Should the People Be Powerful or the Prince - Essay Example

?Should the People Be Powerful or The Prince The Philosophies of Machiavelli and Marx Karl Marx, in 1848, called for a fundamental change in the way that societies are run, and he published his thesis and call to arms in a slender tome called The Communist Manifesto. The Communist Manifesto has been seen by some modern thinkers are a “landmark text coalescing the era’s vision for social change” (Krieger & Birn, 1998, p. 1698). Of course, the work is not roundly accepted, and seems to have been defeated in much of the world. The basis for Marx’ vision was that the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, was corrupting and oppressive to the people, and Marx envisioned a time when the bourgeoisie would be stripped of its power by stripping it of its property and society would be classless. Therefore, Marx essentially advocated that no one class would have power over another classs. On the other hand, Nicolo Machiavelli, in his book The Prince essentially advocated the opposite. Where Marx believed that power should be dissipated, Machiavelli believed that power should be strengthened, and his book showed rulers, called princes by Machiavelli, on how to do this. Machiavelli’s thesis was that a prince should be strengthened, therefore power should be aggrandized and this would be the basis for security in a nation; Marx’ thesis was that the proletariat, or the people, should be strengthened, so that those in power would be displaced and power would not reside in any one group or person. Both books are based upon these basic premises. Argument The main contrast between the principles espoused by Machiavelli and those by Marx is that Machiavelli champions a strong leader who may use any means possible to rule over the people, whereas Marx champions the power of the people, the proletariat, stating that they should be more powerful than the leaders. For instance, Machiavelli appears to condone cruelty as a means of living securely in a new country which has been conquered. He cites the example of Oliverotto of Fermo, who came into power through a criminal act. Oliverotto came into power by murdering his uncle, Giovanni Fogliani, then, after this treacherous act, rode through the town, laying siege to the governing council. Because of this act, he was feared by those currently governing, and Oliverotto was able to make himself a prince. To be sure, Oliverotto murdered anybody who would resent his rule and might injure him (Machiavelli, 1961, p. 39). Despite the fact that Oliverotto was treacherous and killed his own uncle, who was nothing but kind to Oliverotto, Machiavelli held this leader up as an example of a prince who used cruelty well. Machiavelli stated that cruelty used well is cruelty that “is employed once for all, and one’s safety depends on it, and then it is no persisted in but as far as possible turned to the good of one’s subjects” (Machiavelli, 1961, p. 39). On the other hand, Machiavelli considered cruelty used badly as cruelty that grows over time, and is not necessarily a one-time incidence. When a prince uses cruelty badly, he cannot maintain power; with cruelty well-used, a leader may enhance his position (Machiavelli, 1961, p. 39). Machiavelli further emphasizes that cruelty must be used initially when securing the country, and must be inflicted all at once (Machiavelli, 1961, p. 40). This section is not the only place where Machiavelli advocates cruelty for the leader who is trying to secure himself in power. He also states that it is better to be feared than loved. Specifically, he advocates making examples of people. To do otherwise would be a weakness for the leader, and would lead to disorder. Machiavelli states that it is necessary to be feared, as opposed to loved, as men are “ungrateful, fickle, liars and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit…when you are in danger, they turn away” (Machiavelli, 1961, p. 71). When a leader is loved, they will have a bond of gratitude. However, men having the nature that they have, will break these bonds at the first sign that to do so would be advantageous. On the other hand, when a leader is feared, the men will dread the punishment that will await, so they stay in line. Cruelty is also seen by Machiavelli as a way of keeping a cohesive military unit, using the example of Hannibal. Hannibal was able to keep a cohesive unit without dissension, even though the army was huge and made up of different races, because he was widely feared by his soldiers. On the other hand, the example of Scipio is used by Machiavelli to show when a leader shows the opposite of cruelty, as Scipio was seen by Machiavelli as being too lenient. Scipio did not punish officers’ insubordination, and his soldiers were given “more license than was good for military discipline” (Machiavelli, 1961, p. 73). This led to a mutiny against him. While Scipio might have been loved because he was apparently a good, just man who was hesitant to punish his officers, let alone use cruelty to keep them in line, and he failed where Hannibal, who was apparently known for his cruelty, succeeded, was proof to Machiavelli that it is better for a leader to be feared than loved. Therefore, Machiavelli reasoned that cruelty is a good way for a leader to keep power and is a good way for a leader to keep his military units cohesive and victorious. Moreover, Machiavelli had a very dim view of the proletariat and bourgeoisie, stating that because of their base nature, men do not appreciate generosity and leniency, and will take advantage of a leader who shows these traits, which are seen as weaknesses by Machiavelli. In other words, Machiavelli felt that the masses did not appreciate good qualities shown by leaders and only responds to cruelty. Marx would definitely take issue to these characterizations. Where Machiavelli is critical of the working class, feeling that they essentially “have it coming” when a leader exhibits cruelty to keep them in line, Marx sees the working class, or proletariat, in a much different light. For Marx, the proletariat forms the foundation of his philosophy, for it is the proletariat was seen by Marx as essential for his new world order. Marx’ aim was to strengthen the proletariat by forming them into a class that would overthrow the bourgeois supremacy and would gain power (Marx, 1952, p. 425). Far from the weakened masses that were seen by Machiavelli that would be made docile by a cruel leader, these masses were seen as being strong if they banded together and formed a cohesive unit. This cohesive unit would not be made cohesive by the cruelty of the leader, or prince, despite what Machiavelli envisioned, but, rather, would be made cohesive by the new Communist movement and Marx’ desire was that this proletariat would overthrow the class above them, the bourgeois. Further, although this is unwritten, Marx no doubt did not have the same dim view of the proletariat that Machiavelli did. If Marx felt that the masses who formed the proletariat were “ungrateful, fickle, liars and deceivers,” and that the men were “wretched creatures who would not keep their word” (Machiavelli, 1961, p. 75), then the principle upon which Marx based his views would not be sound. For, if the men who made up the proletariat had the same characteristics that Machiavelli subscribed to them, they would not be able to form a cohesive whole, for they would be too busy fighting amongst themselves and double-crossing everybody else, and each man would be out for himself. They therefore would not have the necessary skills for cooperation that would propel them to band together to overthrow the bourgeoisie. On the other hand, the bourgeoisie, which would be, under the Machiavellian scheme, one of the masses that is envisioned as being duplicitous and self-interested, would qualify for these adjectives under Marx’ analysis as well. Marx was relentlessly critical of the bourgeoisie. Among other things, Marx accuses the bourgeoisie as misogynists who “take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives,” and see women as mere instruments of production (Marx 1961, p. 427) and exploit children. Another major difference between the two philosophies of Machiavelli and Marx is that Machiavelli clearly saw that power should be concentrated in the hands of one man, the prince. Moreover, Machiavelli not felt that this is how it should be, but that is how it actually was. On the other hand, Marx clearly saw that the power in a state was in the hands of the bourgeoisie, or middle class. Machiavelli’s entire philosophy is based upon the notion that there is a strong leader, and there are different ways for the leader to keep power. For instance, Machiavelli states that a prince must be feared, as opposed to loved (Machiavelli, 1961); must be parsimonious as opposed generous (Jones et al., 2007, p. 1); etc. Furthermore, a prince must appear to be compassionate, faithful, guileless and devout, yet know that ruling requires that the must sometimes act the opposite, and he must know how to use these opposite qualities when the time comes. A leader must not keep his word if keeping his word puts him at a disadvantage, and a leader must be both a fox, on the lookout for traps, and a lion, on the lookout for wolves (Machiavelli, 1961, p. 74). These are just a few of the qualities that Machiavelli states a prince must have to rule over his subjects. While Machiavelli’s entire book was a guide for a prince who wants to rule without too much incident, therefore the book is used by one man who wants to aggrandize power, Marx’ entire philosophy assumes that any one ruler is not powerful, but, rather, a class of people, the bourgeoisie, has the power in a given state. Therefore, Marx’ philosophy does not examine the relationship between a prince and his subjects, as does Machiavelli, but, rather, the relationship between one group against another group. Marx does state that the bourgeoisie was not always powerful. At one time, during the time of feudal nobility, the bourgeoisie was oppressed, much like the proletariat was seen by Marx as being oppressed. However, it evolved, from oppression under the feudal system, to one of an armed and self-governing body in the medieval communes, then as a counterpoint against nobilities, to the final incarnation seen by Marx, that of a party that enjoys “exclusive political sway” (Marx, 1952, p. 420). Further, Marx saw the executive of a state, which is who would be considered to be a prince by Machiavelli, as being “but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie” (Marx, 1952, p. 420). Marx disapproved of the executive and the bourgeoisie because they represented classes – his dream was that society would be classless (Rorty, 1999, p. 217), which is also in contradiction to Machiavelli who, ever the pragmatist, realized that society would always have classes and offered advice on how to keep these classes intact. Therefore, the bourgeoisie takes the place of the prince in Marx’ philosophy, for they are seen as being the ruling class. And the prince himself, who was seen by Machiavelli as being all-powerful, is reduced to a mere figure-head in Marxist philosophy, a mere committee whose only job is to manage the common affairs of the middle class. The two philosophies also differ in how they see the rulers. Whereas Machiavelli covertly approved of the sometimes cruel tactics taken by princes, and did not appear to disapprove of the need for a prince’s absolute power, Marx was overtly critical of the bourgeoisie ruling class. Machiavelli did not, ever, state that the ruling class should be overthrown. In fact, his entire thesis was that the ruling class, the prince, should stay in power, and his book was a kind of “how-to” for prospective leaders to do just that. In other words, Machiavelli was not critical of the ruling class in his thesis. This is obvious by the pragmatic way that his advice is written. He did not see the ruling class as being bad. On the other hand, Marx was relentlessly critical of the ruling class, the bourgeoisie. Marx saw the bourgeoisie as being self-interested, destroying bonds that used to adhere men to one another, and men to their “natural superiors” (Marx, 1952, p. 420). Further, the bourgeoisie diminishes such virtuous traits as chivalry, sentimentalism and religion to that of calculation. To Marx, the bourgeoisie only sees personal worth in terms of dollars and cents, and uses exploitation as their means to keep the power. Further, the bourgeoisie has demoted the learned men of old, the men who would have been seen as transformative in previous societies – the artist, the lawyer, the priest, the physician and the scientist – and made these men nothing but paid labourers (Marx, 1952, p. 420). Therefore, under this characterization, Marx would feel that the bourgeoisie during this time would treat Leonardo Da Vinci or Beethoven as another cog in the wheel of industry, instead of providing them with the exalted status that they deserved. Further, the bourgeoisie has virtually enslaved the proletariat, according to Marx, and they have become the despots. They keep the proletariat down in the industrial realm, then they keep the proletariat down by acting as the landlord, shopkeeper and pawnbroker for the proletariat masses. In other words, the proletariat cannot escape them, and cannot escape being oppressed. Another major difference between Marx and Machiavelli is the way that they view certain traits that are exhibited by their respective rulers. Whereas Marx was clearly disdainful of self-interest and oppression, for this formed the basis of the thesis that the ruling class should be overthrown, Machiavelli seems to endorse these traits in the princes of which he writes. As an example of self-interest, Machiavelli approvingly cites the example of Alexander VI. According to Machiavelli, Alexander VI never kept his word, even though he would swear to something quite convincingly. Machiavelli saw that this was a good thing for a ruler, for, according to him, princes “must not honour their word when it places him at a disadvantage and when the reasons for which he made this promise no longer exist” (Machiavelli, 1961, p. 74). Therefore, Machiavelli is essentially saying that self-interest is the only way that a prudent prince may rule. As for oppression, Machiavelli sees that this is another proper tool at the disposal of the prince. For instance, when a new ruler comes into a land, it is proper that he take land and houses from the residents who currently live there to give to the new inhabitants. His reasoning is that the people who are stripped of property are poor and scattered, therefore they cannot do the ruler any harm. This works not only because it acts as a reward for the people who support the ruler, but also because it serves as an example to the others who witness this deed being done. It keeps these other residents in fear of it happening to them, thus keeping them quiet. Moreover, Machiavelli feels that it is proper for a ruler to inflict small injuries upon the people (Machiavelli, 1961, p. 10). Therefore, Machiavelli was clearly condoning oppression, for these are the tools to oppress – taking land from innocent people, making them an example, making others live in fear and inflicting injury. This means that the basis for Machiavelli’s society, and the basis for a prince holding onto his power, is not liberty, but, rather, security (Tarcov, 1982, p. 703). On the other hand, Marx condemns oppression from the ruling class towards the subordinate class, however, as one of the bases for his philosophy is that the working class, the proletariat, are oppressed by the ruling class, because they put in labor and do not get back the same value as their labor entails (Burawoy, 2000, p. 157). This is thus a means of oppressing the working class, by essentially cheating them of the value of their labor, and this is one of the reasons why Marx advocated communism over capitalism. It is just this degradation upon which Marx advocates a revolution (Davies, 1962, p. 5). Thus, Machiavelli essentially sees oppression as a means to avoid a revolution and as a means for a prince to retain his power; Marx sees oppression as a reason for revolution. For Machiavelli, oppression is a way of attaining security at the expense of liberty; for Marx, overcoming the oppression is a way for all classes to attain liberty, in that they no longer will be working only for others but also for themselves. That said, as oppression and self-interest are bad things to Marx when the oppression and self-interest is directed from the ruling class towards the proletariat. Oppression going the other way, however, is the way that Marx envisions success. In other words, Marx’ vision is for the proletariat to essentially oppress the bourgeoisie by stripping them of their property. In this way, Marx’ vision is to curtail the freedom of the bourgeoisie – the freedom of trade, production, selling and buying. Marx’ reasoning for this is that 9/10 of the population already does not have any private property, these 9/10 presumably being the proletariat (Marx, 1952, p. 426). Therefore, only 1/10 of the population would be divested of property that is rightfully theirs under Marx’ scheme. Still, there is not a doubt that, for that 1/10 who would suffer property divestment, oppression would result. So, this is another large difference between Marx and Machiavelli. Whereas they are somewhat similar in that each feels that oppression is a proper way to achieve the means envisioned by each, the oppression that each advocates is radically different. Machiavelli advocates oppression from the ruling class to those under the ruling class, especially that of the masses and the poor. Marx, on the other hand, advocates oppression from the masses and poor towards to ruling class. The two philosophers also clearly differed on how they felt about imperialism, or colonization. Machiavelli clearly saw that imperialism is a good thing, for he spoke about princes who conquer states who either differ, in terms of the customs, languages and institutions, from that of the prince, or are similar. Machiavelli states that, when a country is similar to that of the prince, in that the country has similar customs, languages and institutions, the prince may rule peacefully and the men live quietly. The only prerequisite to this is that the former ruling bloodline must have been destroyed. On the other hand, Machiavelli states that when a prince attempts to acquire a state that is substantially different from that of the prince, the prince will have more difficulty in keeping this state. In this case, the prince must either live there or establish settlements (Machiavelli, 1961, pp. 9-10). Thus, Machiavelli is clearly not condemning the process of colonization of other countries, but, rather, is subtly condoning this action by stating how a leader would best be able to hold onto such a country. On the other hand, Marx clearly felt that imperialism or colonization was a bad thing, when he stated, disapprovingly, that bourgeoisie societies compel all other countries to adopt their policies, thus creating a world in their own image (Marx, 1952, p. 421). While this is not necessarily an explicit condemnation of imperialism, Marxist followers have offered a more powerful repudiation of the concept. Hosseini (2006) points to the 1900 Paris Congress of the Second International, in which a resolution was adopted proclaiming that capitalism must not expand by means of colonialism, and this resolution was supported by Kautsky and other Marxists at this time (Hosseini, 2006, p. 14). Thus, Marx and subsequent followers disapproved of the ruling classes exporting their rule to other countries, which is in contrast to Machiavelli who approved of this very thing. However, there is some indication that Marxist followers did approve spreading socialism around the globe, which is more in accord to Machiavelli’s views (Hosseini, 2006, p. 15). The two philosophers also clearly differed on how they envisioned the means to power. To Machiavelli, the means to power may be accomplished either by the prince being born into power or by acquiring power by conquering. He states that when a prince becomes a prince, after having been a private citizen, it “presupposes either ability or good fortune” (Machiavelli, 1961, p. 23). Thus, Machiavelli states that the two ways that a prince becomes a prince is either having been born into it, or by using one’s ability. Another way that Machiavelli states that a prince may come into power is through some kind of criminal act, such as treachery and murder of the current ruling class (Machiavelli, 1961, p. 35). On the other hand, argues Harold Kerbo, Marx saw society not in terms of one ruling class who came to be a ruling class because of ability or good fortune, but, rather, as a stratification that was based upon property ownership. In feudal times, and the pre-industrial age, social stratification was delineated between the landed nobility and the non-landed peasants; in the industrial age, social stratification was delineated between the owners of industrial capital, which was the bourgeoisie, and the workers, who were the proletariat (Kerbo). This became the basis for the Marxist philosophy, which was that, by stripping the bourgeoisie of their property, the social stratifications would disappear (Kerbo). The principle of social stratificaiton is shown by the fact that, in today’s society, 80% of the world’s wealth is concentrated in areas that contain just 20% of the world’s people (Magdoff, 1998, p. 1). Therefore, the means for ousting the ruling class under Marx’ examination is different from what Machiavelli would envision. With Marx, simply taking property away from the ruling class would end the oppression and social stratification that ostensibly was the result of this property ownership. With Machiavelli, ousting the ruler would be more complicated, and would presumably would involve a coup or uprising, and his tome basically instructed the prince on how to avoid this. There are some similarities between the two philosophers. For one, both of the philosophers had a dim view of the bourgeoisie, which was probably the equivalent to noblemen in Machiavellian terms. Machiavelli saw that noblemen were self-interested, and that, if a prince comes to power with their help, as opposed to the help of the people, the prince is bound to not succeed. The noblemen would feel that they were the equal of the prince, therefore would be jealous of the prince’s power and would always be attempting to usurp it. Noblemen also, according to Machiavelli, essentially use the prince as a shield for their actions – like the prince is a puppet and they are pulling the strings, attempting to achieve their own means by using the prince and taking cover. This happens when the nobility cannot withstand the people, which means that they choose a prince to hide behind and this seems to be a position of cowardice, according to Machiavelli. Further, the noblemen are dishonest in their intentions (Machiavelli, 1961, p. 41). Therefore, Machiavelli felt that the prince should come to power without the aid of the nobility. Because of the nobility will always attempt to aggrandize themselves, at the expense of the prince, and the nobility is more astute, a prince may only come to harm when he relies upon the nobility for his power. Similarly, Marx feels that the bourgeoisie tends to have the same traits as Machiavelli sees them. In fact, Marx’ philosophy kind of takes Machiavelli’s philosophy to its logical conclusion. Machiavelli essentially worried that a prince who is made powerful by nobility might suffer some kind of overthrow by one or more of the nobility – “the worst that can happen to a prince when the people are hostile is for him to be deserted; but from the nobles, if hostile, he has to fear not only desertion but even active opposition” (Machiavelli, 1961, p. 42). In Marx’ philosophy, this overthrow from the nobility, the rough equivalent of the bourgeoisie in Marx’ tome, has already occurred. Marx felt that the bourgeoisie had the upper hand, and, in all lands where the bourgeoisie had the upper hand, they essentially put an end to the patriarchy that characterized the rule of a prince. This conjures another resemblance between the philosophies, and that is that the rule of a prince is superior to the rule of a nobility or bourgeoisie. Machiavelli makes this clear when he speaks of the risk that the nobility will overthrow or ruin the prince. He states that nobility may be dependent, and, if so, they should be honored and loved. He also states that certain kinds of nobility will remain independent, but will not necessarily seek to harm the prince. In that case, the prince may use that nobility for his own means, taking counsel from the nobility and never fearing that this kind of nobility will take advantage of the prince if the prince’s fortune changes. However, in the case of a nobility who are independent and are opportunists, they are more concerned with themselves then with the prince and the prince must safeguard himself against this kind of nobility, for they are looking for the opportunity to ruin the prince (Machiavelli, 1961, pp. 42-43). This makes clear that Machiavelli prefers the rule of a prince to that of a nobility. Especially when the nobility feel that they have interests which are superior to that of the prince. Marx, of course, felt differently than Machiavelli in that Marx was certainly not advocating the rule of a prince or leader. Where is similar to Machiavelli is that he also does not advocate the rule of the nobility or bourgeoisie. Marx appeared to advocate the rule of a leader over that of the bourgeoisie when he states that the bourgeoisie has “torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his natural superiors” (Marx, 1952, p. 420). His problem with the bourgeoisie rule is that they essentially reduce everything to dollars and cents, and, by doing this, they engage in exploitation. Further, the bourgeoisie destroy long-standing industries, replacing them ever more with new ones and essentially destroy intellectual creations by making them common property. At the same time, Marx accuses the bourgeoisie of forcing all other nations to become like them – “it compels all nations, on the pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization in their midst, ie, to become bourgeois themselves. In a word, it creates a world after its own image” (Marx, 1952, p. 421). Moreover Marx felt, because of the way that the bourgeoisie had accelerated the pace of production through the industrial revolution, that over-production became an epidemic, which had led society to a period of barbarism, which, ironically, had destroyed industry and commerce (Marx, 1952, p. 422). In the process, they enslave the proletariat – “not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class and of the bourgeois state; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overseer, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself” (Marx, 1952, p. 422). Interestingly, both Marx and Machiavelli had envisioned different roles for the people. According to Marx, when a principality is created by the people, as opposed to nobles, this principality tends to be more secure. As stated above, Machiavelli felt that principalities created by nobility were unsecure, because the nobility have notions of their own aggrandizement that would come at the expense of the prince. However, when a principality is based upon and created by the people, the principality is more secure. This is because the people, the masses, presumably have neither the same ambition as the nobles, nor the astuteness of the nobles, therefore they are not necessarily a threat to the prince’s rule. So, Machiavelli definitely saw security in principalities created by people. For Machiavelli, in such a principality, the prince must only create favour among the people and win the people over through friendship. This is the only way that the prince would have cover when there is adversity (Machivelli, 1961, p. 43). On the other hand, Marx saw the people, the proletariat, as having a much different role. While Machiavelli saw that the people would work with the ruler to ensure peace, Marx saw the people as being integral to lasting change - for it is the people who would be the backbone of the revolution that Marx sought. Marx stated that his vision depended upon the proletariat overthrowing the ruling class and would conquer the power of the bourgeoisie by their movement (Marx, 1952, p. 425). Then the bourgeoisie would be stripped of their property, so that there is no longer any private property, and this is the way that the revolution would accomplish the ultimate objective – elimination of social stratification. So, the people are not the ones upon which peace would be based, contrary to what Machiavelli presumed, but, rather, the power of the people would be the very basis for the opposite – revolution. Conclusion There are substantial differences between Machiavelli and Marx, but perhaps the most stark difference is how the two philosophers viewed power. For Machiavelli, power was a good thing. Machiavelli did not see social stratification as being a bad thing, but, rather, he believed that it was integral to the peaceful rule by a prince. The prince must use any means in his disposal to keep this power, and this notion formed the basis for Machiavelli’s tome. Whether the prince uses oppression, cunning, manipulation, or outright lying, Machiavelli not only approved of the methods but basically instructed on how to use such methods to the prince’s advantage. Machiavelli even approved of cruelty to a certain point in keeping the people in line, and tacitly approved criminal acts, such as treachery and murder, that may be used in gaining power. The only limits that Machiavelli put upon such acts as treachery, cruelty and murder is that they are used to secure the country and at the beginning when the prince is establishing his rule. To rule with cruelty, on the other hand, is where Machiavelli draws the line, stating that such a rule could not stand because the people would despise the ruler and want to overthrow him. Other than this, it seems, anything goes for a ruler who wants to keep his people in line. On the other hand, Marx would disapprove of Machiavelli’s thesis, because Marx believed that social stratification of any kind is wrong, and this would definitely include the kind of social stratification that is advocated by Machiavelli. Marx is the definitive opposite of Machiavelli. Where Machiavelli instructs on how to attain and keep power, Marx instructs on how to dismantle power, so that social stratification and power would be dissolved. Where Machiavelli advocated strength in power, Marx advocated strength in masses. This sums up the core of the two men’s philosophies, and shows exactly how different these two men were in the way that they thought about politics. Sources Used Burawoy, M. (2000) “Marxism After Communism” Theory and Society 29: 151-174. Davies, J. (1962) “Toward a Theory of Revolution” American Sociological Review 27.1: 5-17.s Hosseini, H. (2006) “From Communist Manifesto to Empire” Review of Radical Political Economics 38.1: 7-23. Jones, M., Meloni, O. & Tommasi, M. (2007) “Voters as Fiscal Liberals”Available at: http://www.udesa.edu.ar/files/UAEconomia/Seminarios%20y%20Actividades/Taller%20de%20Trabajos/Meloni.pdf Kerbo, B. “Social Stratification” Available at: http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=ssci_fac&sei-redir=1#search="kerbo+social+stratification" Krieger, N. & Birn, A. (1998) “A Vision of Social Justice as the Foundation of Public Health” American Journal of Public Health 88.11: 1603-1606. Machiavelli, N. (1961) The Prince. New York: Penguin Group. Magdoff, H. (1998) “A Note on the Communist Manifesto” Monthly Review 50.1: 1-2. Marx, K. (1952) “Manifesto of the Communist Party” in Great Books of the Western World. London: Encylopaedia Brittanica, Inc. Rorty, R. (1999) “Failed Philosophies, Glorious Hopes” Constellations 6.2: 216-221. Tarcov, N. (1982) “Quentin Skinner’s Method and Machiavelli’s Prince” Ethics 92.4: 692-709. Read More