The Main Features of Fascist Political Thought: Niccolo Machiavelli and Prince - Essay Example

Niccolo Machiavelli and Prince Niccolo Machiavelli’s book Prince is a popular book about politics. It has observations dealing with human beings’ behavior as they still live today in relation to how the were, five hundred years ago. He also talks about two kinds of states that hold authority over men. These are republics and principalities. He goes ahead and argues that Principalities can either be brand new or inherited from previous generation. This means that they are attached to the previous regime or they get it from freedom. He continues and adds that they can be acquired by either ability or fortune. Example of those who became Prince by abilities includes; Moses from the bible, Cyrus the founder of Persian Empire, Romulus the famous founder of Rome and Theseus, a hero of Athens. In this book he has a goal to pass a message on how principalities can be governed in the best way and stored (Niccolò, Russell & Quentin 2005). Machiavelli goes ahead and adds that hereditary principalities are easier to keep and maintain than the newly acquired ones because the rules are already set on the ground to follow. In hereditary principalities it is easier to regain lost power by regaining the love of his subjects again. He also talks about new principalities and mixed principalities which can be administered to the existing ones to the subjects. New rulers come with new territories and if they are from the same culture, region and language, ruling becomes easy. However, if the language and customs are different the new ruler needs a lot of skills, ability and luck to govern the subjects. He gives an example of King Louis XII who went to France in 1499 and adds that the king made many mistakes during his reign. He goes ahead and gives the three ways of keeping principality that is accustomed to living under its own rules. One can destroy it, live in it or accept a form of free government that is friendly and then it gets credits from it. Destroying it may be the only sure way to end it otherwise living in it could enslave one. According to Machiavelli, men who have ambitions, imitate other men with greatness. For a man to become a prince by ability, he has to win over their dominions by setting up new and inventive methods of government. It is necessary to use force to start a new system for example, Savaronola. However, one has to be armed to succeed after use of force. An example of a Prince who rose to the top through abilities is Francesco Sforza, the Duke form Milan. Due to his abilities, he sustained power easily and he ended up conquering many obstacles. He gives Cesar Borgia as a Prince who acquired his position through fortune but inheriting it from his father Pope Alexander VI. In page 34, he says that for one to be a Prince one must watch themselves form enemies, have allies by winning either by force or fraud, be feared and be obeyed, respected and loved by the subjects, and be able to abolish dishonest military and form a new one. Other ways one can become a Prince is by use of wicked means not by being elected by your fellow country people. Machiavelli also adds that another are still other ways one can become a prince, is through the support of the noble in the society. That is by the use of oppressors who help him get to the top. He also gives some characteristics of a prince like being courageous, ability, self sufficient, wise, and independent. The common people associate with a Prince who stands for themselves. The strength of a Prince is determined on how he stands on his authority and rule. Machiavelli also talks about ecclesiastical principalities in which its main source of power comes from the church. A Prince can either have their own force or rely on auxiliary forces. Both forces are useless as they have no relation to the prince. This is because mercenary are motivated by wage while auxiliary forces fight form their own minds with personal interests. Finally he concludes by saying that time is now for a dedicated and determined prince to save Italy form Barbarians. He also adds that great leaders have won their battles to and hence Prince can do it too (Niccolò, Russell & Quentin 2005). Hobbes laws of nature. Hobbes starts by arguing that all men were created equally, however he adds there are other who see they to be smarter than others. He continues and says that men are driven by their ego at their own interest. He therefore came up with laws of nature. A law of nature is generally a discovered rule by human beings by the use of reasons that does not allow a person form doing a self destructive right but it offers them right to self preservation. His first rule states that every man should work towards peace and ought to have hoped that he will obtain it. Hobbes continues and says that every man should look for a state of peace as it will offer them the best chance of surviving. To establish the peace, Hobbes came up with the second rule of nature which suggests that man creates covenant or an agreement (Hobbes 1996). According to Hobbes an agreement or a covenant is a contract that binds tow people together towards a certain goal. He describes it as a huge, authoritative body that makes and sets up laws. From his second law of nature, Hobbes got his third rule which states that it important that men keep a covenant or an agreement they make. This is because the covenant becomes null if one party violates the rules. The covenant has to have a governing bogy that would be in a position to punish a member who violates it. All political authority should seek peace with themselves and by that they obtain it too form their subjects. Most importantly to the political authority is the covenant rule of nature. Politicians should be the people to show the public how to make a covenant and live to it without violation at all. They should also be punished if they violate the covenant which becomes a big example to the citizens. Politicians are the mirror of the community and hence they are role models for many young people and hence they should set a good example to everybody. Locke’s views on State of nature Locke a great influential political philosopher disagrees with Hobbes and argues that men are free by nature ad equal before God. He adds that men were created by God to be subject to authority and they are entitled to liberty, life and property. Locke continues and says that men are naturally free and equal as part of justification for understanding legitimate political author. As a social contract, every human being has a right to own property, liberty and live freely and the government should not interfere with these rights. Moreover Locke adds that the government should protect their citizen rights and promote good in the society. Every individual is entitled to private property ownership without discrimination (Waldron 2002). In his social contract theory, Locke tries to explain natural rights and way the government are blindly adopted. He adds that government is initially stated by force or violence and hence destroying the central and the most important difference (Pasquino 1998). According to Locke, legitimately obtained power is started by clear consent of the people who are being governed by them. Locke concludes about the social contact theory by saying that it is not linked to democracy but still a government of any type should perform their clear functions of civil government. He goes ahead and defines the function of a civil government which he says preserves the right of its citizens to life, property ownership, liberty, health and to prosecute the law breakers (Uzgalis 2007). Rousseau talks about ‘Man must be forced to be free’ Jean Jacques Rousseau born in Geneva wrote his own masterpiece in which he argues that man must be forced to be free. He starts by saying that mankind was born free but everywhere they go, they are in chains which she refers to as a fundamental problem. He and his followers always cried about liberty, equality and fraternity .In his writing; Rousseau argues that it all lies within our general will. That is people have the ability of taking matters form various perspectives to their own will. The self interest we have gives us the general private will but we have the ability to consider things in the general view. From this, human kind derives their general will. She goes ahead and says that the former can be got form the latter. If you deduct the positives and the negative perspectives, the general will is the remainder of them both. Moreover every act of general will favours all the citizens in an equal perspective (Rousseau 1968). Kant and enlightenment According to Kant, enlightenment is when a man comes out from their self imposed immaturity. He defines immaturity as the failure to use their own understanding and judgment without guidance from other people. He continues and says that this immaturity is self inflicted when its cause does not come from lack of understating but it lies in the inability to solve and inner power to use it with the absence of another person to guide you. Being lazy and a coward are the main reasons as to why many men remain in a life full of immaturity. As a result they end up having guardians to guide them in decision making and hence they never tend to mature at all. The guardian provides supervision and carefully observes them to make sure they don’t make the wrong judgment. Unfortunately, they become fond of being immature that getting out of the situation is difficult and it renders the incapability to use their own understanding of anything. All what is required in enlightenment is freedom to reason in public in all situations. Being restricted may hinder enlightenment and it might end up advancing it to a higher level. This must be free and it is the only remedy for enlightenment among people. His evidence is very credible and I believe totally with his idea that enlightenment can only be solved by freedom. Burke and French Revolution French revolution is one of the famous revolutions well known in the whole universe. Edmund Burke is mostly remembered for his opposition to the French revolution. His first public condemnation to the French revolution was while he was on a debate in Parliament on the Army Estimates. Burke argues that it led to the rise of radicalism, feminism, anarchy and it was the root for socialism. Most of his arguments are based on pessimism, suspicion I the common ideologies. He condemns the works of Aristotle and also France for their killings. Burke adds that humanity is entitled to some rights like right to justice which would enhance peace in the community. From Burke ways of arguing with French revolution, we can tell that he is a man who believes in political balance. He does not like the injustices that happen in the society today and that happened back in the days. Moreover we learn that Burke is portrayed as a loyal citizen who is ready to fight for its justice (Edmund, John & Agard 1987) Right of man by Thomas Paine Thomas Paine portrays the known political revolution is acceptable when a government does not provide security for his citizens, their rights and the interests of the nation at large. His arguments are that human rights come from nature and hence they cannot be given through political charter. He goes ahead and says that if they re granted that way, it poses them as privileges. Moreover, rights are generally inherited in all human kind races and by the government denying its citizen the rights, it denies them justice. The rights of a man end in proposing practical changes of the government (Waldron 2002). This would include a constitution, having a national budget, lowering the taxes, reducing education expenses and others. Rights of man does not support hereditary government; this is because man is known to corrupt by nature and hence lawful inheritance of power enables the politicians attain the class of nobility which leads to oppressing the citizens (Robinson, Dave, Groves & Judy 2003). Mill’s principle of liberty John Stuart Mill argument on liberty focuses on the nature and the limitations of power that can be willingly be exercised on a society over an individual. He goes ahead and develops another theory which he called it harm principle. In this principle, Mills argues that every person has the right to act as he pleases as long it has no effect on other people. He continues and says that if the action regards oneself, and it does not affect the society, then the society should not get between it. He however note that since no man lives by themselves, harm done to oneself also harms the society at large and destroying the community destroys oneself too. Mill also believes in the difference between liberty and authority. Social liberty enforces limits on a ruler that he wouldn’t be a in a position to use his powers effectively. He however views liberty as a free wish unless it harms other people. He adds that people are bound to make decision about what is good and what is bad. He continues and says that one should choose the religion they want to follow and the government should not interfere with any if it (Kolmar & Frances 2005). He condemns murder and says that any member is entitled to liberty and the only case one can be executed is only if they is harmful to the other people around them. His arguments are not vague at all. I believe politicians should learn that all members are entitled to liberty and they should not execute duties to help themselves as they harm the society. They should be considerate and understand that the society grants them the power to rule and hence they should pay back by observing social liberty. Karl Mark view on History and Politics Karl Marx is a well known revolutionary communist. He came up with historical materialism which is his own theory of history. His theory is based on the idea that societies grow and die as they assist in development of mans productive authority. He views these processes like proceedings through necessary modes of production. In historical materialism Karl Marx tastes that the causes for developments and chance in mankind society lies in the cause by which they attain their basic life necessities (Shlomo 1968). He also sees that non-economic components of a society such as ideologies, social classes, political issues as the outgrowth of the economy. Marx develops beliefs about history. To start with he argues that progress in the society is driven by progress in material and productive forces the society has such as technology, labour, goods and many more. He also argues that man is unavoidably changing in relation to production which he refers to as social relations. Karl Marx makes one understand that as politics evolved with history and it continues to grow just like human beings are still evolving in social context. Politics s and history are inseparable; they go hand in hand and on one could not have started on its own. The driving force of politics is history and there can be no history without politics (Paul 2006). References Edmund, B, John, G & Agard, P 1987, Reflections on the revolution in France, Hackett Publishing. Hobbes, T 1996, Leviathan, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Kolmar, W & Frances, B 2005, Feminist theory, 2nd edn, New York, Mc Graw Hill. Niccolò, M, Russell, P & Quentin, S 2005, The prince, Cambridge University Press. Pasquino, P 1998, ‘Locke on kings prerogative’, Political theory, vol 26, pp. 198-208. Paul, B 2006, Reflections on the Marxist theory of history, Manchester University Press. Robinson, Dave, Groves & Judy, 2003, Introducing political philosophy, Icon books. Rosen and Wolff, eds, 1999, Political thought, Oxford University Press. Rousseau, JJ 1968, The social contract, Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books. Shlomo, A 1968, The social and political thought of Karl Marx, Cambridge University Press Uzgalis, W 2007, Locke’s essay concerning human understanding; A readers guide, Continuum. Waldron, J 2002, God, Locke and equality, Cambridge University Press. Read More