Extract
[...] Starting from the causes, he arrives at the remedies, to finally conclude with a synthesis of the reflection and his thought, as can also be found in other works.1. Michels It is therefore dependent on a way of thinking scientifically, not recognized today as valid, but which was perfectly common and accepted at the time. Similarly, from other angles of view, Michels seems to be more resistant to the intellectual aspects of his time, such as, for example, regarding the equivalence between categorization and hierarchization.2, However, he keeps a political perspective without losing sight of his political opponents who are anti-Semitism and nationalism. [...]
[...] I am indeed more able, thanks to this reading, to position myself on these questions and to create a personal opinion. In addition, through this critical reading, although pessimistic, I was able to reflect on a comparison with current events, and, in particular, with the current political system, with the characteristic multipartism of most European societies. It was probably the author's intention to show a vivisection that allows us to highlight the reality of power in political parties and, as a result, to emphasize the flaws of a system considered by many as the only regime that guarantees individual and collective rights of citizens. [...]
[...] They fight authority as the source, if not of all the evils of the world, at least of all servitude or slavery». This summary of the book reflects the personal understanding of the subject matter. This leads us to the second part, or rather the second question: 'How can I consider and judge this work, what is my opinion?' The reading of Michels' work was not difficult. In fact, the 2009 edition allows you to read the work of one of the founders of the theory of elites as a clear and easily accessible working material, thus allowing you to easily discover the author's analysis in all its complexity. [...]
[...] The fact of oscillating between denouncing the oligarchic system of parties and describing the tendency to oligarchy of parties generates oscillations and doubts, without offering a perfectly intelligible reading key. It is quite evident that the author is torn between two different tendencies to generalize on the one hand and to singularize on the other hand, between a work of political combat and scientific analysis. It is therefore difficult to understand the extent of his thought, especially due to the argumentative aspects of the work, which are rich but sometimes lack the required rigor for a scientific work. [...]
[...] This work led me to question three questions: 'What are the causes that, according to Michels, lead all political parties to move away from their democratic base?', 'How can I consider and judge this work, what is my opinion?', and 'What has this book brought First of all, Michels tackles the theory of political parties and their origin, which he considers to be miniature states. Political parties are essential and a democratic society cannot do without them, because the mass of citizens cannot govern alone and directly. [...]
