Locke, Marx and Machiavelli - Essay Example

Locke, Marx and Machiavelli Introduction Lock, Marx and Machiavelli had ideas that ruled the history from the 1500-1900. Their ideas on the issue of politics, morality, human nature and private property might have differed but they were all a reflection of the period these aristocrats lived in and their ideology of what the future should entail that is far from what they had witnessed or lived under and this brought about criticisms of each other’s ideologies and works. Marx wanted communal land ownership while Locke wanted private ownership with morality and human nature being on the forefront of governance. Machiavelli was all for an absolute leader who would rule by all means as long his end result of elimination of corruption and anarchy would justify his governance and leadership techniques. How would Locke criticize Machiavelli’s The Prince? Locke in his book “Second Treatise or Government” talked about the human nature which all the rulers must consider and be ready to abide by. This human nature discussed the issue of freedom, liberty, equality and morality all of which would lead to good governance if granted to the people (Locke 10). According to Locke, the key to good governance where the people were not revolting against their leaders lied in the human nature something which Machiavelli did not consider as important and which Locke would criticize. Machiavelli’s principles in his book “The Prince” indicate that the end justifies the means and therefore it did not matter how the prince would rule as long as in the end he got to govern the people. This can however not as easy as Machiavelli put it because if the people start revolting as a result of shrewd governance that does not take into account their freedom or enforce equality and especially between the classes of people, the prince will be unable to rule at all. Apart from a ruler that has come into power through hereditary means, the other appointed can be easily ousted from power by the revolution of the people. Morality is highly upheld by Locke as the means to interacting with the people and based deeply on religion and spirituality. When Machiavelli therefore makes a double standard about the leaders not supporting it even though he mentions it is important to the people, he does not make the last bit sense and this is enough ground for criticism by Locke. How would Marx/Engels criticize Locke’s Second Treatise on Government? Locke’s book explains in great length about private property and supporting the idea of people owning land and other property despite them being divided into two social classes. According to his doctrines, measure of the property an individual should have should be appropriated to his labor hence every hard working man should have property (Locke 19). Marx did not support owning property as a private entity but rather as a community where no one individual would have claim over the property and neither would they try to take it away from the people in the lower social class. All that Marx and Engel wanted is that the people should stop living as separate but rather as on large entity and the lack of private property ownership and abolishment of the social classes will be the end to that separation. Their criticism even though valid was based on myopic view of human life and did not consider how the community land ownership would work out in the future. This criticism of the book by Locke however does not have much grounding in it. Essentially, Locke’s idea of private property ownership would ensure that the lower class individuals would be in the same position as the upper class ones as they both would be at liberty to own property and enjoy the benefit that would accompany this such as independence and financial power. The upper class which made their money from overworking the working class would no longer do that as they would all be property owners and hence have equal rights. Discuss the issues of rulers who are above the law or have no morality Machiavelli’s “The Prince” encourages rulers to be individuals who are above the law and do this without considering the issue of morality or the nature of human but rather the end goal which was governance (Machiavelli 28). Rulers that are above the law and lack morality will not pay attention into the importance of religion or spirituality to the people he is ruling and neither will he pay attention to the sufferings the lack of freedom and equality might bring to the people. A ruler above the law is an autocratic one and what this does is make the people resent him and his family even more. Even when the rule dies and his position is inherited by a relative, people will still be judging the relative based on the past ruler’s behavior hence not giving the chance to rule without chaos and frequent revolts. People are bound to revolt to autocratic rulers through making slow progress in their work, producing or giving even less to the government and organizing themselves to oust the leadership. Politics will overcome any other institution in the land and causing disunity among the people divided along political lines which is harder to mend even in decades to come as was the case in France during and after the Medici era when Machiavelli lived. Machiavelli might be advocating for absolutism in a rule because he had lived to witness the presence of lawlessness and anarchy in Florence and France in general and wanted that changed by an absolute rule above the law. The role of private property in politics and society Communal land ownership led to a few people working on the land toiling but the fruits were distributed among everyone and even though he whole community benefitted, the politics of unfairness was unending. With private property however, each individual will reap according to how much labor and effort he put towards his property and not benefit from the sweat of others. Squabbles in the society over labor would reduce and produce is bound to increase. Politics of land ownership will however be on the increase with the leaders wanting to be appropriated more because of their position in governance while the people would view this as being unfair and unwarranted for. Taxes on private property are bound to be increased by the government in order to sustain the lands of the government as people will no longer be willing to work on it for lack of time or do so without pay which was the norm in the communal land. The society is however still at risk of being divided not only along political lines but along property ones as there will be those with large property and those without leading to the increase in inequality once again in society and with more property comes power and leadership. The cycle of poor governance and politics of social classes is bound to keep on repeating over the years as long as the issue of private property is allowed. Conclusion The differences in the ideologies of the three discussed aristocrats: Marx, Locke and Machiavelli are what have led to the recurring political and societal issues of property ownership and autocratic leadership alternating frequently throughout history. Marx may have had a good point of communal land and property ownership but the explanations made by Locke about private property ownership not only made much more sense but were more practical in application and bearing in mind the fact that the population continued to increase and management of communal land would become much more difficult. Machiavelli on the other hand forgot that absolute leadership would not always end the social and political problems and might only increase them with the increase in revolutions when people are opposing the harsh leadership. Work Cited Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Indiana: Hackett Publishing, 1980. Print. Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Missouri: Randy Dillon, 2009. Print. Read More