Top-Rated Free Essay
Preview

Marx vs. Machiavelli

Powerful Essays
2315 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Marx vs. Machiavelli
A Contrast of Political Controversy: The Prince versus Capital It is often very difficult to judge which policies and principalities are correct when comparing and contrasting controversial literary works. In The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli presents many ideas that may be looked at as unethical by the general population of a nation. In fact, Machiavelli’s ideas were looked down upon by his own nation, Italy, resulting in his eventual exile. For Karl Marx, Capital presents many contradictions within itself. For instance, Marx’s claim that the general contradictions in Capitalism stem from the owner of a business needing to exploit human labor in order to increase profit and the general human population needing to work so that they continually make money, which can then be spent on goods where the money goes back to the firm. Furthermore, Marx argues that Capitalism is not recurring while the prior mentioned process certainly does not seem the same. However, the main points of comparison and contrast between The Prince and Capital remain between the conversations on leadership and the various reactions that mass population may have based on a leader’s actions. Machiavelli and Marx have views that both differ and agree, which will be evident through comparison and contrast of their individual views on the battle between necessity and morality. The two agree that sometimes it is more appropriate to do what is necessary rather than what is morally right. However, the difference between the two is the context in which they address the conflict; Machiavelli does so in giving advice to the leader of a nation while Marx concerns himself with the relationship between owners of production and laborers. Moreover, I intend to compare the actions of Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin with the beliefs of Marx and Machiavelli in an attempt to identify which belief system each identified with during their reign in Soviet Russia. It is common knowledge that when ruling a nation, one is faced with extremely hard decisions; decisions that the general population could not normally be trusted to make. The fact that one could be trusted to make these decisions for the good of the nation is, of course, the main reason why a leader is placed into power. Machiavelli argues, however, that it is not necessarily the good of the nation of which he is advising on how to preserve, but rather the leader’s control of power over that nation. In other words, Machiavelli’s advice is aimed toward a leader who wants to know how to stay in power. In doing this, Machiavelli addresses the issue of necessity versus morality and maintains that a leader’s first priority should be to maintain his power over a nation. Machiavelli addresses this claim in the chapter titled, “About those factors that cause men, and especially rulers, to be praised or censured.” He states, “…a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil” (The Prince, 47). Here, Machiavelli is saying that if a leader only concerns himself with moral excellence, he will lose his power to due to “evil” outside forces. It is possible that Machiavelli’s claim implies a sense of naivety in the morally excellent leader and that those who are willing to be corrupt in order to hold on to power will seize power over the purely ethical (47). This is merely one of Machiavelli’s many analyses of the contradiction between necessity and morality. Overall, Machiavelli argues that a leader must know when to be good and when not to be good, and that the proper balance of these elements will help insure a leader’s maintenance of power. Machiavelli states, “So it is necessary for a ruler, if he wants to hold on to power, to learn how not to be good, and to know when it is and when it is not necessary to use this knowledge” (The Prince, 48). Machiavelli is much more self-explanatory with this point than with many others, stating that if a ruler wants to hold on to power, he must be both good and not good and know the appropriate times for which. An example of this would be if a leader’s role was threatened by a conspirator and said leader had previous knowledge. The decision stands between taking the time to find evidence and properly arrest the conspirator and either exiling or executing the conspirator based off of this hunch. Though morally wrong, the latter would insure the safety of the leader’s power while the former would increase the risk of a successful takeover if the rumors of conspiracy were to be true. Machiavelli continues by listing a series of both good and bad qualities of leaders: cruel and gentle, tough and easy-going, serious and cheerful, cowardly and violent (p. 48). Machiavelli uses the most extreme adjectives in each respective comparison to accentuate the difficulty of having all good qualities and no bad qualities. He brings this point together by saying, “Now I know everyone will agree that if a ruler could have all the good qualities I have listed and none of the bad ones, then this would be an excellent state of affairs. But one cannot have all the good qualities…for we do not live in an ideal world” (p. 48). Here, Machiavelli openly recognizes the fact that our world is far from perfect and that no leader is able to maintain only the good qualities he lists. From here, we can assume that Machiavelli’s view is that it is most appropriate to have a balanced selection of good and bad qualities. Machiavelli’s arguments collectively display a contradiction between morality and necessity, which supposes leaders, or anyone in any kind of power role, must choose between doing what is ethical and doing what is necessary to maintain power or achieve a goal. This contradiction is often recognized in studying the benefits and pressures of being in a power role and can be applied to other situations than leaders of a country, such as the owner of a means of production in a Capitalist society. In relevance to the comparison between owners and laborers in Capitalism, Karl Marx takes different approach, as his view is mainly concerned with the overall good of a nation and the success of Capitalism. Marx most closely acknowledges Machiavelli’s stance through the explanation of surplus value and the necessity for a business owner to capitalize off of labor in order to increase profit margin in his work, Capital. Marx remains very focused on the relationship between labor power and surplus value, being that he claims that surplus value is created by an increase in labor. Marx argues that the normal part of the working day should be defined as necessary labor time because the scheduled workday is mapped around the necessary amount of a good that needs to be produced in order to break even. Basically, necessary labor time bears its name because it is the amount of hours that laborers need to work in order for the Capitalist to earn back his initial investment of capital. Marx states, “necessary, as regards capital, and the world of capitalists, because on the continued existence of the laborer depends their existence also” (Capital, p. 146). What Marx is saying here is that the labor during the normal part of the day, or within the hours of a normal working day, is necessary because the existence of the capitalist and his business depends on the continual work of the laborer, as stated previously. This is Marx’s way of solidifying the claim that necessary labor provides a break-even point for the Capitalist. It is with this notion that Marx moves on to surplus labor time, which ultimately defines the necessity of the capitalist to exploit the laborer in order to provide surplus value, or as we know it in today’s society, profit. Marx explains the necessary exploitation by saying, “During the second period of the labor process, that in which his labor is no longer necessary labor… he creates no value for himself” (Capital, p. 146). In this instance, Marx is speaking about the laborer and how the extra time worked has no value to the benefit of the worker. Marx elaborates on his point by claiming, “He (the laborer) creates surplus-value which, for the capitalist, has all the charms of a creation out of nothing” (Capital, p. 146). In these two quotes, Marx explains that the second period of labor, which he names surplus labor time, creates no value for the worker because the extra labor takes away from the worker’s freedom. However, this system is completely beneficial for the capitalist, who creates profit out of exploitation of the laborers, which costs little to nothing. In a sense, this is Marx acknowledging that for a leader, or business owner, to maintain power, or keep their business going, the leader must recognize that, as Machiavelli states, there are times for morality and times for necessity. More over, both Marx and Machiavelli believe this to be a crucial element in analyzing leadership roles and the maintenance of power. Ultimately, the two also believe that a leader must be able to choose when to be good and show moral excellence and when to disregard ethics and seek what is necessary in order to help their nation or, in this case, business thrive while keeping control. Marx and Machiavelli’s agreement over this contradiction is vital to understanding how their ideas can be and have panned out after being implemented into society. The history behind the Russian Revolution and the consequential conversion to Communism exemplifies the points that both Marx and Machiavelli make. In a historical sense, the idea of Communism, which was implemented in Soviet Russia in the 20th century, is almost immaculate on paper. In a Communist society, all work is done in equal amounts to benefit everyone while all goods are shared and services are only exchanged for other services. However, we cannot naturally trust other human beings with their competitive and occasionally greedy nature, to implement Communism properly for the good of a nation without getting carried away with self-indulgence. Vladimir Lenin’s actions in starting the Bolshevik revolution and taking power of Russia thereafter resemble Marx’s belief of the relationship between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. Marx’s basic belief is that eventually, the proletariat, grown tired of being taken advantage of, will come to realize its advantage in terms of population in numbers and will attempt to overtake the bourgeoisie (Capital). Lenin followed this belief in his actions and did so for the good of the nation. However, when Stalin took over, things went too far and Machiavelli would concur. Stalin killed those who disobeyed him and did not recognize the necessary balance of morality and necessity. According to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in The Gulog Archipelago, it has been estimated that 3 to 60 million deaths in Soviet Russia were attributed to Stalin’s abusive power over the time period of his reign (Solzhenitsyn). With either amount in consideration, the death of 3 million people plus under the rule of a leader is extreme and could cause feelings of contempt among the people. Machiavelli speaks about leaders who rule through fear and states that a leader must avoid hatred and contempt. Machiavelli states, “The vast majority of men, so long as their goods and their honor are not taken from them, will live contentedly…” Stalin disregarded this and took what he wanted, exploiting the laborers to no end. This ended in not only Russia, but also the allied powers in World War II realizing the need for Stalin’s end. This shows that both Marx and Machiavelli were correct in their claims. Marx remains correct because he implies that wages are the benefit to the worker and the amount of hours worked. With the exchange of wages for labor, the social relation between the owner and the worker is civil. Stalin’s abuse of power and exploitation of the workers contradicts Marx’s beliefs because Stalin ignored the worker’s need of some sort of benefit; an action which eventually ended Stalin’s reign. Machiavelli is correct in his assertion that a leader must know how to balance good and not good qualities and actions. Clearly, Stalin tried to lead by fear over anything else and it forced his people to dislike him to say the least. Overall, it is the responsibility of a leader to recognize when to be good and when not to be good. This regards to being ethical, helpful, and civil to your country’s people and allied or enemy countries. A leader must maintain control of his nation but also maintain the respect and admiration of his people. Both Machiavelli and Marx agree with this statement. Machiavelli’s recognition of this claim is in the sense of the leader, while Marx does so from the capitalist perspective. But all in all, they both agree. However, the advice that the two give was taken too far in a historical sense. Though Lenin had the right idea in attempting to reorganize government, Stalin, who took advantage of his people and gained a reputation of contempt, eventually succeeded him. The necessary balance of good and evil will help run a nation well, as seen through examples of leaders like Alexander the Great, as recognized by Machiavelli. But an abuse of power and an imbalance of good and evil may result in outcomes similar to what happened when Stalin took power. In conclusion, the battle between necessity and morality will always be present when analyzing power roles. Leaders should be concerned with maintaining power, which can be a great thing for a nation whose leader is productive and fair. Both Marx and Machiavelli help support this claim with decorated analyses on maintaining a hold on power, a very important aspect of leadership.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    This is a significant analysis of Niccolo Machiavelli’s book The Prince. This book explores multiple concepts on leadership and governance for a Prince to legislate on his road to success. Therefore, I will bring a compelling conclusion on how Russian President Vladimir Putin is a modern Machiavelli. To get a full understanding towards Niccolo Machiavelli’s political theory, we must first examine what’s managed to inspire his view of an ideal government. In the book, The Prince, Machiavelli introduces insightful claims on how the Roman Empire’s legitimacy brought a secure and stable society. In fact, presenting the Roman Empire’s platform helped the reader to thoroughly understand Machiavelli’s political theory regarding governance and the…

    • 230 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The novel that elevated George Orwell to literary fame was Animal Farm; a satirical ‘fairy tale for adults’ based on the themes of totalitarianism and Stalinism. In accordance with the theme, the book heavily satirizes the Russian Revolution; both directly and indirectly, and therefore gives rise to a host of examples to substantiate the statement: ‘Totalitarianism thrives on the exploitation of the weak by the strong’; the topic of discussion in this essay.…

    • 1590 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Machiavelli was an author and an aspiring political figure who had a strong influence on several aspects of Europe’s government. Due to his critical writings in The Prince, many historians see Machiavelli as a cruel and diabolical political figure whose true intentions were to gain power for himself. However, after looking further into Machiavelli’s political past, one can see that Machiavelli is in fact an intelligent man who possesses a hidden motive to write his novel. In his work, he covered several topics that were used by future city-state leaders to help them become successful. Machiavelli proves to be an astute political mind who used his political experience to assess the actions of famous princes and to write The Prince as a noteworthy…

    • 931 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    As described in the Communist Manifesto, there was a division of classes that were between the proletariats that were the wageworkers and were used for labor purposes, and the bourgeoisie who were considered the capitalist class and the ones who were at fault for exploitation of the proletariats. The writing in the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, after many years has a form in which it resonates in contemporary society. Having different types of social and working classes has become more relevant throughout society and has caused for issues to arise. Although the ways they are perceived and named have changed throughout the years in different locations, the existence of these classes is still consistent throughout. There…

    • 366 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Overall, Machiavelli shows that in order to be an effective prince, one must disregard the morality of one’s actions in certain times for the welfare of the state. This strong belief shows that Machiavelli’s best interests are in the state and not in the general population. Because he…

    • 358 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Introduction: Many people who have read The Prince by Niccoló Machiavelli were appalled by Machiavelli’s fierce and authorative tone he used to assert his ideas, especially his concept of how the ends justify the means, which slowly made people begin to criticize him and his book as immoral, wicked, and evil. For this reason, Machiavelli began to be insulted as a ruthless and evil person, or in the adopted term, a Machiavellian. Machiavelli didn’t wish to care for morals or spiritual integrity; however, he didn’t arrange to establish the approach to wickedness. As a matter of fact, he argues that the concept the ends justify the means are meant to be followed, but only when necessary commands for it to happen.…

    • 2621 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Karl Marx: the German philosopher with his works the communist manifesto and capital, provide a bitter critique of capitalism.…

    • 434 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Karl Marx Vs Adam Smith

    • 1892 Words
    • 8 Pages

    During the 18th and 19th centuries, there were a series of intense discussions by the great thinkers of the time, on how the economy should be molded going forward. The two most prominent of these intellectuals were Karl Marx and Adam Smith. Combined they shared a vision of an emerging social system, which they had foreseen; and what we now know as capitalism. Marx called his theory “the capitalist mode of production”, while Smith referred to the idea as the “society of perfect liberty”. There are several similarities and differences between the two social systems, and through these ideas, we can find how the economic system we use today came to exist.…

    • 1892 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Best Essays

    Karl Marx and his developed theory of Marxism played a vital role in influencing Lenin’s efforts to overthrow the Provisional Government eventually leading to the Russian Revolution of 1917.…

    • 2030 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Good Essays

    Rousseau vs. Machiavelli

    • 456 Words
    • 2 Pages

    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.…

    • 456 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Different social systems are built on different sets of values and perceptions of the world. Political science offers some means of comparison between capitalism and socialism and the various ways, in which the two ideologies are applied around the world (for some practical implementations of the two systems of government deviate substantially from their theoretical foundations). History offers insight into societies that have adhered to both ideologies with various degree of success and allows one to make conclusions based on past events. However, neither discipline can give a definite determination regarding the superiority of one social order over the other. An argument from the point of view of ethics must consider the conclusions and consideration of both history and political theory to determine the moral specifics of both capitalism and socialism. The decision which one is superior depends on one’s views on what is moral and what is not.…

    • 1668 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Machiavelli as a Humanist

    • 1899 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Machiavelli, N., 1988, The Prince, Q. Skinner and R. Price (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.…

    • 1899 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Rousseau vs. Marx

    • 2256 Words
    • 10 Pages

    In his "Discourse on the Origins of Inequality," Rousseau argues that the arts and sciences "which first civilized men, ruined humanity." The philosopher challenges Thomas Hobbes' theory of the wicked nature of man, arguing that it is not man's nature but society and the pleasantries of civilization that have weakened and demonized mankind: "It appears, at first view, that men in a state of nature, having no moral relations or determinate obligations to one another, could not be either good or bad, virtuous or vicious" (279). The nature of man, therefore, is naturally untainted and based on compassion- a basic, innate virtue. Man's nature is neither good nor evil, neither wracked with steadfast competition nor satiated of philanthropy. Man simply uses instinct, not intellect and reason, to survive. Compassion, Roussea argues, is evident as the only characteristic of man that civilization has yet to erase. For instance, both man and animal cringe at the sight of murder or the deceased of one of its kind. Through the recognition of others in society, falsification of differences, and needs of possession, Rousseau concludes that "the state of nature, being that in which the care for our own preservation is the least prejudicial to that of others, was consequently the best calculated to promote peace, and the most suitable for mankind" (280).…

    • 2256 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    2. The basic themes of this piece aimed to show the damage that free market and the revolutionizing of production by the owning class has done to society. He expresses the buildup of the Proletariat, urging them to stick together to later overthrow the Bourgeoisie. He later goes on to clarify some common misconceptions such as determining socialism from communism, “petty communism,” and the…

    • 487 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    During the nineteenth century, Karl Marx and Andrew Carnegie had definite opinions about the affects of industrialization on society. A greater understanding of their views on history and humanity can be gained by comparing and contrasting two written artifacts: The Communist Manifesto and “Wealth.”…

    • 1018 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays