Machiavelli's Influence on Dictators - Essay Example

Machiavelli’s Influence on Dictators Machiavelli’s Influence on Dictators Niccolo Machiavelli was a brilliant Italian scholar popular for his theories on politics and leadership. During his lifetime, he wrote a lot of famous texts revered by scholars to this day. His most popular work was called The Prince. This work describes the dynamics of power. In most of his works, Machiavelli explored the many ways in which a leader ought to conduct themselves and the values and characteristics that they should possess. Machiavelli never passed on an opportunity to live up to his philosophy whenever he got the opportunity. In The Prince, Machiavelli describes the various ways by which princes can succeed (Machiavelli par. 2). He does this by exploring various examples to illustrate various means of obtaining and keeping power. Machiavelli held the philosophy that using virtue and force was best because the moment a prince obtained territory by use of armies and strength, it would be simpler for them to keep control over their jurisdiction (Machiavelli & Woonton 34, 45). A noteworthy point is that for Machiavelli, the concept of virtue implied strength and manliness. Machiavelli was also of the philosophy that a leader ought to possess evil qualities since that way it would be easier to cling to power (Machiavelli & Woonton 51). Machiavelli, for example, argued that being feared but not feared was more preferable than to be loved. Machiavelli also argued that it was not necessary for a prince to be trustworthy. Machiavelli lived up to some of the principles he wrote. He used his skills and schemes to rise through the ranks in the government of Florence. There was a time he was close to magistrate a position he used to push for the use of militia in the state. This corresponded with his view in The Prince where he advocated for the use of local militia over mercenaries (Machiavelli & Woonton 45). Machiavelli was made to be in charge of the militia when Florence finally got an army. He demonstrated great military astuteness that lead to the capture of Pisa. He finally lost his position and was never able to rise again. It is often hard to discern which philosophies are right and which are wrong when comparing the two literary works; that of Karl Marx and that of Machiavelli. Machiavelli’s ideas are what many people would regard as unethical. As a matter of fact, his ideas were so unpopular in his own country, Italy, that he got exiled. Karl Marx on the other hand, presents a theory about capital that is self-contradicting. For example, Marx argues that Capitalism results from the business owner’s need to exploit his labourers so that his business can continue to run and also the need for the workers to continue to work so that they can sustain themselves and spends the money which returns to the firm (Karl & Engels 98). In The Communist Manifesto, Karl and Engels note that the state should be in control of property, resources, and information, something that Machiavelli approved of (Karl & Engels 102). Moreover they argue that capitalism is not cyclic while the process described above indeed looks cyclic. The major points of comparison between the two people’s theories however, can be found in the dialogues on leadership and the different reactions the masses may derive from the actions of a leader. Marx and Machiavelli have opinions that differ and converge which are evident when one compares between need and morality. These two agree that there are times one ought to do what is necessary as opposed to what is right morally. The difference between them, however, appears in the way they plan to deal with the conflict. Machiavelli does this by advising the leader of the nation, the prince, while Marx focuses on the disparity between the owners of industries and the workers. When comparing Joseph Stalin and Machiavelli, it can be deduced that Stalin was very concerned with territory. Stalin gave an example of Jews of whom he argues that even though they find themselves in similar situations everywhere they go, they do not have one language or national figure and this is because they do not have one territory (Heatly 4). They are, therefore, assimilated by whichever culture they encounter and for this reason their culture is lost this means that they are therefore not a nation. His idea seems to imply that a nation cannot be composed of many groups. According to him, a nation was made of four things: common language, common borders, economic togetherness and a common way of thinking or “national character” (Heatly 5). He said that these four components are indispensable for nationhood; you need all of them and if one is missing, that is not a nation. Machiavelli on the other hand also mentioned these things albeit indirectly. His main concern was to assimilate old and new territories. He advised that force is not good because it offends the people one rules. He says that the territories one assimilates are either close or far away from you. If they are geographically close to the leader and speak the same language then they should not pose a problem. As an example, Machiavelli noted that the territories of Burgundy, Normandy, Gascony, and Brittany have slowly made submission to France. They have similarity in culture and language enough not to bother one another. He also argues that the new territories should be made colonies and a ruler ought to move there is it is possible. He offers many reasons for this but the one thing he does not say is that it will make the new territories to feel like they belong to the empire. The empire will bring culture to the colonies and a ruler will be present so the new people will not feel like subjects but will feel part of the empire. They will therefore not rebel. He also advises against taxing them too much, and telling them you appreciate their skills and assure them that nobody will confiscate their money. As can be seen here, these two leaders living in different times have opinions that converge somewhere. Most Russian leaders who succeeded Stalin can be said to be milder in opinion but to a large extent, they remain the same old totalitarian regimes. Putin’s regime is just as undemocratic. It has the same kind of parliament, holds phone elections, exercises control over major news outlets, the Russian court system is controlled by the executive, official propaganda is xenophobic, and opposition is not welcome. Putin promotes the same cult personality that Machiavellia advocated for (Wegren 275-279). Putin has just recently annexed Crimea region of Ukraine; he achieved this by befriending them in the most cunning way possible. First it was by luring the Russian speaking Crimean to support the secession. In short he made them feel like they were part of Russia. It is like Putin does not even hide the fact that he uses Machiavellian as his handbook. Machiavellia’s theories greatly contradicted the views of John Locke. While the former noted that the leader should exercise a lot of control over the people and maintain a personality cult, the latter held that God created people free and they should remain so (Locke par. 1). Lock was against war, any kind of injustice, and believed that all humans are created equal. The views of Locke are echoed in the Declaration of Independence (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,..” Jefferson 6) and the United States Bill of Right Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (Madison 3) Machiavelli provided what most people can agree to be a handbook for crooked ways of staying in power. With Machiavelli, stating in power was the more important goal as opposed to staying on the moral path. Some leaders like Stalin did not even hide the fact that they admired the philosophy while others like Karl Marx can be said to have had a very similar way of thinking; that deceit can be a tool for controlling people. It is obvious Machiavelli still has admirers today judging by the many totalitarian regimes that are still present. Love him or hate him, Machiavelli left himself a name; maybe not a good one but at least his views are studied by modern scholars and were applied by dictators such as Stalin, Lenin, and Putin. Works Cited Heatly, Alex. "Stalin V. Machiavelli." Intro to Political Theory. N.p., 3 Oct. 2009. Web. 22 Apr. 2014. Jefferson Thomas et al. Declaration of Independence. 1776. Web. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/revolution/revolution_declaringindependence.cfm Karl Marx and Engels Friedrich. The Communist Manifesto. 1848 Locke John. (1689). Lockes Two Treatises of Government. Awnsham Churchill. 1689. Web. http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-a.html Machiavelli, Niccolo & Woonton David (ed.). Selected Political Writings. Hackett Publishing, 1994. Print. Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Prince, by Nicolo Machiavelli. Nov. 5, 2012. Apr. 21, 2014. Web. . Madison James. United States Bill of rights. (1789). Web http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html Wegren Stephen. Return to Putins Russia: Past Imperfect, Future Uncertain. New York. Rowman & Littlefield, 2012. Print. Read More