4. The Question of Democracy for the Italian Marginalists (1882–1924)

On the idea that the Italian marginalists constitute a specific cultural tradition, see Mosca (2018).

References to Machiavelli are explicit, for instance, in Pareto who, as we see, frequently refers to the Machiavellian figures of the fox and the lion.

This applies to all of them, but especially to the Italian school of Public Finance, of which De Viti de Marco was the founder. See Giuranno and Mosca (2018).

He would later say that nothing was further from his mind than the desire to get into politics because “whoever is a liberal must now necessarily stay out of active politics” (Letter from Pareto to Pantaleoni of 11 February 1898, Pareto 1960, vol. II, p. 171). Pareto often repeated that he wanted to stay au dessus de la mêlée. The translations of quotations are ours, except where indicated otherwise.

Letter from Pantaleoni to Loria of 11 April 1890, in Fiorot (1976, p. 481).

The following quote sums up his position very well: “There is not any general principle that says when it is appropriate for the state to intervene and when it is not: both the Spencerian thesis and that of the socialists are aprioristic” ([1911–12] 1937, p. 7). Barone also writes: “the limit of the functions that one must and can assign to the state is a question of opportunity […]. It is not a question that can be solved with a priori criteria” (Barone [1914–15] 2002, p. 141). Similar statements are also found in Barone ([1911–12] 1937, p. 119).

Without referring to the word “class”, the phenomenon had already been pointed out by H.S. Maine in essays published from 1882 onwards in the Quarterly Review and collected in 1885 in Popular Government (Maine 1886), where the author clearly refers to the circulation of elites, which he calls aristocracies.

The idea that political power was by its nature elitist was also shared by eminent exponents of the left like Antonio Gramsci and Piero Gobetti, who linked the revolutionary perspectives to the formation of workers’ aristocracies.

In 1892, Pantaleoni referred to Sidgwick’s idea of the collective hedonistic maximum, then, in 1897, he regarded the question of the general interest as questionable, while, in 1907, he stated that the concept had still not been clarified by economic theory. He complained about the absence of theoretical tools to calculate it, and later he concluded that only history could reveal a country’s true interests ([1916b] 1917, p. 197).

Pareto (1960, vol. I, pp. 99–100, Letter to Pantaleoni of 6th December 1891).

Up until The Mind and Society. A Treatise on General Sociology (1916), the elite and aristocracy were synonymous for Pareto. See Barbieri (2003, p. 55).

For instance, when he mentions “the movement which enables part of the working class to earn high wages; which group therefore constitutes a first nucleus of the new elite” (Pareto [1900] 1991, p. 74). The theory of the circulation of the elites was then developed in Pareto (1902–03) and finally in Pareto (1916).

Although usually with the specialization of one component (made up of politicians and/or the military) focused mainly on power and of another (made up of businessmen) focused above all on wealth.

If one compares the dichotomy of ruling class and ruled classes, based on power and the ability to use it, with the Marxian one of proletarians and capitalists, based on the control of the means of production, it must be acknowledged that the first has decidedly more power to explain political phenomena than the second. Buchanan (1960) too pointed out that the conception of the state according to the theory of the ruling class is broader than that of Marx.

Pareto calls “residues” all the permanent drives of human action.

The notion of plutocracy, and more specifically that of demagogic plutocracy, refers to the combination of wealth and power, represented, respectively, by speculators and demagogic politicians and to their interaction, that is, the use of wealth to acquire power and power to acquire wealth.

For a reconstruction of these aspects of Pareto’s thought, see Somaini (2017).

Cardini (1985, p. 366) recalls the friendship between Mosca and De Viti, as well as their affinity.

De Viti looks upon income level as a plausible proxy of the extent to which individuals utilize public goods.

On these dynamics, see Michelini (2007, pp. 404–405).

Pantaleoni’s writings provide what could be called a scathing version of political economics. In his words: “the distribution of sovereignty among all citizens via universal suffrage, pulverizes this sovereignty into such small quotas that they end up by not having any value at all, even in the eyes of the innumerable little sovereigns themselves. This can be seen through the fact that they abstain from taking part in the elections, unless induced to either by money distributed by the candidates, by the parties or by the government itself transformed for the occasion into a party, or by sporadic attacks of political or religious fervour, or by iron discipline and organization, in other words by serious damage inflicted on them by party leaders” (Pantaleoni 1918, p. 160).

According to Pareto (1916), the strength of myths was due to the fact that individuals tended to rationalize their behaviour and motivations using constructions that were seemingly logical but actually arbitrary and based on mere abstractions and common beliefs, which he called “derivations”.

Or also only for the formation, within and around it, of the core of a ruling class. He wrote: “It is an illusion to believe that it is the people who stand at the head of the dominant class today. Those who stand there – and this is a very different matter – are part of a new and future elite which leans upon the people. Already there are some slight signs of contrast between the new elite and the rest of the people” (Pareto [1900] 1991, p. 72).

During the Great War, De Viti credited Wilson’s America with the actual achievement of this democratic ideal (see Martelloni and Mosca 2018).

As an agricultural entrepreneur, he was an opponent of the kind of protectionism demanded by a large section of the industrialists of the north and continued to hope in a stable alliance between the farmers of the south and at least a part of the working class of the north.

This aspect of Pantaleoni’s thought has been explored in detail in Mosca (2015).

This approach also reflects the influence of H.S. Maine, in particular, of his fundamental work Ancient Law (1861), which Pantaleoni had discussed early on.

This vision of government of Pantaleoni’s was highlighted by Sraffa (1924, p. 650).

Pantaleoni writes: “When there is a vertical division of the parties, the government party includes a considerable part of every social class, and every sector of the population has direct participation in government. By contrast, if the division is horizontal, the party is essentially made up of one class and the others do not take part in governing” (1918, p. 161).

The piece opens with the statement that “the following is like an index of propositions deduced from historical experience, and of possible applications to present-day cases. The model is The Prince by Machiavelli” (1923, p. 795).

Barone writes, “the individuals brought to power [do not become] more enlightened than they were before, only because they exercise power” (Barone [1914–15] 2002, p. 139).

See also Gentilucci (2002, p. 50, fn. 2) and Michelini (2005, pp. 772–773).

A similar contrast between the state “of conquerors” and the “modern state” is found in Pantaleoni ([1908] 1925, p. 364).

As said, Italy passed from the majoritarian to the proportional system in 1919.

On 31 December 1891, Pareto wrote to the socialist MP Napoleone Colajanni: “it seems to me that a stretch of road should be travelled together by socialists and economists, to oppose the bad arts of those who govern us” (Pareto 1973, p. 175). It should be remembered that the authors we are examining did not believe that Marxism, especially in its Leninist version, was the only authentic expression of socialism but rather one lacking in ethical appeal.

Pantaleoni ([1900] 2001, p. 359). Considering the Socialist Party as a particular case of league or union is a parody and does not imply a condemnation of the actions of socialist trade unions. Pantaleoni, like the others, in fact, was in favour of trade unions.

Pareto ([1900] 1991, p. 36) wrote: “Professor Pantaleoni, in a recent treatise denies that socialism will win; I have maintained that this victory is most probable and almost inevitable”. See Pantaleoni (1900).

Busino ([1979] 1980, p. 348) rightly thinks Pareto highlighted “the logical inconsistency of all the socialist doctrines and at the same time their extraordinary success, being catalysts of passions, instinct, feelings, will-power”.

Barone argued that “having to proceed by trial and error and experiments […] the collectivist ministry of production could not in any way avoid for higher cost firms […] those destructions that one thinks are an exclusive effect of the present economic regime” (Barone [1908a ed. 1909] 1936, p. 645). Michelini (2005) has gone very thoroughly into this subject.

It is worth noticing that Mussolini calls this speech “reactionary”, “anti-democratic”, and “anti-socialist”, while Pantaleoni sees in it the core of what he considered to be authentic democracy. Pantaleoni ([1921] 1922, p. 212) summed up his model in the following passage: “The functions of the state should be reduced to those that create the general conditions for the carrying out of individual activities in economic life … the state should not give privileges to any class, and hence subjugation to others; it should not be the industrialist, the farmer, the trader, the mariner, the railway-man, the banker, the co-operator, the journalist, the monopolist and censor of thought through the postal service, the school, the maintainer of do-nothings with unemployment pay paid for by those who work, the monopolist of migration flows, nor should it provide profits for some and losses for others through protectionism and through state procurements awarded to the most costly producer for him to employ the least efficient workers. Only in this way will the bureaucracy be reduced. Only in this way will the state avoid bankruptcy. Only in this way will there be economic and intellectual development. Only in this way will there be equality before the law for citizens. It should guarantee safety and security to people and their property. It should provide rapid justice. It should guarantee security of contract and not provide examples of dishonesty”.

This government was a coalition of liberals, Catholics, and members of the Fascist Party.

For a contemporary comment on Pantaleoni’s positions in these years, see Dalton (1923).

There is a historiographical debate concerning Pareto’s support to the fascist regime. We think that Pareto was a fascist, but, as said, his support was directed only to the initial stage of fascism, as he died in 1923.

In 1931 De Viti de Marco applied for retirement so as not to have to swear the oath of allegiance to the fascist regime imposed on university professors.

Pantaleoni (1918, p. 161). This text, occasional and not scientific, but crammed with theoretical content, was published in March 1918 in La Vita Italiana, the review of militant nationalism destined to merge with fascism. In this text, Pantaleoni’s anti-socialism is clearly outlined, as well as his persisting liberalism and a great open-mindedness, shown in his scrupulously demonstrating the conditions where the validity of his these would not apply, or at any rate be open to question. On Pantaleoni’s liberalism, see also Ricossa (1976).

The Anglo-Saxon source of De Viti de Marco’s liberalism is dealt with in Martelloni and Mosca (2018).

“There are great currents of feeling that never disappear … such as the current of faith and that of scepticism, of materialism or idealism, of positive religions and free thought. He who thinks they can be suppressed is deceiving himself” (1923, p. 799).

Unlike Pantaleoni, Pareto had really turned his back on the free market. In a letter of 1 October 1921, he wrote, “Allow me to laugh, thinking of our campaigns for free trade, economic freedom, and so many other wonderful things. Aren’t you content with the disillusionments?” (Pareto 1960, vol. III, p. 293).