In the early nineteenth century after the recession had nearly wiped out peoples hope in Europe, there emerged four elite philosophers who gave people something to believe in: John Locke, Niccolo Machiavelli, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. New perspectives on people and politics soon started to surface and arguments arose about what ideologies others had. It could be said that Locke saw Machiavelli to represent the interests of the monarch without any consent of the people because of how in Prince, he explained how a growing leader should rule through intimidation as that is the only way to maintain control compared to Locke who believed people are independent to make their own decisions. On the contrary, it can be argued that Marx saw Locke as an ideology of capitalism because of how they both viewed humans as independent people who should be seen as equals thus making the humans and the property resources to capitalism.
The nature of humans tend to point to fear and in order to control the people, a leader must arise and do anything even if it is against their will. This ideology is portrayed quite well in Prince by a prince who strives to be successful. When the question of being loved or feared is brought up, Machiavelli claims that naturally you would want both as a leader. (Machiavelli 66) He also claims that people would find more “security” in being feared rather than being loved as he comes to the assumption that men are ungrateful and would do anything to escape danger and protect themselves. (Machiavelli 66) By assuming what humans are likely to do, he assesses that humans are selfish in the way they think and need someone to pave a path for them because they should not be free to decide what they could do. This is...
... middle of paper ...
...writers had changed the way people thought about government and politics in Europe during the early nineteenth century and constructed a way to how people still think now. Machiavelli had brought forward the idea of how using a person’s weakness can benefit a ruler in controlling his state and representing the people of the state inferior to him. This could be seen as putting the monarch’s interest before that of the peoples which in turn could be argued by Locke who had purely the opposite beliefs. Some of Locke’s beliefs could be justified by Marx as the ideology could be seen as capitalism through human investment. Through examples provided from Prince, Second Treatise of Government and The Communist Manifesto it can be said that these philosophers could reach these conclusions about one another from these different ideologies that were presented in each book.
Machiavelli’s advice to a prince who wanted to hold power is that they have to instill fear into the people. He believes fear is important because it restrains men, as they fear being punished. Love will never help you hold power because it attaches people to promises. Machiavelli believes that since humans are wicked, they will break these promises whenever their interests is at stake. Men will devote everything to you if you serve their interests, but as soon as you need help, they turn on you. Therefore, creating fear in them is the perfect strategy. I feel like Machiavelli is being sarcastic and did this to get attention. He knew his way of thinking was different and would get the attention of the people.
Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill present three distinct models of government in their works The Prince, Second Treatise of Government, and Utilitarianism. From an examination of these models it is possible to infer their views about human nature and its connection to the purpose of government. A key to comparing these views can be found in an examination of their ideas of morality as an intermediary between government and human nature. Whether this morality must be inferred from their writings or whether it is explicitly mentioned, it differs among the three in its definition, source, and purpose.
The Enlightenment was characterized by the emergence of philosophes who advocated for critical thinking and reasoning. Marx shared some common things and even was influenced by Enlightenment thinkers. Works of Rousseau, John Lock and Hegel were believed to be inspiration to Marx. In his book Das Kapital (Capital), Karl Marx adopted the idea of Jock Locke that human existence is directly related to requirement to fulfill basic needs( Hunt ,718). Marx believed the most important thing that distinguishes human beings from other creatures is that humans produce their means of subsistence. Despite the fact that Rousseau and Marx differed in the idea of Government and state, both attacked private property. According to Marx, it is the existence
Machiavelli and Rousseau, both significant philosophers, had distinctive views on human nature and the relationship between the government and the governed. Their ideas were radical at the time and remain influential in government today. Their views on human nature and government had some common points and some ideas that differed.
Andy Smith J. Ward February 17, 2014 History 102 Revolutionary Thinkers Locke versus Smith John Locke and Adam Smith were critically acclaimed to be revolutionary thinkers and their thoughts and reasons have very good reasons backed up with ways to describe the Economy and the Government as inefficient or wrong in their Era of their lifetime. John Locke and Adam Smith are both believers that the government should be active in supporting social and political change in the economy. Both Locke and Smith’s thoughts can be equally said revolutionary in comparison, but in terms of what era they lived in and more history that has happened to see more mistakes to correct what happened and possible future outcomes for a clear revolutionary though I believe Adam Smith’s ideas were more revolutionary and his dominant ideas that have helped what we think is the way we do things in todays economy. Smith's influential work, The Wealth of Nations, was written based on the help with the country’s economy who based it off his book. Smith’s book was mainly written on how inefficient mercantilism was, but it was also written to explain what Smith thought was to be a brilliant yet complicated idea of an economic system based on the population and the social ladder.
Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.
The subject of human nature has great emphasis in “The Prince”. Human beings are viewed as rational decision makers who try to maximize their self-interest. They are inclined to help whoever will give them the most benefits and by definition, may easily betray someone to whom they were previously loyal seeing a better opportunity. A large part of being a prince or a politician is being able to lead people, and therefore it is of utter importance in how to deal with their behavior. “Here a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will fin...
While “every sensible prince wishes to be considered, merciful and not cruel”(pg. 35), one should learn to be merciful in moderation. Not doing so can lead to unintended effects where if you are too “good” it can lead to being taken advantage of, or to “uprisings and civil war” because then you will be looked at as a pushover by your citizens and other neighboring countries. Therefore if you were to be cruel, people will fear you enough to, in theory, not go against you and stay united. But I think this concept seems more like a dictatorship, which thrives on citizens fear, and I don’t think it should be instilled in our government considering that most dictatorships end poorly and lead to more uprisings and civil war than with a merciful leader. And this is why the question in this section on whether it is better to be feared or loved also comes up. Machiavelli believes that a prince should find a balance of being both feared and loved and in general just try to escape hatred. If you are loved by your people, rarely will they betray you, but it is also good to be feared by other nations so that you are not looked upon as a target. So in this section of the prince I think the concept of ruling only on fear should not be used, however I do think that a leader should try balance being loved and
During the 19th century, Europe faced a transition from its Feudal system to a newly born capitalism. The decline of the feudal system was caused by several political uprising. These revolutions gave way for the birth of different political ideologies, such as liberalism, radicalism, and socialism (among others). This new era set the stage for several changes in Europe. Most notably, the industrialization and urbanization of Europe. Even though the industrial revolution had both positive and negative impacts on Europe, it was problematic as it established new social classes defined by the means of wealth. As a consequence to the industrial revolution, Marx and Engels, who held socialist ideas, attacked the capital system. They aimed to abolish private property and classes themselves. However, it can be reasonably argued that their call for a violent workers’ revolution was an ill solution to the crisis at that time. A revolution will bring destruction, lack of confidence in leadership, and enforced equality on humans rather than a natural, gradual movement toward reform and prosperity as suggested by other political ideologies of the same time period.
The political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx examined the role that the state played and its relationship to its citizen’s participation and access to the political economy during different struggles and tumultuous times. Rousseau was a believer of the concept of social contract with limits established by the good will and community participation of citizens while government receives its powers given to it. Karl Marx believed that power was to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois’ personal property and capital. While both philosophers created a different approach to establishing the governing principles of their beliefs they do share a similar concept of eliminating ownership of capital and distributions from the government. Studying the different approaches will let us show the similarities of principles that eliminate abuse of power and concentration of wealth by few, and allow access for all. To further evaluate these similarities, we must first understand the primary principles of each of the philosophers’ concepts.
Machiavelli focused more on the country 's political power, whereas John Locke focused more on the rights of the people. Is that true? I said they both had the same goal which was to look out for the best of the state, but Locke was a lot less extreme and focused more on his people rights. Despite their contradictions on "sovereignty", John Locke and Niccolo Machiavelli shared one conspicuous concern, and that is their concern for the betterment of society. It is plain to see that both philosophers did have common ways of thinking regarding what a ruler should and should not do. It is 'how ' a ruler should behave in order to win sovereignty of his state that led to a divergence in their opinions. Machiavelli and Locke both considered the nature of government and man 's individual interests as they relate to governmental structures. Machievelli 's idea of fortune and Locke 's 'state of nature ' concept both shaped the theorists arguments about the purpose of political life. It has been posited that for Machiavelli, politics is an unpredictable arena in which ambition, deception and violence render the idea of the common good meaningless, while Locke would argue that political or civil society exists only to preserve the rights of the individual. It can be argued that for both Machiavelli and Lock, political activity, then, becomes merely a means of satisfying selfish
and when it (danger) comes nearer to you they turn away? (649). Machiavelli reinforces the Prince?s need to be feared by stating: ?? men are less hesitant about harming someone who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared?? (649).
When examining the totalitarian government of 1984 by George Orwell, a direct connection can be drawn to the motives and ideals associated with Niccoló Machiavelli’s The Prince. Machiavelli’s support of the political necessity as a means to remain in power resonate with the government whose aim is to “extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought” as a way to ensure complete political orthodoxy within the country (193). Specifically, Machiavellian thought plays an important part in 1984 as its ideas on reputation, revolution, avoiding hatred, and the use of fear to control a populace are used by INGSOC in order to maintain complete control throughout the story. In the following paragraphs, the connections between these two works above will be elaborated on in an attempt to show the Machiavellian influence of the government in 1984.
If a prince can not be both feared and loved, Machiavelli suggests, it would be better for him to be feared by the citizens
According to Niccolo Machiavelli “if you have to make a choice, to be feared is much safer than to be loved” (225). Machiavelli was the first philosopher of the Renaissance, and wrote The Prince which argued that leaders must do anything necessary to hold on to power. The main reason it is better to be feared is because men are evil, rotten and will only do things that benefit themselves. Men only think of themselves and it is for this reason fear can control them and keep them loyal to a leader. Since loyalty through love can be easily broken because it involves no punishment, loyalty through fear is the better choice because it involves the “dread of punishment, from which [the subjects] can never escape” (Machiavelli 226). Machiavelli goes on to say that the great leader Hannibal took control of his immense army, because the soldiers saw Hannibal as a fearsome and cruel person, thus, making them loyal to him. Machiavelli in addition gives an example of a leader who chose not to be feared and cruel: “Scipio, an outstanding man not only among those of his own time, but in all recorded history; yet his armies revolted in Spain, for no other reason than his excessive leniency in allowing his soldiers more freedom than military discipline permits”(226). Failure to be cruel and fearsome will cause a leader to lose control of his soldiers, and it will cause the leader’s soldiers to revolt. Hannibal was the better leader; even though he was cruel, he was more merciful in reality than Scipio because he did not allow any disorders to happen.