Democracy, Organization, Michels Author(s): John D. May Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 59, No. 2, (Jun., 1965), pp. 417-429 Published by: American Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1953059 Accessed: 07/07/2008 11:30

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=apsa.

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 organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.org DEMOCRACY, ORGANIZATION, MICHELS

JOHN D. MAY Yale University

This article marks an attempt to clarify the It probably is true that in Michels's terms, teachings of Robert Michels. It suggests that a system where leaders possess the means and in Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the the disposition to ignore their followers' will Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy (or wills) is an undemocratic system.2 It is not (1915), Michels presented a favorable account true that on Michels's showing, organization is of the compatibility of organization and de- relatively inhospitable to democratic leader- mocracy. follower relations. It is not true that Michels Other treatments attribute to Michels a portrays increments of Organization as breed- thesis of the following kind: (1) Large, or- ers, persistently and proportionally, of counter- ganizationally complex associations, compared democratic changes. Instead, he argues (in a with small, simple associations, are likely to be complex but not inconsistent manner) that governed by cliques whose powers (disposable Organization is incompatible with the attain- resources, freedom of action, security of tenure) ment or maintenance of absolute democracy are abundant and whose policies (use of official and yet can be a source, in many cases and in status and resources) deviate from the policy- many ways, of democratization. preferences of their constituents. (2) Incre- It is true that Michels deplored Organization. ments of Organization (of scale, or members, It is true that Michels voiced a profound and of complexity, or procedural formality, pessimism about the fate of mankind, a pes- functional differentiation, stratification, spe- simism rooted in conceptions of the indispensa- cialization, hierarchy, and bureaucracy) aug- bility and the consequences of Organization. It ment the powers and the policy-deviating is not true that Michels's pessimism was the propensities of leaders vis-ai-vis followers.' pessimism of a democrat. Far from being a democrat, Michels was a I See S. M. Lipset's introduction to the Collier Books edition (1962) of Political Parties, and the J. M. Pfiffner and F. P. Sherwood, Administra- commentaries cited by Lipset. For additional tive Organization (Prentice-Hall, 1960), p. 338; statements or approximations of this version of Giovanni Sartori, Democratic Theory (Wayne Michels's thesis, and some challenges, see the State University Press, 1962), pp. 42, 82, 100, following: P. M. Blau and W. R. Scott, Formal 120-28, 134; David Spitz, Patterns of Anti- Organizations (Chandler, 1962), pp. 48, 228; Democratic Thought (Macmillan, 1949), esp. p. 27 R. C. Brooks, Political Parties and Electoral Prob- and the treatment in Part II of James Burnham's leiiis (Harper, 1933), p. 30; F. W. Coker, Recent The Machiavellians; D. B. Truman, The Govern- Political Thought (Appleton-Century-Crofts, mental Process (Knopf, 1955), pp. 137-55; and 1934), p. 328; R. A. Dahl and C. E. Lindblom, Dwight Waldo, "Development of Theory of Politics, Economics and Welfare (Harper, 1953), Democratic Administration," this REVIEW, Vol. pp. 279-85; A. W. Gouldner, ed., Studies in 46 (March 1952), pp. 100-01. Leadership, pp. 418-35 (T. W. Adorno) and 477- 2 Michels does not use the terms "democracy," 504 (B. Barber); H. S. Hughes, Consciousness and "oligarchy," and "organization" in a consistent Society (Vintage, 1951), ch. 7; Suzanne Keller, or coherent manner. The terminological diffi- Beyond the Ruling Class (Random House, 1963), culties have been probed by C. W. Cassinelli, in pp. 72-3, 80, 263, 273-74; Arthur Kornhauser and "The Law of Oligarchy," this REVIEW, Vol. 47 others, eds., Industrial Conflict (McGraw-Hill, (Sept. 1953), p. 3 if. However, Michels persist- 1954), ch. 9 (L. H. Fisher and G. McConnell); ently associates democracy with equality, with H. D. Lasswell and A. Kaplan, Power and Society conditions suggesting the notion of popular (Yale, 1950); R. M. MacIver, The Web of Govern- sovereignty, and with the "system in which dele- ment (Macmillan, 1959), pp. 122, 140, 434; R. T. gates represent the mass and carry out its will." McKenzie, British Political Parties (Praeger, On the other hand, he speaks of "The notion of 1964 ed.), pp. 15-17, ch. 11; C. E. Merriam and the representation of popular interests, a notion H. E. Barnes, eds., A History of Political Theories: to which the great majority of democrats ... Recent Times (Macmillan, 1924), pp. 56-67, 383; cleave .... " Political Parties, trans. Eden and Max Nomad, Aspects of Revolt (Farrar, Straus & Cedar Paul (Dover Publications, 1959), esp. pp. Cudahy, 1959), ch. 1; Robert Presthus, The Or- 1-2, 27, 401. References hereafter will be to this ganizational Society (Knopf, 1962), pp. 4, 41-52; edition unless designated otherwise. 417 418 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW

Romantic Revolutionist. He deplored the conservative parties have worked "'essentially" ''conservative" effects of Organization its for "socialist ideas and for the victory of the general tendency to facilitate the maintenance proletariat." The Socialist International has of a society which is not and cannot be perfectly changed from an "individual dictatorship" democratic, and its particular tendency to into "a federal republic consisting of several dissipate "revolutionary currents" in society. independent oligarchies." Nearly every Social- But by his account, Organization is counter- ist and labor group has manifested "tendencies revolutionary precisely because it facilitates toward decentralization, " tendencies which the amelioration of discontents and injustices; create pluralistic rather than monistic oli- it facilitates democratization. garchies. In the German Socialist and labor Far from being a democrat, moreover, parties, an "enormous increase" in member- Michels was a Scientific Paternalist. He por- ship and in organizational development has trayed, and lamented, Organization as the been accompanied by changes from "dictator- nemesis of authoritv-systems wherein leaders ship" to "oligarchy" and to "theoretical and possess the means and the disposition to voice applied democracy."' the scientifically ascertained Interests of the The foregoing citations are not arbitrarily "mass." But by his account, Organization selective. Michels does not specifically name facilitates the advent and the maintenance of any associations in which democracy has been leaders who are able and willing to express the attenuated by Organization. manifest wills of their clients or constituents. His contradictory testimony concerning Such, at any rate, is the interpretation which party evolution may be ascribed to at least seems consistent with the following analysis of two sources. On the one hand, it may be as- (I) Michels's account of general historical cribed to inconsistent, ambiguous use of the trends, (II) his basic reasoning, and (Ill) his term artyty" Sometimes "party" denotes an treatment of the Socialist experience. existential aggregate; sometimes if refers to a hypothetical aggregate. Thus, the so-called, I existential 'parties' have not manifested coun- According to AMichels's account of general ter-democratic changes, but hypothetical, au- trends, democratization has persistently accom- thentic 'parties' must undergo such changes. panied Organization. On the other hand, his contradictory testi- The modern era, in which "political and mony may be ascribed to inconsistent, am- economic life" acquires increasingly "complex biguous use of the term "democracy." Some- forms," and in which massive bureaucratiza- times "democracy" signifies close control by tion occurs in the state and industry and labor, followers over leaders; sometimes it signifies a is "what we know as the era of democracy."3 distinctive associational character (an ideo- Only the "blind and fanatical" fail to perceive logical, sociological, operational uniqueness) that "the democratic current daily makes un- and a moral commitment to the cause of deniable advance."4 social-democratic revolution. Modern "state institutions" exhibit "increas- Only in the latter unconventional sense, and ing democratization." Human "freedoms and only with respect to hypothetical aggregates, privileges" have broadened. The workers are does he sustain the argument that 'parties' enjoying "better conditions of labor;" their necessarily undergo a counter-'democratic' burgeoning aptitude for "criticism and con- transformation. trol" is bound to increase further "in proportion as the economic status of the masses undergoes II improvement and becomes more stable, and as According to Michels's basic reasoning, Or- the masses are admitted more effectively to the ganization precludes democracy, and can destroy advantages of civilization."5 democracy, and can facilitate democratization. Michels stipulates that in "the sphere of These three propositions are not contra- party" as contrasted with "the sphere of the dictory. The first pertains to what is ultimately state," democracy is in a "descending phase." attainable. The others pertain to what can Yet he testifies that a "democratic external happen in various situations. form" prevails among modern parties. The aristocratic parties have come to espouse Organization precludes democracy. Michels ar- "democratic" policies, and some liberal and gues persuasively that the presence of Organi- zation is incompatible with the presence of 3 Pp. 33, 40. democracy: 4 P. 402. ' Pp. 329, 406. 6 Pp. 3, 5, 5,, 1 1, 6(3, 190, 191, 201. D)EMOCRACY, OICRANIZATION, MICHE.LS 419

Organization implies the tendency to oligarchy. garchy" -that is, arrangements which are . . . Immanent oligarchical tendencies [exist] in neither absolutely- democratic nor absolutely every kind of human organization which strives autocratic. for the attainment of definite ends. . . . Oligarchy Between the poles of pure democracy and is . . . a preordained form of the conimon life of pure autocracy lies an enormous range of varia- great social aggregates.... The majority of hu- tions. Although no "system of leadership" can man beings, in a condition of eternal tutelage, are be democratic, some can be less undemocratic predestined . .. to submit to the dominion of a than others. Variations can arise from differ- small minority, and must . .. (constitute the ences in the rules, in the social composition, pedestal of an oligarchy. . . . Leadership is a and in other traits of associations. necessary phenomenon in every form of social life Michels does not say, nor does he imply, that [and] every system of leadership is incompatible the extent of deviation from pure democracy with the most essential postulates of democracy. must be directly related to the size or com- . . . All order and civilization must exhibit aristo- plexity of organization. He does not exclude cratic features.7 the possibility that increments of democratiza- tion can accompany increments of scale and This reiterated proposition seems logically complexity. Thus his proposition that Organ- unassailable, so long as two considerations are ization precludes (absolute) democracy is kept in mind: (a) the proposition pertains only logically compatible with his reports that to the attainability of 'pure' democracy, or democratization has persistently accompanied absolute equality; and (b) "oligarchy" signifies Organization. not the antithesis of democracy, but a condi- tion occupying the ground between pure democ- Organization can destroy democracy. Michels racy and pure autocracy. devotes most of his attention not to the prop- With these considerations noted, the basis of osition that Organization is a condition which his proposition can readily be appreciated.8 precludes (absolute) democracy, but to the The presence of Organization signifies the proposition that Organization is an agent presence of an association whose members are which destroys (absolute) democracy: so numerous that it is technically difficult for I)emocracy leads to oligarchy, and necessarily in all to participate equally all decisions. This contains an oligarchical nucleus.... When de- condition also is technically incompatible with mocracies have gained a certain stage of develop- the exercise by one member of direct control ment, they undergo a gradual transformation, over the formulation and implementation of adopting the aristocratic spirit, and in many cases l)olicies. also the aristocratic forms, against which at the Similarly, the presence of Organization outset they struggled so fiercely.... Oligarchy signifies the presence of a "system" of leader- ... issues from democracy.... Organization is ship, or of subordinate-superordinate relations, ... the source from which the conservative cur- together with an established pattern of dif- rents flow over the plain of democracy.... The ferentiated tasks, responsibilities, privileges formation of oligarchies within the various forms and resources. These conditions are incom- of democracy is the outcome of organic necessity.10 latible with equality-and with autocracy. There must be inequalities, and the inequalities The proposition contained in these passages must be multiple. Various tasks and resources has been persistently misunderstood. It is not are vested in various members of the associa- that Organization breeds Oligarchy; it is that tion, each being endowed with a particular Democracy leads (through Organization) to expertise and a particular decisional jurisdic- Oligarchy. The difference is momentous. tion.9 Michels's proposition-his Iron Law of Oli- In short, Organization necessitates "oli- garchy-is a statement about what must hap- pen in groups which initially are democracies. can 7 Pp. 11, 32, 390, 400, 402. Only when democracy is present initially Democracy is not 8 We are excluding here Michels's arguments it be slain by Organization. in all which lack for the indispensability of Organization and his self-evidently present groups suggestions that the process of Organization tends Organization. Some small, primitive groups be isoc- to be self-accelerating. Attention is confined to may be run by bullies; others may of equals. Only in the the question of what arrangements can be com- racies, or associations onset of patible with the presence of Organization. latter instances can the Organization the of I For a sophisticated discussion of these pro- be blamed for demise Democracy. cesses and of some implications, see Langer, above, note 1, esp. ch. 3. 10 Pp. viii, 22, 168, 402, 408. 420 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWV

Scholars have persistently inferred that identical objective and practical aims. Where this Michels's Law applies, or can apply, to a much is lacking, the party becomes a mere "organiza- broader range of cases-perhaps to the gen- tion.""4 erality of voluntary associations, or of social movements, or of human groups." Michels has Similarly, in a "party," been credited with the broad proposition that Originally the chief is merely the servant of the increments of Organization invariably yield mass. The organization is based upon the absolute increments of Oligarchy. This misunderstand- equality of its members. Equality is here under- ing may be due to a misapprehension concern- stood in its most general sense, as an equality of ing his use of key words. The key words are like men.... The democratic principle aims at emphasized in the following passages: guaranteeing to all an equal influence and an In every organization, whether it be a political equal participation in the regulation of the com- party, a professional union, or any other associa- mon interests. All are electors, and all are eligible tion of the kind, the aristocratic tendency mani- for office.... All offices are filled by election. The fests itself very clearly. The mechanism of the officials, executive organs of the general will, play organization, while conferring a solidity of struc- a merely subordinate part, are always dependent ture, induces serious changes in the organized upon the collectivity, and can be deprived of mass, completely inverting the respective position their office at any moment. The mass of the party of the leaders and the led. As a result of organiza- is omnipotent."5 tion, every party or professional union becomes From this romantic premise of "pure democ- divided into a minority of directors and a ma- racy," Michels unfolds his tragic tale of jority of directed.'2 degeneration wrought by Organization. In * * * "the sphere of party," with "the advance of Reduced to its most concise expression, the organization, democracy tends to decline." fundamental sociological law of political parties As far as party life is concerned, (the term "political" being used in its most com- prehensive significance) may be formulated in the It may be enunciated as a general rule that the following terms: "It is organization which gives increase in the power of the leaders is directly birth to the dominion of the elected over the proportional with the extension of the organiza- electors, of the mandatories over the mandators, tion. In the various parties and labor organiza- of the delegates over the delegators. Who says tions of different countries the influence of the organization, says oligarchy."" leaders is mainly determined . . . by the varying development of organization. Where organization The crucial point here is that by "political is stronger, we find that there is a lesser degree of parties" and "professional unions" Michels applied democracy.16 does not mean the generality of so-called, historical parties and unions. Instead, he uses Given this premise of initial democracy, at a these terms to designate the "kind" of associa- Michels is logically free to argue that only tion which is emphasized in Marxian thought: association by social class. This qualification is 14 P. 376; emphasis added. He also says, "A of vital importance. party is neither a social unity nor an economic According to the Marxian formulation, the unity." (p. 387) His characterization of change in members of a social class are equal to one parties, however, presupposes initial unity. See another and are endowed with identical needs. section III below, under Social Pluralism. If they actively associate, the initial relation- 16 Pp. 27-8. Omitted from this quotation is a ship among them must be democratic. The contradictory remark, illuminating Michels's leaders initially will be equal in resources to chronic confusion about the difference between the followers and will exemplify the policy- hypothesis and history. He remarks that the preferences of their followers. In Michels's "equality of like men" is "manifested" in some terms, then, who says "party" says initial demo- cases (i.e., Socialist labor groups) "by the mutual cracy. Thus, use of the familiar 'thou,' which is employed by The term "party" presupposes that among the the most poorly paid wage-laborer in addressing individual components of the party there should the most distinguished intellectuals." (p. 27) If exist a harmonious direction of wills toward poor laborers and intellectuals are associated, then "equality of like men" is absent. The group 11 For example, David Easton, The Political is not a social democracy, although it may em- System (Knopf, 1959), pp. 56-7. ploy equalitarian rituals and it may be pledged to 12 p 32. the attainment of social democracy. 13 P. 401. 16 P. 33. DEMOCRACY, ORGANIZATION, MICHELS 421

"second stage" of organizational development internal structure.) The chances for democ- (the stage of full-time, salaried, specialized ratizing the state are relatively favorable officialdom) do leaders become "stable and "where there exists universal, equal, and irremovable."'7 Similarly, the assumption that direct suffrage, and where the working class is the first leaders were indistinguishable from strongly organized and is awake to its own the followers enables him to say that the "first interests."22 appearance of professional leadership" marks In this argument M/lichels covers a contin- "the beginning of the end" for "democracy," gency which he has been accused of overlook- since such leaders are said to be stronger than ing. He acknowledges that the democratization their followers and to be animated by deviant of the state and of society can be promoted by, interests.'8 and can occur in the midst of, associations This line of reasoning depends for its ele- which are non-democratic.23 Strong organiza- mental plausibility on the validity of the tion among society's lower strata impels the premise of initial democracy. Michels's argu- ruling caste, for the sake of self-preservation, ment applies only to cases where "at first" the to make concessions in the form of policies and leaders are "no more than executive organs of positions.24 the general wills," where the leaders first arise The old political caste of society, and above all ''spontaneously" to perform only "accessory the "state" itself, are forced to undertake the and gratuitous" functions, where the leaders revaluation of a considerable number of values-a initially are "simple workmates" or "single revaluation both ideal and practical. The impor- molecules) of the mass."'9 tance attributed to the masses increases, even Such reasoning is conspicuous for the con- when the leaders are demagogues. The legislature tingencies it does not cover. It does not cover and the executive become accustomed to yield, associations initially run by bullies. It does not not only to claims proceeding from above, but also cover groups initially led by men who, instead to those proceeding from below.25 of being "simple workmates," descend from upper social strata. Since it does not cover (2) Organization can facilitate 'internal' democ- cases of this sort, it is neither sustained nor ratization. refuted by evidence that in many cases, includ- Michels does not deal explicitly with the ing cases of so-called political parties, Organ- possibility that Organization can facilitate the ization has been accompanied by democratiza- democratization of groups within society- tion. that is, the equalization of resources among Organization can facilitate democratization. The members and the conformity of leaders' propositions that Organization precludes abso- policies to followers' wishes. Such a possibility lute democracy and can destroy absolute may be inferred, however, from his testimony democracy do not exclude the possibility that that counter-autocratic changes accompanied Organization can facilitate democratization. Socialist Organization. The same possibility Two broad possibilities, within appropriate may be inferred from the basis of his reasoning. circumstances, are discernible from Michels's Increments of Organization necessitate delega- analysis. tion and dispersal of authority. In the case of an association where all the members have (1) Organization can facilitate 'external' democ- exercised all authority on an equal basis, the ratization. Michels teaches that Organization, effect of Organization will be counter-demo- is the "weapon of the weak in their struggle cratic. In the case of an association where one with the strong"-an instrument which or just a few members have exercised all au- facilitates "economy of effort" and the political thority, the effect of Organization will be utilization of numerical strength.20 He ac- counter-autocratic. An appraisal of these pos- knowledges that "Within certain narrow limits, sibilities may be gained from a review of the democratic party, even when subjected to Michels's treatment of Socialist history. oligarchical control, can doubtless act upon the state in a democratic sense."'2' (In the context, III the phrase "democratic party" evidently de- According to Michels's account of Socialist notes a kind of aim or interest, rather than an experience in Western Europe before 1914,

1' P. 401. 22 P. 365n. PP. 36. 23 For example, see Sartori, above, note 1, pp. "Pp. 31-2, 36, 206, 400. 121-26. 20 Pp. 21-2. 24 See pp. 176, 185-87, 272, 392. 21 P. 365. 25 P. 365. 422 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW

Organization facilitates democratization. He organization.28 Before agreeing with Michels depicts Organization as the efficient cause of that Socialisrn underwent a moral and a multitudinous changes in the 'character' of counter-democratic degeneration because of the Socialism, changes that are alleged to be un- imperatives of Organization, let us attempt a avoidable and horrible. lie spins a fable of more systematic canvass. innocence lost. Below are listed ten changes which by In the days of the so-calledI "socialism of the Michels's account took place as the Socialist emigres," the socialists devoted themselves to an parties developed. Each will be discussed elevated policy of principles, inspired by the briefly for its broader theoretical implications. classic criteria of internationalism. Almost every (1) Mitigation of formal dictatorship. Genuine one of them was . . . a specialist in this more gen- Socialist parties allegedly are, and some of the eral and comprehensive domain. The whole young Socialist parties allegedly were, corps of course of their lives, the brisk exchange of ideas on para-military combatants. Small, frail, osten- unoccupied evenings, the continued rubbing of tatiously seditious groups cannot afford the shoulders between men of the most different luxury of democratic prlocedures.29 Socialist tongues, the enforced isolation from the bourgeois growth and development produced a new world of their respective countries, and the utter orientation, emphasizing legalism and elec- impossibility of any "practical" action, all con- tioneering. This marked a deviation from tributed to this result. But in proportion as, in principle; it also facilitated and necessitated a their own country, paths of activity were opened measure of formal democratization. for the socialists . . . the more did a recognition of In broader terms, MNichels's analysis sug- the demands of the everyday life of the party gests that patterns of internal authority vary divert their attention from immortal principles.26 systematically according to associational aims and situations (or strategies) and sizes. Internal With the advent of practical activities and dictatorship is most likely to accompany revo- professional activists, Socialism's "wider and lutionary aims, extra-legal tactics, and small- more ideal cultural aims" were smothered by ness. Bigness necessitates allegiance, legalism, the "petty, narrow, rigid, and illiberal" and a modicum of internal democracy. Each bureaucratic spirit. The "logical audacities" factor helps to explain and engender the others. and "revolutionary currents" suppressed, the once-bold champions displaced by routinizers (2) Mitigation of informal dictatorship. "Every whose "personal inclination towards quietism" great class movement in history has arisen could not be "neutralized" by "the preponder- upon the instigation, with the co-operation, ant energy of a comprehensive theory." and under the leadership of men sprung from Socialism's youthful promise to represent the the very class against which the movement was "popular interests" was violated; the "demo- directed."30 The Socialist movement allegedly cratic principle" of "THAT WHICH OUGHT TO consisted initially of two social strata: wage BE" was suffocated by "that which is." workers, or incipient proletarians, who in terms Bureaucratization and vote-chasing ravished of "culture and of economic, physical and Socialism's "essential character"; having con- physiological conditions" are society's "weak- tracted "promiscuous relationships with the est element"; and ex-bourgeois intellectuals, most heterogeneous elements," Socialism lost veritable "supermen," the "best instructed, "political virginity."27 most capable, and most adroit" products of Now let us dry our tears. Let us attempt to society's most powerful class.3" Such a compo- break the spell of the "metaphysical pathos" of circumstantial adaptation. See esp. Selznick's 26 Pp. 187-8. "An Approach to the Theory of Bureaucracy," 27 Pp. 187, 189, 371, 307, 401 (his capitals), 376. American Sociological Review, Vol. 8 (1943), p. 1. Some writers have suggested that Michels's Law 28 See A. W. Gouldner, "Metaphysical Pathos of Oligarchy deals with the general subject of and the Theory of Bureaucracy," this REVIEW, goal-reorientation as determined by internal Vol. 49 (1955), p. 3. Gouldner argues that group processes, rather than with the particular Michels, Selznick (in TVA and thie Grass Roots), subject of democracy. For example, see Samuel and other modern theorists of group organization Eldersveld, "American Interest Groups," in quite arbitrarily assume that the "unanticipated Interest Groups on Four Continents, ed. H. W. consequences" wrrought by Organization will be Ehrmann (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1958), deplorable. p. 184. Philip Selznick relies heavily on Mlichels's 29 Part I, (1). 3, "pI. pp. 41-3. contributions to urvitersttanding the 'llnantici- 3() P. 2'38. pated consequences" of Organizatioin and of 31 Pp. 22, 2:7, 261. DEMOCRACY) ORGANIZATION, MICHELS 423 sition is required because the workers, without letarian groupings already present.... .35 help, are ignorant of their interests and their (c) Proletarian enterprise. Some worker- practical needs. It was "only when science Socialists were transformed into petty-bour- placed itself at the service of the working class" geois in consequence of Socialist Organization. that "the proletarian movement" became "a Of these, some were forced into small business socialist movement." The men of "science" in consequence of industrial blacklisting, while served at the head of the new movement. The others exploited commercial opportunities early Socialist program was not a compromise (such as tavern-keeping) which developed in between insight and ignorance; it was "a consequence of Socialist activities.36 synthesis of the work of numerous learned (d) Bureaucratization. The advent of So- men. "32 cialist Organization enabled some worker- Michels never claims the Socialist groups Socialists to become salaried officials. Organiza- were democracies at inception. He claims tion served to "deproletarianize" workers, ac- rather, that they were democratic in conception cording to how "extensive" and "complicated" -in the goals they espoused (rather than the the "bureaucratic mechanism" of the Socialist procedures employed), and in the Interests movement became.37 they 'objectively' represented (as contrasted (e) Immigration. Additional differentiation with the cause they actually promoted). Thus, was produced by the influx of recruits drawn from various social strata. Such differentiation the socialist and revolutionary parties, . . . in respect of origin and of program, represent the was facilitated by a number of factors and processes: formal accessibility of membership; negation of any such tendency [as oligarchy], and have actually come into existence out of opposi- the absence of repugnant slogans and policies; the increased of salaried and tion thereto.... In theory, the principle of the availability posts social and democratic parties is the struggle other vocational opportunities.38 against oligarchy in all its forms.3 In view of these changes, Michels suggests that bureaucratized associations in general, More generally, Michels suggests that his- and politically sensitive associations in par- tory's great political movements must initially ticular, cannot be (or long remain) socially be internally oligarchic, even if their goals and homogeneous. Bureaucrats characteristically results are democratic. Leaders of the great solicit new recruits, paying little attention to leveling movements descend from the upper "quality." The "modern party, like the mod- echelons of society; followers are recruited from ern state, endeavors to give to its own or- the most deprived strata. As the resources of ganization the widest possible base," and to leaders and followers become more equal, the fortify the support attained by multiplying drive for societal equalization loses momentum. salaried posts.39 Consequently, each mature Socialist party became, "from the social point (3) Social pluralism. Whereas the Socialist of view," a "mixture of classes," being com- groups initially consisted of a bourgeois and a posed of elements fulfilling "diverse functions proletarian stratum, they rapidly became in the economic process."40 heterogeneous. Many processes contributed to Such a social transformation might be this differentiation: deemed counter-democratic, from the stand- (a) General social change. The social com- point of intra-group relations, if the trans- of position the Socialist groups was differenti- formation occurred in a once-homogeneous ated in consequence of the general process setting. In the Socialist case, as Michels por- characterizes modern life-a which process not trays it, the change was from polarized dualism d of class polarization, la Marx, but of "in- to horizontal and vertical pluralism. creasing differentiation."34 (b) Secular social change. Worker-Socialists (4) Petty-embourgeoisement. Whereas the au- became additionally differentiated among them- thentic or early Socialist groups were dualistic selves, and within the working class, in con- and polarized, social change involved chiefly sequence of their various political activities. an enlargement of middle-ranking strata. This These contributed to "an even greater accen- occurred through the attraction of petty- tuation of the differentiation which the pro- bourgeois recruits andl the "deproletarianiza- 35 P. 295. 32 P. 238; emphasis his. 86 Pp. 283-8. 33 P. 11; emphasis added. Elsewhere (esp. ch. 37 Pp. 271-82. 2) Michels voices doubt that such a commitment 38 Pp. 265-70. has ever truly animated a particular social group. '9 Pp. 185-87. 34 P. 40; also pp. 289-90. 40 P. 387. 424 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENrCE REVIEW tion" of some worker-Socialists. cally distant classes, each increasingly homo- Michels summarizes this transformation as geneous. But these processes also spur Organi- "the embourgeoisement of the working-class zation. The processes generated by Organiza- parties."4" However, his label is not accurate, tion facilitate (a) a general, but uneven, im- unless it is meant as a psycho-moral judgment provement in the socio-economic status of the rather than a sociological description. A bour- lower strata ('deproletarianization'); (b) the geois element was present at the beginning, maintenance and enlargement of the middle and this element persisted. Socio-economic strata; and (c) a kind of "social exchange" distance was not created or increased by whereby some people move upward socio- Socialist Organization; it was 'filled in.' economically while others move (in a non- The Socialist case cannot be cited to show socio-economic sense) downward.46 Michels that Organization invariably 'de-polarizes' laments this process, because it is counter- groups. The 'de-polarization' was conspicuous revolutionary. in the Socialist case because of a distinctive (5) Careers opened to talent. Throughout his social origin. However, Michels does suggest unmistakably that Organization facilitates the book, Michels emphasizes that the individuals maintenance and enlargement of society's middle most directly and substantially benefited by strata. Organization (in terms of socio-economic eleva- Bureaucratic posts are middle-class in social tion), are society's most talented, most intelli- status. These posts allegedly multiply faster gent individuals. Organization provides "facil- than total populations. The proliferation of ity for ascent in the social scale" by such indi- bureaucratic posts serves to counteract the viduals.47 The peasants who attain middle- effects of capital-concentration, effects which class status through the Church, the bourgeois otherwise would drive bankrupt small business- who penetrate the Prussian nobility through men into the ranks of the proletariat.42 the military corps, the workers who become Various bureaucracies cater to various social petty-bourgeois through Socialist organiza- strata. The modern state's bureaucracy caters tions, are not hacks. At one point, indeed, particularly to the sons of "small manufac- Michels declares that "democracy" (his fic- turers and traders, independent artisans, tional starting-point of Socialist development) farmers, etc."-the sons of people who are "ends by undergoing transformation into a particularly discontented and articulate, be- form of government by the best, into an cause they feel the squeeze of "expropriative aristocracy.48 capitalism" and organized labor.43The Catholic Such a characterization of the men who Church enables talented sons of petty-bour- attain bureaucratic eminence seems particu- larly remarkable in view of one of the meanings geois and peasant families to attain middle- class professional status, whereas this status he assigned to democracy. Although he fre- normally is unattainable because it requires quently identifies democracy with absolute long formal education at private expense.44 equality, Michels also says that democracy Similarly, "gives to each [citizen] the possibility of as- cending to the top of the social scale . . . an- For the German workers, the labor movement has nulling . . . all privileges of birth, and desiring an importance analogous to that of the Catholic that in human society the struggle for pre- Church for certain fractions of the petty bour- eminence should be decided in accordance geoisie and of the rural population. In both cases with individual capacity."49 we have an organization which furnishes oppor- On the other hand, Michels maintains that tunities for the most intelligent members of cer- "the bureaucratic spirit corrupts character tain classes to secure a rise in the social scale.45 and engenders moral poverty."50 This accusa- In no instance does Michels argue that Or- tion is closely identified with his major accusa- ganization polarizes society. He depicts Or- tion: that in elevating talented workers (along ganization, rather, as a built-in antidote to the worst consequences of capitalism. The pro- 46 Part IV, chs. 2, 3, 4. The downward move- cesses of production and exchange under capital- ment involved in the "social exchange" is ideo- ism supposedly spur the creation of two radi- logical and affiliational rather than socio-eco- nomic. Idealistic or opportunistic bourgeois join 41 P. 268. Socialist groups, usually as leaders. 42 P. 275f. 47 P. 279. 43 48 pp. 185-7. P. 89. 44 P. 278. 49 P. 1. 60 45 Ibid. P. 189. 1)EMOCRACY, ORGANIZATION, MICHELS 425 with other workers), Organization forestalls spuriously presupposes a homogeneous "mass." revolution. According to Michels's analysis, the advent of professional leadership coincides with the ad- (6) Advent of diverse interests. Whereas the vent of a heterogeneous rank-and-file. early Socialists allegedly were endowed with a In the third place, the notion that a "con- singular Interest (social-democratic revolu- servative" Interest clashes with the Interest of tion), social differentiation allegedly produced the "mass" arbitrarily presupposes an innova- a conflict of Interests. Especially debilitating tively oriented, revolutionary "mass." Only was the emergence of full-time, professional the proletariat, according to Michels's Marx- leaders endowed with a singular "conserva- ian analysis, is objectively endowed with an tive" Interest which diverges from the Interest unconscious Interest in revolution. But worker- of the "mass." Socialists are not fully proletarianised. And any The party is created as a means to secure an end. other membership would be endowed with an Having, however, become an end in itself, en- 'objective' Interest which is not diametrically dowed with aims and interests of its own, it different from a "conservative" Interest. undergoes detachment, from the teleological In the fourth place, while a given caste of point of view, from the class which its represents. leaders might be endowed with an identical In a party, it is far from obvious that the interests Interest, what is in the interest of one leader of the masses which have combined to form the may contradict what is in the interest of an- party will coincide with the interests of the other. Michels devotes a chapter on "The bureaucracy in which the party becomes personi- Struggle Among the Leaders Themselves," to fied.... By a universally applicable social law, this chronic situation. He indicates that the every organ of the collectivity, brought into ex- policies championed by various leaders will istence through the need for the division of labor, differ because each leader is striving competi- creates for itself, as soon as it becomes consoli- tively to solidify his own position. dated, interests peculiar to itself. The existence of Finally, identity between the Interests of these special interests involves a necessary con- leaders and electors is not self-evidently a flict with the interests of the collectivity. Nay, requisite of democratic representation. If there more, social strata fulfilling peculiar functions is a need which can be expressed in the lan- tend to become isolated, to produce organs fitted guage of Interest, it is the need that the Inter- for the defense of their own peculiar interests. In est of the leader be one which impels him to the long run they tend to undergo transformation conform to the will(s) of his electors. As it into distinct classes.5' happens, the "conservative" Interest ascribed by Michels to professional leaders seems to Michels rests his case for the oligarchical meet this requirement. The professional leader impact of Organization chiefly on the argument is "conservative" in the sense that he craves to that the specialists' Interests clash with those maintain his status. To that end he is likely to of the "mass" and the specialists' powers are conform to the wishes (rather than to the stronger. Thus the advent of "professional 'objective' Interests) of his electors, insofar as leadership" marks the beginning of democ- such behavior is the most efficacious or eco- racy's end. This argument seems inapplicable nomical means of staying in office. to the generality of cases, including the Social- ist cases, for these reasons: (7) Emasculation of unpopular doctrines. While In the first place, with regard to Socialism it the early Socialist program allegedly voiced is necessary to accept uncritically the assump- the true "interests of the workers, "53 many tion that initial class differences did not involve elements of this program proved to be inex- a conflict of Interests. Michels seemingly covers pedient politically. They were inexpedient for this eventuality by depicting the pioneer the game of "modern" party politics, the Socialist intellectuals as "ideologues" who game of "electoral agitation" to secure votes transcended the Interest peculiar to their class and "direct agitation" to secure recruits.54 In status.52 short, they were unpopular. In the second place, the notion of a conflict of Interest between leaders and "mass" 53 The early Socialist platform was "the best one from which to advocate the interests of the 51P. 389. A very similar argument (omitting workers . . . so that the renunciation of this plat- the "teleology" of "class" fidelity), is advanced form almost always involves the loss of oppor- by E. H. Carr in The New Society (1951) and is tunity for defending working-class interests" dissected by Langer, above, note 1, p. 263. (p. 116). 52 P. 280. 64 P. 367. 426 TIlE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW

Socialist and aristocratic party experience creasingly inert as the strength of its organiza- mutually demonstrated that "principles" are tion grows."6' Numerical and financial affluence "often a stumbling block to a party whose main does not breed audacity. It produces a "need desire is to increase its membership; and to dis- for tranquillity."62 Thus "the last link ill the regard principles may bring electoral advan- long chain of phenomena which confer a pro- tage, if at the cost of honor."55 To "avoid foundly conservative character upon the inti- alarming" potential "adherents" and "sympa- mate essence of the political party" is the prob- thizers" who are "still outside the ideal world lem of gaining governmental indulgence.63 of socialism or democracy, the pursuit of a However, Michels acknowledges that the ad- policy based on strict principle is shunned. vent of Socialist legalism was consistent with . . "'56 Similarly, since the aristocrat "recog- widespread popular sentiments. He also ac- nizes" that in this "democratic epoch" he knowledges that the laws which the Socialists "stands alone" with his unpopular "principle," came to obey were the laws of formally demo- he "dissembles his true thoughts, and howls cratic states. with the democratic wolves in order to secure (b) Patriotism. In response to World War I, the coveted majority."57 most of the Socialist leaders in Western Europe The efficient cause of this doctrinal emascu- renounced policies which seemed consistent lation, as of all the other changes besetting the with their avowed principle of "proletarian Socialist movement, is alleged to be Organiza- internationalism." This change allegedly proved tion. With increments of scale and complexity, conclusively that the "oligarchical tendencies" ''every struggle on behalf of ideas within the infesting "modern political parties" impose a limits of the organization is necessarily re- "regressive evolution": the "external form of garded as an obstacle to the realization of its the party, its bureaucratic organization, defi- ends"-the ends, that is, of the bureaucrats, nitely gains the upper hand over its soul, its who yearn for recruits and safety.58 doctrinal and theoretical content." Be that as (8) Renunciation of unpopular policies. Let us it may, Michels readily acknowledges that the examine two examples. leaders who opted for patriotism were con- (a) Legalism. The old Socialist determina- forming to prevailing rank-and-file sentiment. tion "to demolish the existing state" was sup- "Throughout the proletarian mass there has planted "by the new aim, to permeate the state not been reported a single instance of moral with the men and ideas of the party."59 This rebellion" against the patriotic stance.64 change allegedly was realistic, in the sense that (9) Emergence of 'representative' leaders. it marked a response to the fact that "the forces Whereas the ex-bourgeois intellectuals al- of the party, however well-developed, are alto- legedly expressed the Interests of the prole- gether inferior and subordinate to the forces of tarian "mass" without belonging to that the government."60 The realism was prompted, stratum, the second-generation Socialist leaders however, by Organization, which created allegedly conformed more closely to the values thousands of livelihoods which would be and attitudes of their electors. The new leaders jeopardized by governmental suppression. came up from the ranks. Michels emphasizes Socialist experience demonstrates the general the psychological transformation which must and ironic fact that "the party becomes in- accompany a change in status. But his con- of a transformation 5P pp. 398-9. cel)tion psychological per- 56 P. 367. tains to Interests, or underlying motivations, rather than to attitudes and values. As to the 57 P. 6. 58 P. 367. latter, he portrays a close correspondence be- and those of 59 P. 374. tween those of workers ex- 60 P. 394; also pp. 367-74. Michels amended worker-bureaucrats. this assumption in the light of the Bolshevik and The leaders who have themselves been manual Fascist triumphs. He acknowledged the prowess workers . . . are more closely allied with the of elitist-insurrectionary (non-"mass") parties masses in their mode of thought, understand the during crisis periods. He also suggested that workers better, experience the same needs as these parties alone can maintain a moral and these, and are animated by the same desires.... social integrity, since they do not need to emascu- late their doctrines for the sake of pluralistic 61 P. 371. electoral support. R. Michels, "Some Reflections 62 P. 374. on the Sociological Character of Political Par- 63 P. 367. ties," this REVIEW, Vol. 21 (Nov. 1927), p. 3. 84 P. 393-5. DEMOCRACY, ORGANIZATION, MICHELS 427

[They commonly possess] a more precise under- service. The principal "factors which secure standing of the psychology of the masses.... 6t the dominion of minorities over majorities" are "money and its equivalents (economic supe- The ex-proletarian Socialist leaders deviated riority), tradition and hereditary transmission from official or sacred Socialist principles, not (historical superiority)," and "formal instruc- from rank-and-file attitudes and values. The tion . . . (so-called intellectual superiority)."70 typical workman's "ideal" is "to become a Also formidable are "prestige of celebrity," bourgeois"; his attitudes are "opti- petty hypnotic eloquence, catonian self-righteous- mistic," accommodative toward other classes, ness, psycho-economic self-sufficiency, and and "conservative.""6 If the professional "force of will which reduces to obedience less leader "continues to express 'reasonable opin- powerful wills."7' Compared with their pred- ions,' he may be sure of securing the praise of ecessors, the second-generation Socialist his opponents and (in most cases) the admiring leaders were meagerly endowed with these re- gratitude of the crowd."67 sources. They were not suited to become "tem- (10) Advent of 'responsive' leaders. Whereas poral divinities" in the eyes of idolatrous the early Socialist leaders allegedly responded masses.72 Such idolatry, with all the authority to the Interests of a Collectivity, the second- it confers, is not likely to devolve upon "strict generation leaders responded to the manifest and prosaic" bureaucrats.73 will(s) of constituents. Michels castigates such (c) Alert constituents. Michels cites the behavior. The new leaders' "mania for promo- "general immobility and passivity of the tion" found expression in "obsequiousness" masses"l as a major source of "oligarchy in the toward employers, in "a semblance of obedi- democratic parties." In such groups, drawn ence to the masses," and in "demagogy." chiefly from the lower social strata, turnover Demagogues are "courtesans of the popular among members is high and turnout for meet- will. Instead of raising the masses to their own ings is low. The "leaders, when compared with level, they debase themselves to the level of the masses, whose composition varies from the masses."68 Such deplorable responsiveness moment to moment, constitute a more stable exemplified the characteristic Interest of pro- and constant element." The "gregarious idle- fessional leaders (a yearning for status-mainte- ness" of the rank-and-file facilitates "the influ- nance) and the characteristic situation of pro- ence of the leader over the masses" and the fessional leaders, a situation in which deviations leaders' "independence" from the masses.74 from constituents' wishes entail relatively This condition varies among groups not ac- great risks. The situational imperatives in- cording to organizational scale or complexity, clude the following: but according to social composition and con- (a) Financial dependence." When the leaders cern with the affairs of a group. The advent of ... are attached to the party organism as em- professional Socialist leadership coincided with, ployees, their economic interest coincides as a and facilitated, an influx of petty-bourgeois rule with the interests of the party"; the members, an elevation of the socio-economic "practice of paying for . . . services rendered status of worker-Socialists, and an enlargement ... creates a bond"-a control which is not of the personal, tangible significance of Social- available in the case of non-salaried volun- ist affiliations. teers.69 (d) Non-available 'official' resources. The (b) Meager 'personal' resources. The pro- advent of professional leadership coincided fessional leaders were relatively deficient in with the establishment of regular, 'official' those non-technical resources which allegedly treasuries, organs of communication, files, facilitate domination in the absence of tangible agendas, meeting dates, mailing lists, and patronage. Michels discusses with keen insight 65 P. 297. The second-generation Socialist the way such resources may be used by leaders leaders, in addition to being psychologically and to disarm challengers. But he does not indicate sociologically more representative than their that these resources become more formidable, predecessors, also were 'ethnically' more repre- more available, in proportion to the scale or sentative. The early leaders (and many followers) complexity of organization. He does testify were bourgeois, militant, and Jewish. (pp. 258-63, 28, 324, 342) 70 P. 80. 66 Pp. 289, 319, 171. 71 Pp. 71-2. 67 P. 306; emphasis added. 72 P. 67. 68 Pp. 89, 165. 7 P. 301. 69 Pp.389, lI. 74 pp. 400, 50- , 79, 98. 428 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW that "decentralization" of authority occurred, the officials will prove to be technically adept and this presumably involved a dispersal of and responsive. control over the official resources. He also testifies that Organization entails procedural On this subject Michels testifies that formalization; this presumably involves speci- This special competence, this expert knowledge, fication of legitimate uses of official resources. which the leader acquires in matters inaccessible, (e) Individual technical expendability. or almost inaccessible, to the mass, gives him a Michels argues that the "technical indispensa- security of tenure which conflicts with the essen- bility of leadership" proved to be "the prin- tial principles of democracy. cipal cause of oligarchy in the democratic * * * parties."75 This seemingly acknowledges that the leaders ultimately proved durable on ac- The democratic masses are . . . compelled to sub- count of their authentic utility to their fol- mit to a restriction of their own wills when they lowers, rather than their superiority in wealth, are forced to give to their leaders an authority celebrity, oratory and other factors which pro- which is in the long run destructive to the very mote obedience without necessarily rendering principle of democracy. . . . The history of the service. However, MVichels'sconcept of "tech- working-class parties continually furnishes in- nical indispensability" is elusive; it merits an stances in which the leader has been in flagrant extended analysis. contradiction with the fundamental principles of In one sense, the "technical indispensability the movement, but in which the rank and file of leadership" signifies merely that a particular have not [drawn] the logical consequences of this function, leadership, cannot be forsaken.6 conflict, because they feel that they cannot get Since those who perform this function are along without the leader, and cannot dispense likely to enjoy some advantage in one-to-one with the qualities he has acquired in virtue of the contests with challengers (the advantage,. for very position to which they have themselves example, of incumbency), there must be an elevated him, and because they do not see their element of Oligarchy in Organization. But this way to find an adequate substitute. Numerous tells nothing about the relative advantages of are the . . . leaders who are in opposition to the leaders in various organizational and socio- rank and file at once theoretically and practically logical contexts. ... [The rank and file] seldom dare to give [the] In another sense, Michels seemingly is sug- leaders their dismissal.77 gesting that an individual's power (his freedom If indeed the second-generation Socialist of action and security of station) depend ulti- leaders could survive "practical" conflicts mately upon the 'objective' utility of the skills more readily than their predecessors, then one at his disposal. One who is richly endowed with could not conclude that the new leaders were a skill which is rare and prized approaches relatively responsive to the will(s) of their technical indispensability. Such an endowment electors. But Michels does not systematically raises the problem of discretionary action. develop, or sustain, the charge that the new Gratitude for past service and diffidence to- leaders could readily retain office in the face of ward current complexities may impel clients to "practical" conflicts (deviations from the grant their agents a broad range of discretion. policy-directives of their constituents). He Agents thought to possess rare skills may be confines himself almost exclusively to the retained even if they defy their clients' policy charge that the new leaders persistently, and directives, on the expectation that in future securely, retained office in spite of "theoretical" conflicts (deviations from the policies 'de- manded' bv Socialist doctrine). P5 400. P. That "practical" conflicts actually dwindled 76 "The mass per se is amorphous, and therefore in the course of Socialist development seems division of and needs labor, specialization, guid- evidenced by the nature of the changes in ance." This "incompetence" is "incurable." (p. Socialist policies and by the growth of Socialist 404). Sartori observes that what is rendered as membership. The new leaders did the popular, "leadership" in the English translation of Political rather than the theoretically 'correct,' thing. Parties appears as Ffihrerstum and as sisterma di That "practical" conflicts 7ecessarilly dwin- capi in the German and Italian editions. The dled in the course of Socialist development-- latter terms allegedly connote "rulership," or dwindled in consequence of Organization- "headship" or some sort of arrangement more sinister than what is conveyed by "leadership." Sartori, above, note 1, p. 110. 77 Pp. 83-83, 86. DEMOCRACY, ORGANIZATION, MICHELS 429 seems likely in view of all the considerations SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION advanced earlier in this article and in view of Contrary to prevailing belief, then, Robert two more considerations. NMichelsactually provided a favorable account First, Socialist Organization facilitated, and of the compatibility of Organization and was accompanied by, material affluence. To democracy. While maintaining that Organiza- that extent, the Socialist partisans acquired tion is incompatible with pure democracy, and more resources with which they could search that increments of Organization produce for agents who were technically qualified and counter-democratic changes in associations psychologically disposed to be responsive. which initially are pure democracies, he also Second, Socialist Organization involved task- suggested (in the case of European Socialism specialization, and task-specialization often and in broader theoretical terms), that Or- involves task-simplification. "It must not be ganization can and frequently does accompany supposed that the technical competence of the and facilitate a multitude of changes which leaders is necessarily profound.... "78 More- constitute or facilitate democratization. over, the "epoch" of Organization also is a time Among the conditions he linked to Organiza- when "science puts at every one's disposal" tion are augmented formal rights and privileges, such "efficient means of instruction" that a general increase in social wealth, more "even the youngest may speedily become thor- prosperity and security and leisure and educa- oughly well-instructed." Thus there is "less tion and sophistication among the lower social need for accumulated personal experience of strata, increased horizontal but not vertical life.... Today everything is quickly acquired, social differentiation, enhanced opportunities even that experience in which formerly con- for talented individuals to ascend socially, and sisted the sole and genuine superiority of the the advent within public and private associa- old over the young."79 To that extent, the tions of leaders who are conspicuously qualified supply of qualified technicians grows more technically, disposed socio-psychologically, and abundant as organization develops. Conse- obliged circumstantially to conform to the quently, the risks involved in defying an em- policy-preferences of their electors. ployer's policy-directives become more sub- Far from being a pessimistic democrat, stantial. Michels was a pessimistic Romantic Revolu- On this showing-on Michels's showing- tionist and a pessimistic Scientific Paternalist. political survival in large-scale, complex or- He denounced Organization for promoting the ganizations would seem to require that officials amelioration instead of the radical purification gratify the wishes of those they are hired to of society. He detested Organization for pro- serve, regardless of the Interests of the latter. moting the manifest wishes rather than the The result may be denounced as "obsequious- 'objective' Interests of the "masses." ness" and as infidelity to popular interests, or Michels's solicitude for the welfare of the it may be described as democratization. "masses" evidently was linked with a profound disdain for the judgment of the "masses." In the light of his values and his beliefs, it seems understandable that Michels accommodated 79 P. 7 himself to Fascism.