnpoder como si fuera hereditario. Hay imposibilidad tecnica de poner fin a la estructura de gobernantes y gobernados. Hay pasar por alto varios capitulos con especifidades de la epoca ( 1915) e ir al ultimo capítulo en donde reconoce el status superior de la democracia, si se trabaja permanentemente para reducir al minimos los peligros de la oligarquía aun cdo no se puedan eliminar. ( respuesta a fukuyama??). Nota al pie, Michels terminó apoyando a mussolini 21.06
September 5, 2023
Syystäkin politiikansosiologian klassikko. Michelsin ote on esseistinen, eikä tämän kirjan voi katsoa varsinaisesti "todistavan" mitään, varsinkaan oligarkian rautaisen lain olemassaoloa, koska todistusaineisto on melko mielivaltaisesti valittua ja anekdotaalista. Näistä puutteista huolimatta (tai juuri niiden vuoksi) kyseessä on varsinainen runsaudensarvi oivalluksia ja kipeästi osuvia havaintoja kenelle tahansa politiikasta syvällisemmin kiinnostuneelle. Esimerkit saattavat olla sadan vuoden takaa, mutta niiden havainnollistamat periaatteet ovat alati läsnä myös nykypolitiikassa.
February 17, 2022
I didn't read the whole thing, but I've spent around 6 hours digesting the key chapters and I'm surprised to say that I enjoyed the process. It's an amazing book: great content presented in a well written and organized manner. I strongly recommend it for anyone who needs or wants to develop a more lucid political thinking.
March 29, 2026
Fantastic book, which both is a fabulous analysis of the socialist struggle of the time, but where so many political and academic lessons hold to this day. Highly recommended to any scholars of inequality and democracy, and those with interests that make them so inclined.
December 29, 2025
韋伯抄得太多了。
與此同時，米契爾斯對韋伯的提到：
幾年前，馬克斯·韋伯曾向德國王儲建議道，如果他們想環節自己對社會主義的恐懼感，最好畫上一天時間去研究一下社會主義代表大會綱領，這樣他們也許會使自己相信，所有那一群革命者的「表達方式都是小資產階級和安於現狀的酒吧老闆式」，而且，其中看不出任何真正意義上的革命熱情「馬克斯·韋伯在馬格德堡社會黨代表大會上的講話，速記稿，1907年10月2日。
與此同時，米契爾斯對韋伯的提到：
幾年前，馬克斯·韋伯曾向德國王儲建議道，如果他們想環節自己對社會主義的恐懼感，最好畫上一天時間去研究一下社會主義代表大會綱領，這樣他們也許會使自己相信，所有那一群革命者的「表達方式都是小資產階級和安於現狀的酒吧老闆式」，而且，其中看不出任何真正意義上的革命熱情「馬克斯·韋伯在馬格德堡社會黨代表大會上的講話，速記稿，1907年10月2日。
June 19, 2023
Robert Michels' "Political Parties" is a seminal work in the field of political science, offering a comprehensive analysis of the organizational structures and power dynamics within political parties. Published in 1911, this book examines the internal workings of political parties, their impact on democratic processes, and the challenges they face in maintaining their original ideals. In this academic review, we aim to critically engage with Michels' arguments, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of his approach, and discuss the enduring impact of "Political Parties" on the study of political science.
"Political Parties" delves into the dynamics of power within political organizations, specifically focusing on the emergence of an oligarchical tendency in party leadership. Michels' central argument, known as the "Iron Law of Oligarchy," posits that regardless of the professed ideals of democracy and equality, all large-scale organizations, including political parties, tend to become increasingly centralized and dominated by a select few.
The book is structured around several key themes. Firstly, Michels explores the internal dynamics of political parties, analyzing the role of party leaders, decision-making processes, and the relationship between party elites and rank-and-file members. He argues that over time, party leaders consolidate power and influence, creating an oligarchic structure that hampers the participatory nature of party democracy.
Secondly, Michels examines the implications of the "Iron Law of Oligarchy" for democratic governance. He suggests that the concentration of power within political parties undermines the ideals of popular sovereignty and collective decision-making. Michels contends that the hierarchical and bureaucratic nature of party organizations limits the involvement of ordinary members, perpetuating a system that is detached from the interests and concerns of the broader population.
Furthermore, Michels explores the impact of this oligarchical tendency on the ability of political parties to enact meaningful social change. He examines the challenges faced by parties in maintaining their original ideological commitments, as well as the potential for co-optation and compromises that dilute their transformative potential.
"Political Parties" offers a compelling and thought-provoking analysis of the power dynamics and organizational structures within political parties. Michels' work is characterized by its empirical rigor, drawing on historical and sociological evidence to support his arguments. His exploration of the oligarchical tendencies within party organizations challenges conventional understandings of democratic processes and sheds light on the inherent complexities of political power.
One of the strengths of Michels' work lies in his ability to identify and analyze the structural mechanisms that contribute to the concentration of power within political parties. His examination of party bureaucracies, hierarchies, and leadership dynamics provides valuable insights into the challenges faced by parties in maintaining internal democracy and effectively representing the interests of their members.
Michels' emphasis on the limitations of political parties in realizing their transformative potential is particularly noteworthy. His analysis raises important questions about the feasibility of democratic governance and the need for constant vigilance in preventing the erosion of democratic principles within party structures.
However, it is important to critically engage with Michels' perspective and the potential limitations of his analysis. Some readers may find his pessimistic view of party organizations to be overly deterministic, potentially neglecting the agency and potential for reform within political parties. Furthermore, Michels' focus on European party systems and historical contexts may limit the applicability of his analysis to different political environments.
"Political Parties" by Robert Michels remains a significant and influential work in the field of political science. The book's empirical analysis, theoretical insights, and critical examination of power dynamics within political parties offer valuable contributions to the study of democratic governance. While readers may have differing views on the extent of the "Iron Law of Oligarchy.”
GPT
"Political Parties" delves into the dynamics of power within political organizations, specifically focusing on the emergence of an oligarchical tendency in party leadership. Michels' central argument, known as the "Iron Law of Oligarchy," posits that regardless of the professed ideals of democracy and equality, all large-scale organizations, including political parties, tend to become increasingly centralized and dominated by a select few.
The book is structured around several key themes. Firstly, Michels explores the internal dynamics of political parties, analyzing the role of party leaders, decision-making processes, and the relationship between party elites and rank-and-file members. He argues that over time, party leaders consolidate power and influence, creating an oligarchic structure that hampers the participatory nature of party democracy.
Secondly, Michels examines the implications of the "Iron Law of Oligarchy" for democratic governance. He suggests that the concentration of power within political parties undermines the ideals of popular sovereignty and collective decision-making. Michels contends that the hierarchical and bureaucratic nature of party organizations limits the involvement of ordinary members, perpetuating a system that is detached from the interests and concerns of the broader population.
Furthermore, Michels explores the impact of this oligarchical tendency on the ability of political parties to enact meaningful social change. He examines the challenges faced by parties in maintaining their original ideological commitments, as well as the potential for co-optation and compromises that dilute their transformative potential.
"Political Parties" offers a compelling and thought-provoking analysis of the power dynamics and organizational structures within political parties. Michels' work is characterized by its empirical rigor, drawing on historical and sociological evidence to support his arguments. His exploration of the oligarchical tendencies within party organizations challenges conventional understandings of democratic processes and sheds light on the inherent complexities of political power.
One of the strengths of Michels' work lies in his ability to identify and analyze the structural mechanisms that contribute to the concentration of power within political parties. His examination of party bureaucracies, hierarchies, and leadership dynamics provides valuable insights into the challenges faced by parties in maintaining internal democracy and effectively representing the interests of their members.
Michels' emphasis on the limitations of political parties in realizing their transformative potential is particularly noteworthy. His analysis raises important questions about the feasibility of democratic governance and the need for constant vigilance in preventing the erosion of democratic principles within party structures.
However, it is important to critically engage with Michels' perspective and the potential limitations of his analysis. Some readers may find his pessimistic view of party organizations to be overly deterministic, potentially neglecting the agency and potential for reform within political parties. Furthermore, Michels' focus on European party systems and historical contexts may limit the applicability of his analysis to different political environments.
"Political Parties" by Robert Michels remains a significant and influential work in the field of political science. The book's empirical analysis, theoretical insights, and critical examination of power dynamics within political parties offer valuable contributions to the study of democratic governance. While readers may have differing views on the extent of the "Iron Law of Oligarchy.”
GPT
November 29, 2020
A classic for a reason. The book's argument has stood the test of time even if the estimation of democracy is somewhat pessimistic.
June 17, 2022
Many will be ready to judge this book de facto, as for the author actual alignment with Italian fascism and dismiss the book as propaganda for such economico-political system, which would be ultimately wrong and intellectually unsophisticated. A great analysis of populism and its corruption of democracy and its dependencies on the decision making abilities of so called experts, very much pertinent to current political event. To read as a warning sign rather than a political prescription.
December 25, 2019
It is amazing how current a book first published in 1915 can be! If you haven't heard of the Iron Law of Oligarchy, or if you've heard of it, but don't know how it works, this is the source.
Basically, Michels describes how organizations all end up being run by a small number of people at the top. This is true even of organizations which are ostensibly dedicated to democratic principles. There are passages in this book which could be set to have predicted the outcome of the recent dustup at the National Rifle Association. (The permanent staff always win out over famous outsiders who use their celebrity to gain a position in the organization, and then try to change it.)
Part of the process Michels describes includes what we would call today a positive feedback loop. Once people are selected to be leading staff of an organization, they devote more time to it, they have more resources to study important issues, and the learn how to manipulate the group's processes. I think the example of Josef Stalin is very instructive here.
This is not easy reading, but it is a very important book.
Basically, Michels describes how organizations all end up being run by a small number of people at the top. This is true even of organizations which are ostensibly dedicated to democratic principles. There are passages in this book which could be set to have predicted the outcome of the recent dustup at the National Rifle Association. (The permanent staff always win out over famous outsiders who use their celebrity to gain a position in the organization, and then try to change it.)
Part of the process Michels describes includes what we would call today a positive feedback loop. Once people are selected to be leading staff of an organization, they devote more time to it, they have more resources to study important issues, and the learn how to manipulate the group's processes. I think the example of Josef Stalin is very instructive here.
This is not easy reading, but it is a very important book.
March 18, 2009
Michels makes a persuasive argument here for democracy as veiled oligarchy through a logical yet seemingly nihilistic analysis of democracy's history. This book is a challenge for all intellectual proponents of democracy.
July 31, 2009
i have my doubts about the iron law of oligarchy. there are always corner cases where the law deteriorates and leadership does not become corrupted. admittedly hard to think of, but that's the virtue of charismatic irruption and leadership (cf weber)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews