Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:45:47.981Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Michels and his Critics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

David Beetham
Get access

Extract

Ipropose in this paper to develop a theme from an earlier article I wrote on Michels: namely, that Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens is to be understood as the work of someone who had passed over from revolutionary Marxism into the camp of elite theory; more precisely, it is a work which takes as its starting point a problem posed within a revolutionary tradition and proceeds to answer it from within a quite different theoretical framework. We could say that it offers a Right-wing answer to a Left-wing question. It is in this conjunction that lie both the strengths and weaknesses of the work (1). One failing of much of the critical literature on Zur soziologie des Parteiwesens is that it treats the conceptual and other inadequacies in its argument as a series of isolated errors, of separate points to be challenged, rather than as arising systematically out of the particular intellectual conjunction I have indicated (2). I propose, however, to go further in this paper than simply present a historical analysis of the intellectual development of an individual thinker. I want to ask the question: How far can the inadequacies of Michels' argument be overcome from within the framework of elite theory itself, and how far can they only be overcome by breaking with some of the central assumptions of that perspective? In other words, I want to broaden out the enquiry to consider what are the limitations of an elite-theoretical approach to the study of parties and elites, particularly parties of the Left.

Type
Research Article
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , January 1981 , pp. 80 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © Archives Européenes de Sociology 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

(1) Michels, R., Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie 2 (Leipzig 1925)Google Scholar. For my earlier article see Political Studies, XXV (1977), pp. 3–24Google Scholar.

(2) Among the critical literature on Michels the following should be mentioned:

a)in English: Cassinelli, C.W., The Law of Oligarchy, American Political Science Review, XLVII (1953), pp. 773–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cook, P.J., Robert Michels's Political Parties in Perspective, Journal of Politics, XXXIII (1971), pp. 773–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hands, G., Robert Michels and the Study of Political Parties, British Journal of Political Science, I (1971). PP. 157–72Google Scholar; Medding, P.Y., A Framework for the Analysis of Power in Political Parties, Political Studies, XVIII (1970), pp. 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

b)in German: Conze, W., Afterword to the Stuttgart, 1957, edition of Michels, R., Zur Soziologie des ParteiwesensGoogle Scholar; Ebbighausen, R., Die Krise der Parteiendemokratie und die Parteiensoziologie (Berlin 1969)Google Scholar; Pfetsch, F., Robert Michels als Elitentheoretiker, Politische Vierteljahres schrift, VII (1966), pp. 208–27Google Scholar; Röhrich, W., Robert Michels (Berlin 1972).Google Scholar

c)in Italian: Fedele, M., La sociologia politica di Michels, R., Critica sociologica, XXIX (1972), pp. 152–78Google Scholar; Linz, J.J., Foreword to the Bologna, 1965, edition of Michels, R., Zur Soziologie des ParteiwesensGoogle Scholar; Rutigliano, E., Movimento politico e ‘sociologie’, Critica sociologica, XXI (1974), PP. 94–107Google Scholar.

d)early Marxist criticism: Gramsci, A., Quaderni del carcere (Torino 1975), pp. 230–39Google Scholar, 1429–34, 1629–30; Lukács, G., Review of Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens 2, in Archiv fur die Geschichte des Sozialismus und der Arbeiterbewegung, XIII (1928), pp. 309 ff.Google Scholar; Thalheimer, A., Review of Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens 2 in Marx-Engels Archiv, II (1927). PP. 497–5O8Google Scholar.

(3) Mosca, G., Partiti e sindicati nella crisi del regime parlamentare (Bari 1949), p. 11Google Scholar.

(4) Pareto, V., Œuvres complètes, XIX (Genève 1975), pp. 506–7Google Scholar.

(5) Pareto, V., Sociological Writings, ed. Finer, S.E. (London 1966), p. 132Google Scholar.

(6) Mosca, G., The Ruling Class, ed. Livingston, (New York 1939), pp. 23–30Google Scholar.

(7) Michels, R., op. cit. p. 88Google Scholar.

(8) Michels, R., op. cit. p. 260Google Scholar.

(9) Michels, R., op. cit. p. 384–5Google Scholar. See also part III, ch. 1, ‘Die psychologische Metamorphose der Führerschaft’.

(10) Michels, R., op. cit. pp. 267Google Scholar, 353–6.

(11) Luxemburg, R., Gesammelte Werke, II (Berlin 1974), pp. 150, 172, 181Google Scholar.

(12) Pareto, V., op. cit. pp. 134–5Google Scholar.

(13) All the quotations here are taken from R. Michels, op. cit. part II, ch. v, ‘Der Kampf zwischen den Führern um die Macht’.

(14) Michels, R., op. cit. p. 233Google Scholar.