The Elite Theory and the Marxist Theory Compared

Michels states the conclusion in the sharpest possible form, and it is aimed directly at Marxism: the socialists might conquer, but not socialism, which would perish at the moment of its adherents' triumph. That single sentence is the elite theory's whole objection to Marxism, and an answer that quotes it has done the comparison.

3. What the state is

Marxists: an instrument. It exists to hold one class down, and its personnel, its law and its ideology follow from that function.

Elite theorists: a prize and an apparatus. Whoever occupies the state's commanding positions exercises its power, and the state does not have a class function separate from the interests of those who staff it. For Mills the state is one of three hierarchies, and not always the most important.

The historical test each has had

The Marxist prediction was that transferring ownership of the means of production to society would abolish class rule and let the state die out.

The elite prediction was that it would not, because organisation and administration would still be in a few hands, and those hands would acquire interests of their own.

The twentieth century ran the experiment. In the states that abolished private ownership of production, the state did not wither; it grew, and power concentrated further, in a party apparatus that no election could displace. On this the elite theorists were, on the record, right, and an honest answer says so.

But the elite theory has also been tested, and the result is less comfortable for it than its supporters admit. Michels's thesis was that internal democracy inside a mass organisation is impossible. Where organisations have adopted term limits, contested internal elections, external audit, transparency rules and judicially enforceable member rights, the leadership's power has been reduced, not abolished but reduced. That is not the abolition of oligarchy, but it is evidence that "iron" was too strong a word.

The Indian test

India is a good case for the comparison because both theories can be applied to it and neither fits comfortably.

For the Marxist reading. Ownership of land and industry is highly concentrated, corporate influence on economic policy is substantial, and the law of property, contract and labour operates within limits owners can live with.

For the elite reading. The composition of legislatures, senior services and higher courts is drawn narrowly, political families are prominent in most parties, and party organisations are run by small groups whose internal elections are rare, which is Michels confirmed almost exactly.

Against both. Neither theory predicts caste. India's most consequential political cleavage for several decades has not been ownership, which is Marx's variable, nor organisational capacity, which is Michels's, but a status hierarchy neither of them modelled. And the entry of previously excluded groups into State governments and into local office since the 1990s is a large change that Marxism cannot explain, because ownership did not change, and that elite theory can only call circulation, which is true but tells us nothing about why the circulation took the direction it did.

That paragraph is the mark of a good answer: it does not choose between the two theories, it shows what each cannot see.

A worked example

A large private hospital chain is exempted from a rule capping the price of certain procedures.

The elite theorist's account. The exemption was settled among a small number of people who know each other: the health secretary, two ministers, the chain's managing director and the chairman of the association that speaks for private hospitals. They went to the same institutions and move between the same posts. Nobody was bribed and nothing was concealed. The few decided because the few can act and the many cannot, and if this government fell tomorrow the successor's health secretary would be drawn from the same pool.

The Marxist's account. Ask instead who owns the hospitals, who owns the labour of those who work in them, and where the surplus goes. The exemption is what a state that manages the common affairs of the owning class does: it protects the conditions in which private capital will continue to invest in health care, and it will do so whichever individuals hold office. The Marxist adds a prediction the elite theorist cannot make, that the exemption will be shaped so as to preserve the industry rather than any one firm, and that a firm which threatened the arrangement would be sacrificed.

What separates the two accounts. Replace all eight people with eight others of entirely different social background. The elite theorist says the exemption may well go the other way, because it depended on who those particular people were. The Marxist says it will not, because the structural position of private capital has not changed. That is a real, testable difference, and it is the whole of the disagreement.

The distinctions table

What this comparison is NOT

It is not a choice between two errors. Each is strong exactly where the other is weak, and the standard modern position takes something from both: power is concentrated for structural reasons, ownership is one of the most important of them, and the concentration can be reduced by institutions even though it cannot be abolished.

Elite theory is not conservative by definition. Mills used it to attack the American establishment, not to defend it.

Marxism is not a theory that ignores organisation. Lenin's entire contribution was about organisation, and Michels would say Lenin proved his point rather than answered it.

Neither theory says democracy is worthless. They say it does not do what its official description claims. What follows from that is a further argument, and it is the argument of Module IV.

Quick revision

1. Agree: power is concentrated; democratic forms conceal it; rulers justify themselves with an idea; the visible decision is not where to look.
2. Disagree on the definition of the minority: ownership against organisation and position.
3. Disagree on inevitability: Marx says class rule ends, the elite theorists say it never does.
4. Disagree on the state: an instrument against a prize.
5. Michels's line at Marxism: the socialists might conquer, but not socialism.
6. The historical record favours the elite theorists on the withering away of the state, and shows that "iron" overstated the case where organisations have been made accountable.
7. In India neither predicts caste, and neither explains the change in the composition of power since the 1990s.

Test yourself

1. On what do the elite theory and the Marxist theory agree? That political power is concentrated in a small minority and that pluralism's picture of many groups bargaining on a level field is false; that democratic forms conceal rather than describe where power lies; that rulers maintain a justifying idea, which Mosca calls the political formula and Marx calls the ruling ideas of the age; and that the visible decision is not where power is to be studied.

2. What is the fundamental disagreement between them? What defines the ruling minority, and therefore whether minority rule can end. Marxists define it by ownership of the means of production, which is historically specific, so changing ownership changes the ruling class and eventually abolishes class rule. Elite theorists define it by organisation, capacity and institutional position, which are permanent features of social life, so no change of ownership can abolish the elite; it can only change who belongs to it.

3. How does Michels's conclusion bear directly on Marxism? Michels studied the German Social Democratic Party, the organisation most committed to internal democracy, and found it run by its officials. If oligarchy appears there, it is a property of organisation as such, and any movement organised to end class rule must itself become an oligarchy. He states the consequence in the sharpest form: the socialists might conquer, but not socialism, which would perish at the moment of its adherents' triumph.

4. Which theory does the historical record support? On one decisive point, the elite theorists. Where private ownership of the means of production was abolished, the state did not wither away as Engels predicted; it grew, and power concentrated in a party apparatus no election could displace, which is exactly Michels's prediction. But the record is not one-sided: where organisations have adopted term limits, contested internal elections, audit and enforceable member rights, leadership power has measurably fallen, which shows that "iron" was too strong a word for the law.

5. Apply both theories to India and say what each fails to explain. The Marxist reading is supported by concentrated ownership of land and industry and by the limits within which labour and property law operate. The elite reading is supported by the narrow social composition of legislatures, senior services and courts, by political families, and by party organisations run without internal elections. Neither predicts caste, which has been India's most consequential cleavage for decades and is a status hierarchy rather than a relation to production or a difference of organisational capacity. And neither explains the entry of previously excluded groups into State and local office since the 1990s, since ownership did not change and calling it circulation of elites does not say why the circulation went the way it did.