Similarities Between Karl Marx And Machiavelli

The idea of human nature and the role of government in society has no doubt been influenced by the works of John Locke, Karl Marx and Niccolo Machiavelli. Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto illustrates the desire to eliminate economic classes, Locke’s Second Treatise of Government protests against unjust rulers by establishing natural rights, and Machiavelli’s The Prince is an elaborate guide for acquiring, maintaining and protecting a state. Unlike Machiavelli, Locke and Marx put their trust in human reason and rationale, and argue that citizens have a right to revolt if a government is not meeting their needs. Machiavelli, to contrast, would conclude that is a dangerous fallacy, since it ignores what he considers the reality of the human
This belief is the major driving force behind his argument that a king or prince is to be the highest authority in society. Furthermore, according to Machiavelli, the greatest moral good is preserving a stable state, and the actions to maintain a country, no matter how cruel, is always justified. The acquiring and maintaining of power is what interests Machiavelli the most and because human nature is so instinctively evil and untrustworthy, it takes a strong authoritative figure, like a king, to control its citizens. A prince must exhibit certain principalities and rule by force rather than by law. It is imperative that a prince do whatever is necessary to sustain power, and while the goal of a prince is not to be hated, Machiavelli feels it is much better to be feared than loved. “Love endures by bond which men, being scoundrels, may break whenever it serves their advantage to do so. Fear is supported by the dread of pain, which is ever present” (67). Since a prince cannot please everyone, the only way to assure the loyalty of his citizens, and his position as prince, is by invoking
Their conclusions put sovereignty in the hands of the people, not the government. In Second Treatise of Government, Locke proposes a civil state built upon the natural laws of the common people. He immediately refutes the divine right of sovereignty and justifies why he believes that no one person should have power over another. In chapter 1, Locke states that “Adam had no, either by natural right fatherhood or by positive donation from God, any such authority over his children, nor dominion over the world, as is pretended” (Locke 7). Since Adam was not given absolute authority over the world, his heirs do not have absolute authority, therefore no one can claim rights since no one can prove they are from Adams lineage. He discusses the state of nature-a state in which individuals are provided equal as well as natural rights and freedom from outside rule. These rights include life, liberty and the right to own property. People have the right to take what they need, without being greedy, and they have the right to defend their property if they feel it is being infringed upon. Locke believes government is only functional if it has the will