Philosophy Exam Mosca: We Hear Term Paper

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."

However, today, free enterprise reigns supreme in modern democracy and capitalism. The freedoms of speech, thought and conscience are subjugated today to the right to make a living. Those traditional first amendment freedoms do still exist, but they are constantly precluded for the "benefit" of man's comforts. Take the Patriot Act, for instance. Suddenly, our very basic freedoms are being eroded for the protection of our society and the advancement of economic freedoms and benefits.

Marcusa truly believes that the nature of democracy has changed from a theoretical basis to a practical basis. It is no longer important what democracy stands for; it is important only that democracy - through capitalism - leads us to wealth.

Wolfe agrees that there has been a marked shift in the foci of democracy, but he does not believe that the traditional freedoms democracy was meant to protect are completely eroded.

In fact, he believes that the capitalistic tendencies of modern democracies exist side-by-side with the traditional freedoms. The Patriot Act, for Wolfe, would be a simple agreement that in order to save our traditional freedoms, some practical concessions must be made; the freedoms are not being eroded at all for the right to make a profit.

Essentially, both Marcusa and Wolfe agree that times have changed democracy, but they do not agree on the level to which the changes have occurred.

Marcusa is much more doomsday in his new left assessment of our democratic situation now, and Wolfe is much more giving.