The elite theories of Gaetano Mosca, Robert Michels, and Vilfredo Pareto emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a critique of democratic ideals, arguing that all societies, regardless of their political structure, are ultimately governed by a minority elite. While sharing a fundamental premise, their approaches and specific arguments presented distinct perspectives.

Similarities:

1. Inevitability of Elite Rule: All three theorists fundamentally agree that power is always concentrated in the hands of a minority, and true democracy, where the majority rules, is an illusion. They posit that this elite rule is an inherent and unavoidable feature of any complex society or organization.
2. Rejection of Popular Sovereignty: They challenge the notion of popular sovereignty and the capacity of the masses to govern themselves effectively. For them, the masses are largely passive, unorganized, and incapable of sustained political action.
3. Critique of Democracy: Their theories serve as a strong critique of democratic theory, suggesting that what appears to be democracy is merely a facade behind which an elite operates.
4. Power Concentration: They all observe and explain the tendency for power to centralize and consolidate within a small group, regardless of the formal political system.

Differences:

1. Nature of the Elite:

   • Mosca (The Ruling Class): Mosca's elite is primarily a 'political class' or 'ruling class' distinguished by its superior organization, intellectual and moral qualities, and access to resources. He emphasized the importance of a 'political formula' (ideology or justification) that legitimizes the elite's rule.
   • Pareto (Circulation of Elites): Pareto's elite is defined by superior psychological qualities, specifically 'residues' (sentiments or instincts). He categorized elites into 'lions' (who rule by force and tradition) and 'foxes' (who rule by cunning and manipulation). His theory emphasizes the 'circulation of elites,' where one elite is constantly replaced by another, either through co-optation or revolution.
   • Michels (Iron Law of Oligarchy): Michels' elite emerges from the organizational necessities of large-scale organizations, particularly political parties. He argued that the technical and administrative requirements of complex organizations inevitably lead to the concentration of power in the hands of a few leaders, forming an 'oligarchy.'

2. Mechanism of Elite Rule:

   • Mosca: Emphasized the superior organization of the minority, which allows them to dominate the unorganized majority. The political formula helps maintain consensus.
   • Pareto: Focused on the psychological traits (residues) of the elite and their ability to manipulate the masses through force or cunning. The circulation of elites is a dynamic process driven by changes in these residues.
   • Michels: Highlighted the structural and technical imperatives of large organizations (e.g., division of labor, need for expertise, communication challenges) that necessitate leadership and, consequently, oligarchy.

3. Stability vs. Change:

   • Mosca: Implied a relatively stable ruling class, though acknowledging gradual changes in its composition.
   • Pareto: Proposed a cyclical process of elite replacement (circulation), suggesting a more dynamic and less stable elite structure.
   • Michels: Argued for the inherent and enduring nature of oligarchy within organizations, implying a high degree of stability in elite rule once established.

Main/Crucial Issues:

1. Challenge to Democratic Theory: The most crucial issue is their direct challenge to the feasibility of genuine democracy. They force us to confront whether popular rule is ever truly possible or if it's always a form of elite manipulation.
2. Sources of Power: They raise fundamental questions about the sources of power – is it organization (Mosca), psychological traits (Pareto), or organizational structure (Michels)? This highlights the multi-faceted nature of power.
3. Elite Cohesion and Division: While all agree on elite rule, they implicitly or explicitly deal with how elites maintain cohesion and how internal divisions or external pressures lead to their replacement or transformation.
4. Role of the Masses: Their theories underscore the passive role of the masses, raising questions about their capacity for collective action and their susceptibility to elite manipulation.
5. Inevitability of Inequality: By arguing for the perpetual existence of elites, these theories suggest that social and political inequality is an inherent and unavoidable feature of human societies, rather than a contingent outcome that can be overcome.

In essence, while Mosca, Michels, and Pareto all concluded that a minority always rules, they offered different explanations for why this is the case and how this rule is maintained, providing a rich and complex understanding of power dynamics in society.