Philosophy concepts and applications

Philosophy Exam

Mosca: We hear so much about equal opportunity, but what, truly, is it? I believe that equal opportunity exists in a system wherein the ruling minority must answer, at least to a certain degree, to the non-ruling classes.

I have written extensively about the ability of minority ruling classes to govern the majority: "In all societies - from societies that are very meagerly developed and have barely attained the dawnings of civilization, down to the most advanced and powerful societies - two classes of people appear - a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class, always the less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolizes power, and enjoys the advantages that power brings, whereas the second, the more numerous class, is directed and controlled by the first, in a manner that is now more or less legal, now more or less arbitrary and violent, and supplies the first, in appearance at least, with material means of subsistence and with the instrumentalities that are essential to the vitality of the political organism."

Here, I hint at my views on equal opportunity. The majority, or politically oppressed classes, do indeed succumb to the wishes of the majority, but they do also have the power to overthrow the majority. This means that they - the society at large -- have the equal opportunity to prove unequal talents. Certain rulers are not rulers forever unless they are accorded permission by the ruled classes. Of course, it is very hard for the ruled classes to wrest power from the ruling classes, but a substantial and concerted effort makes it possible, and therein lies equality.

In no society are the ruling classes and ruled classes easily interchangeable. But when there is equal opportunity, change is at least possible, albeit extremely difficult.

Michels: I do not at all agree with Mosca. Equal opportunity is presented not as the equal ability to prove unequal talents, but as the right and ability to organize: "A class which unfurls in the face of society the banner of certain definite claims, and which aspires to be the realization of a complex of ideal aims deriving from the economic functions which that class fulfills, needs an organization. Be the claims economic or be they political, organization appears the only means for the creation of a collective will. Organization, based as it is upon the principle of last effort, that is to say, upon the greatest possible economy of energy, is the weapon of the weak in their struggle with the strong."

My point here is that equality comes through organization. Equality comes through the ability to create a group that can challenge the ruling classes. Unlike Mosca, I do not believe that the same classes exist throughout history. Any group of people who organize have the ability to prove equality.

Barber: Equality is economic equality, and Mosca and Michels are wrong. Organization comes only through the ability of the ruled classes to consume, and attain the socio-economic status of the ruling classes. That is the importance of the American system proliferated throughout the world.

Regardless of the prevalence and the fervent beliefs abroad in different ways of thought and religion, the American consumerism presents a challenge. In effect, American consumerism presents a conflict between the "old" way of dealing with ruling and ruled classes and the realization that consumerism is the force that brings the two groups together.

Consumerism is a force even greater than the ability of the majority to rise up against the ruling minority. Consumerism is the great equalizer, the force that refuses to allow the permanent superiority of one class over another.

Both Michels and Mosca would agree with Kant's statement. Mosca would attest to the fact that the ruling minority does not really care for or want the ruled majority around, but they must have them for materialistic needs. Without the ruled majority, the ruling minority will not have the goods, services and even basic needs necessary to maintain their class structure.

In fact, we see that the ruling minority calls upon the ruled majority even for the power to defend itself against the ruled majority, since the ruled majority constitutes the armies of the ruling minority.

Mosca writes: "But the man who is at the head of the state would certainly not be able to govern without the support of a numerous class to enforce respect for his orders and have them carried out; and granting that he can make one individual, or indeed many individuals, in the ruling class feel the weight of his power, he certainly cannot be at odds with the class as a whole or do away with it. Even if that were possible, he would at once be forced to create another class, without the support of which action on his part would be completely paralyzed."

Here, Mosca establishes that the ruler has no love for the teeming masses, but simply needs them to enforce his rule. He would need to create a class to enforce his rule if one did not exist. But other than the ability to enforce his rule, he has no need for the ruled majority.

Michels would agree. Organization is key for Michels, and without the organization of the masses, nothing would actually get done. Of course, it is the rulers job to see to the organization structure, but without the ruled majority's support, the ruling class is up a creek without the proverbial paddle.

Take Michels' words, for instance: "We live in a time in which the idea of cooperation has become so firmly established that even millionaires perceive the necessity of common action. It is easy to understand, then, that organization has become a vital principle in the working class, for in default of it, their success is a priori impossible."

Michels intimates here that even the success of the rulers depends on this same organization and cooperation.

Murcusa's new left acknowledges a paradigm shift in recent years in which the concept of democracy and capitalism has changed entirely. "The rights and liberties which were such vital factors in the origins and earlier stages of industrial society yield to a higher stage of this society: they are losing their traditional rationale and content. Freedom of thought, speech and conscience were - just as free enterprise which they served to promote and protect - essentially critical ideas, designed to replace an obsolescent material and intellectual culture by a more productive and rational one."