The Discourses On Livy By Machiavelli And Leviathan

The Discourses on Livy by Niccolò Machiavelli and Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes provide two views on popular resistance that stand in stark contrast with each other. Whereas the former celebrates class conflict as essential to the health of a Republic, the latter condemns nearly all forms of resistance (save for one exception). In my essay I will elaborate on Machiavelli’s view of class conflict, Hobbes’ view on the matter, and then contrast their views and the underlying reasons for these differences. I will show that the intended audience of these works played a key role in shaping Machiavelli and Hobbes’ views on popular resistance.
Machiavelli praises conflict between the lower and upper classes as an instrument for liberty. He says “It seems
While the two classes have different goals, it is the perpetual conflict between these classes that allows the upper class to satisfy their ambitions and the lower class’ desire to avoid
The decision to call people “subjects” rather than citizens, is a deliberate one. Hobbes thinks people are unable to make political decisions, and must unconditionally give their loyalty to their sovereign. The sovereign is a third party outside of the subjects of a commonwealth, and can do whatever is necessary to protect the state, and its subjects. Class conflict only serves to undermine the power of the sovereign, which is to undermine the state, and the protection of the people. Therefore, class conflict is very heavily condemned.
Machiavelli and Hobbes’ accounts of civil resistance can be illustrated by an analogy of a child asking his parents to go out late at night. In this scenario, imagine an argument between a parent and a son. Regardless of the parent’s decision, Machiavelli would view this argument as beneficial to the child’s liberty and the health of the family. In contrast, Hobbes would say there should be no argument between the child and parent, and that the parent’s decision is final and must be followed without