Pareto's Theory on Cycles of Elite Succession

Discussion

H. Stuart Hughes:

"With Pareto as with Freud, the implications of the theory of human motivation were what most of us would call pessimistic. In Pareto’s view, man’s political nature was unalterable. Despite revolutions and the reforming activity of demagogues, the lot of the masses remained as it was before. No regime could properly be described as popular. In fact, the whole notion of “the people” was simply another creation of sentimental ideologists. The mass of mankind could not conceivably govern itself; it was incapable even of understanding its own interests. Whatever the slogans under which a particular regime operated, each one was a more or less disguised form of class rule. Political history, then, could be redefined as the history of elites and the vicissitudes they encountered in trying to cling to power.

Hence Pareto also came out eventually with a theory of cycles. These cycles were formed by the ups and downs, by the alternations, of ruling elites. However much such elites might try, they never succeeded permanently in maintaining themselves in authority. The strong, proud men who had seized power in a society would do their best to adjust to circumstances by develop¬ ing the qualities of guile and pliability and by admitting to their ranks qualified and ambitious individuals from the masses. But eventually the sentiments of solidarity, the “ideals” to which they had originally owed their strength, would become diluted, and they would lose their self-confidence as rulers. A new elite possessing the required virtues of ruthlessness and loyalty would overwhelm them. The cycle would return to its beginnings. Such a theory of political and social behavior was obviously conservative in its implications. It taught the masses to despair of change, and the ruling classes to show resolution in maintaining their authority. It gave to the conservatives of Europe — who had been thoroughly beaten in the ideological battles of the nineteenth century — the theoretical basis for a most surprising revival. After a century and a half of intellectualizing about politics, Pareto’s harsh realism represented a return to the wisdom of a Thucydides or a Machiavelli."

Source: H. STUART HUGHES. Oswald Spengler. A CRITICAL ESTIMATE. Scribner's 1952, p. 24. See: A Critical Estimate of Oswald Spengler.

Foxes and Lions

N.S. Lyons:

"Details on the 'foxes' vs 'lions':

"Niccolò Machiavelli. He identified two archetypical psychological profiles of people who become leaders: the cunning but weak fox, who can outmanoeuvre his opponents but is “defenceless against wolves”; and the strong and brave lion, who likes to fight and can scare off wolves, but who is “defenceless against traps”. Machiavelli argued that a true statesman must embody both personalities, or risk destruction.

A distant student of Machiavelli, fellow Italian political theorist Vilfredo Pareto, would later expand the metaphor further. Observing history, he noted that the rise and fall of states and civilisations could be matched to a cyclical pattern in the collective personality of their ruling classes.

Nations are founded by lions, who are a society’s natural warrior class — its jocks, so to speak. They establish and expand a kingdom’s borders at the point of a sword, pacifying external enemies. Like Sparta’s Lycurgus or Rome’s Augustus, their firm hand often also puts an end to internal strife and establishes (or re-establishes) the rule of law. Their authority can be dictatorial, but it is relatively honest and straightforward in nature. They value directness and the clarity of combat. They are comfortable with the use of raw force, and open about their willingness to use it, whether against criminals or enemies. They have a firm sense of the distinction between enemies and friends in general — of who is part of the family and who is a prowling wolf to be guarded against. The security and stability they establish is what allows the nation to grow into prosperity.

Security and prosperity produce a proliferation of foxes. Foxes are unsuited to and deeply uncomfortable with the employment of force; they prefer intellectual and rhetorical combat, because they’re nerds. They will use physical force if necessary, but prefer to disguise its nature and are prone to use it ineptly. The brainy and cosmopolitan foxes have talents the lions don’t, however: they are good at managing complexity and scale, navigating the nuances of diplomatic alliances, or extracting profits from an extensive empire.

As long as peace prevails, civilisations come increasingly to morally prize the indirect and diplomatic methods of foxes and to avoid and indeed abhor the strength and violence of lions. As states grow larger and more complex, establishing new layers of bureaucracy, law and procedure, this quickly favours the Byzantine organising and scheming of foxes. In comparison, lions are inarticulate and unprepared for the traps of more underhanded mammals. So eventually, a wholesale replacement of the elite occurs: the lions who founded the nation are pushed out of its leadership, marginalised and excluded by a class of foxes who see them as brutish relics of a barbaric age.

But a curious thing then happens, Pareto observed: the instability of societies overly dominated by foxes begins to increase relentlessly. The foxes, reluctant to properly distinguish and identify real threats or to openly employ force even when necessary, find themselves defenceless against wolves both internal and external. When faced with escalating challenges, the foxes tend to resort to doubling down on their preferred strategy of misdirection and manipulation, and attempt to bury or buy off threats rather than confronting them directly. This does nothing to solve problems that require the firm use of force, or the threat of it, such as keeping packs of wolves on the other side of the borders. Eventually, when things get bad enough, foxes may desperately lash out with violence, but do so indecisively, ham-fistedly, or in entirely the wrong direction. The wolves, for their part, can instinctively smell weakness and just keep coming."

(https://unherd.com/2024/08/the-machiavellian-cause-of-britains-disorder/)

Pareto in today's Culture War

Auron Macintyre

"In “The Mind and Society,” Pareto explained that every civilization has a ruling class, which can generally be divided into two groups. The first, type one residues or foxes, manipulates information and adapts quickly to shifting social dynamics. The second, type two residues or lions, is patriotic, courageous, and committed to preserving identity and tradition. Lions excel in physical defense and thrive in times when societies must carve out territory, settle new lands, or defend borders from external threats.

Lions typically rule through hierarchical structures and strategic applications of force, maintaining stability through a sense of duty and order. In contrast, foxes rely on deception and social engineering to achieve their ends. When either group dominates for too long without the other’s influence, societies risk stagnation, corruption, or collapse.

Foxes are intelligent and adaptable, skilled at manipulating ideas and combining concepts. They are not bound by tradition, which allows them to envision and implement radical changes. As societies grow more complex, they often turn to foxes, as the challenges faced by elites in advanced civilizations require abstract thinking and innovation. Foxes typically rule through soft power, using information control and bureaucratic systems to shape society.

Pareto argued that functional societies must maintain a balance between these two elite types. When a country overwhelmingly favors one over the other, it eventually declines. For decades, Western nations have prioritized foxes while marginalizing lions in elite institutions. Patriotic, strong, and tradition-oriented individuals have been pushed aside, while cunning and manipulative figures have been elevated.

This imbalance has led to an elite class that excludes many of its most capable potential leaders while embracing mediocrity or even corruption — simply because those in power share a similar mindset.

Foxes rule through manipulation and soft power, relying on information control and propaganda. Their preferred tactics involve getting political opponents fired, freezing their bank accounts, or using public shaming rather than resorting to direct force. News media, entertainment, and academia serve as their primary tools, while public humiliation remains their most effective weapon.

By carefully adjusting algorithmic information delivery and forging partnerships between corporations and intelligence agencies, fox-style elites can censor dissent without technically violating civil rights protected by Western constitutions.

Soft power allows elites to establish totalitarian practices without provoking the direct resistance that comes with brute force. But it depends on the credibility and prestige of the institutions enforcing it. People comply with these institutions because defying them can mean social and professional ruin — losing jobs, friendships, and status in polite society. To maintain control, foxes rely on institutions that command respect and influence.

These institutions can manipulate narratives and even push absurd claims occasionally, but overreach threatens their credibility. This became most evident during the pandemic lockdowns, when scientific, medical, and government authorities were caught lying so frequently that much of the public stopped trusting them. At a certain point, the cost of compliance with these institutions' demands outweighed the social penalties of defiance. Faced with growing dissent, the foxes began to panic.

As their grip on power weakened, the foxes turned to new tactics to reassert control. First came the violence of Black Lives Matter and Antifa, groups that effectively served as the Democratic Party’s paramilitary arms. This mob violence, cloaked in plausible deniability, aimed to intimidate those who had abandoned institutional authority back into compliance. Once the election was secured, Democrats shifted to more overt hard-power tactics, deploying the FBI to monitor church services and intimidate parents at school board meetings. Fearful of losing control, the fox-style elite attempted to rule like lions."

(https://auronmacintyre.substack.com/p/the-progressive-elites-downfall-foxes)