Using The Theories in Machiavelli's The Prince to Justify the Totalitarian Actions and Marx Theories - Essay Example

?Can the theories in Machiavelli's THE PRINCE be used to justify the totalitarian actions and theories of Marx, Lenin and Stalin? Niccolo Machiavellipenned down his eternally famous "The Prince" in 1517. The book had such a vast impact on several leaders from Stalin to Mussolini. Described as the greatest dissertation ever on power, The Prince explore various theories necessary to establish power and maintain it even if it mean being brutal. The basic point of Machiavelli is, just ruler controlling good men in a fantasy. Since, men do not live morally in reality, evil means are sometimes necessary to acquire power and preserve it for the well-being of the mob. The totalitarian actions of several great world leaders have walked on the path he laid causing indestructible loss to the humanity as well as morals. Machiavelli's theories do justify the actions of the leaders, who sculpted the history of the human kind, but history had proved again and again total control over any community, unleashed through chameleonic actions, fear and attacking first will only fail sooner or later. Act According to the Situation Machiavelli always argued the leaders should be ready to act in a chameleonic way to preserve their power. According to him it is completely just to lure the people using various philosophies like patriotism, capitalism etc. They should never regret to change it as and when necessary, if there is a threat for their power. He says every leader should be ready to take the help of the evil to sustain power if they are compelled to do so. "...he (the leader of the state) must stick to the good so long as he can, but, being compelled be necessity, he must be ready to take the way of the evil."(Machiavelli, 63) Both Karl Marx and Machiavelli did agree that there is an existing tension prevailing between the nobles and the common men for centuries. Both challenged the primitive believes of the previous generations. They put forward new ideas to change the world. Marx saw people as social beings whose total history is merely a class struggle. Each struggle leads to some sort of development. Machiavelli actually defines the rules and regulations for these struggles. Machiavellianism seen as a satire helps Marxists understand the evils of bourgeoisie much better. But, Karl Marx’s actions were influenced by the ideologies in the book to a great extent. While Marx and Machiavelli were two different poles when it came to society’s freedom and development, both shared similar views on acquiring power. Machiavelli has personally experienced all the brutalities like Strapeddo and confinement within a short area which Marx struggled to remove from the society. He penned down the Prince with the aim of impressing his Lorenzo di Medici, the then Italian prince who had the capability to reduce his sentence (Wooton, 1994). The struggling did shape Machiavelli’s mind and gave him the capability to analyze the reason behind such issues. Machiavelli clearly described no man is good and there is no point in resolving only good means to fight or rule him. Similarly Karl Marx also agreed every man in a political animal and they need iron hands to rule them until humanity evolves into better state. Karl Marx struggled to establish a communal government where the poorest of the poor who were suppressed in every possible way would get some sort of freedom and justice. He believed it would be possible only through complete power change. His “Dictatorship of Proletariat” is the best example of how power will be shifted from one class to the other. This is what Machiavelli describes as taking the help of evil. Marxism actually lures people into believing everybody will be treated fair, with equality and mercy. But, the means to acquire power to materialize the same will be brutal, crushing everybody possible. In simple word Marxists can take the help of the evil to establish goodness in the world. They can kill the very mob they guaranteed freedom to achieve power. Karl Marx did have close contacts with many elite, rich and influential men of his era whom he called Bourgeoisie. Though he did not get any materialistic help from them, he was not able to convince them to raise wages for their factory workers. Instead he was instrumental in making the unions work in favour of his rich friends to a certain extent. Such confusing and situational ideals lead to more chaos than productive work. Karl Marx was not able to establish a standard government in any country based on his principles. He lived mostly in exile. His followers fulfilled his dream to a certain extent. But, they are known as the best Machiavellians ever as their power gain left behind a very long blood trail of both the elite and the poor community. Machiavelli’s principles were once again proved wrong in case of Marx. Inducing Fear is Important to Retain Power Machiavelli’s important next principle is to induce fear. They simply believed keeping the mob under control will help them achieve what they exactly decided to do. Both Lenin and Stalin did start fighting for a great cause. They wanted to free Russia from the dictatorship of the Czars and the Russian monarchies. But they became the sole image of what they actually tried to remove during their reign. "I (Machiavelli) conclude that since men love as they themselves determine but fear as their ruler determines, a wise prince must rely upon what he and not others control." Karl Marx was the pioneer in inducing fear among the mobs in a large level. He used various techniques to make the mob fear the monarchies or the ruling class. Kings and the nobles were considered as the sole protectors of the common men for centuries. Karl Marx works single headedly challenged this theory listing the various atrocities unleashed by them. He made the mob fear, their life would worsen if they did not accept communism. Lenin and Stalin both followed strict rules when it comes to inducing fear in the mob’s mind. First they made the people believe all the old principals were outdated and the only redemption for all their struggles lay in believing the new generation leaders. They overthrew the century’s long monarchy and established a new hierarchy with completely new officials. There was no body to question this new dictator and whoever did was brutally crushed. Stalin followed the exact footsteps of Lenin after his death unleashing a reign of terror during the Great Purge in 1937-38 executing thousands of innocent young men. The reign of fear too did not last long. It only did more damage to the country than good. Stalin died leaving back an economically downtrodden country, where most of the people feared even to ask their basic needs. Corruption was rampant in every form and famines were common. Stalin’s Machiavellianism are well justified by the theories in The Prince. The leaders dreamed of achieving the impossible. So, a little dictatorship is unavoidable during the era of change and chaos. But, the result taught a great lesson to the world. Any community cannot be suppressed long simply out of fear. Take the First Step to Crush Issues Early Machiavelli always insisted the first attack should be from the ruler’s side. Any oppression or revolution should be removed when it is in the beginning stage. Else it will grow in to a major issue within a very few days. “By making provision in advance, the princes easily avoid such difficulties: but if they wait until they are near at hand, the medicine will not be in time, for by then the malady will have become incurable." Attacking first or clearing the problem when it is still small is a principle followed by many world leaders. Karl Marx’s economist theories also kept everything common for everyone. But, it simply insisted anyone or everyone questioning it be eliminated. Lenin is known to have followed this policy throughout his life. All voices against or criticizing his endeavours to establish a new era were crushed mercilessly, without giving them a chance to induce an alternate idea into the mob’s mind. Stalin too is known for killing many prominent members of his own team like Trotsky as they started questioning him. He simply crushed the red army leaders mercilessly to avoid another major revolution similar to the one which occurred during his youth. Stalin should have referred to Machiavelli’s book very often as most of his ruthless actions were influenced by the ideas in the book. But again, such activities which crush the voice of any alternate ideas do not last long. The nation was in a boiling state when Stalin died. Its unity shattered and it got divided into several small countries in a short while, each with its own principles. Conclusion Machiavelli's theories do justify the actions of the leaders, who sculpted the history of the human kind, but history had proved again and again total control over any community, unleashed through chameleonic actions, fear and attacking first will only fail sooner or later. If Machiavelli’s ideas were to be completely true, Hitler would have made the world succumb with fear easily. A kingdom or an empire set on the base of fear and cowardice or lack of transparency will never thrive long. Only trust and good will can make a reign last longer, not fear. Many leaders would have followed Machiavelli, but that doesn’t mean he is completely right. Their tragic ends starting from Napoleon to Mussolini is itself an example for the failure of his doctrine. Evil might triumph temporarily, but it is the good that succeeds at the end ultimately. References 1. Wooton, David. Selected Political Writings: The Prince, Selections from The Discourses, Letter to Vettori. Indiana: Hackket Publishing Company, 1994. 2. Marx, Karl. Capital: An Abridged Edition. London: Oxford University Press, 1999. 3. “Machiavelli: The Elements of Power”. EMachiavelli.com. 21 October 2012 Read More