Machiavelli

Another good example of this Marxist theory Is Joseph Stalin. Stalin used his military to rise to power. He killed countless people in order to come into authority and impose his beliefs on the state. Jewish virtual library explains, “Stalin consolidated his power base with the Great Purges against his political and ideological opponents, most notably the old cadres and the rank and file of the Bolshevik Party. ” (Jewish Virtual Library, 1) Throughout the Great Purges Stalin imprisoned tortured and assassinated his enemies through his militaristic force.

This Is a very clear display of Machiavellian theories because Machiavelli repeatedly states that military is the root of power and authority and he emphasizes that military should be used in order to rise to power. Another Machiavelli theory that justifies the actions of totalitarian rulers is the theory that it is more efficient to rule with cruelty and fear rather than love and fairness. Each of these totalitarian rulers used this Ideology during their time as which is why people feared and respected him.

BBC states, “Lenin demonstrated a hilling disregard for the sufferings of his fellow countrymen and mercilessly crushed any opposition. ” (BBC, 1) This shows that Machiavellian theories did support Linen’s actions because Machiavelli explains that it is better to for a “prince” to be feared rather than loved because love can come and go but the fear of pain is everlasting. Lenin proves this because he was feared and therefore people obeyed him. Another example of the use of cruelty is the cruel acts of Joseph Stalin.

Stalin ruled with an iron fist and struck fear into peoples hearts. This fear is what drove hem to obey Stalin and conform to his will. Jewish Virtual Library states “It is believed that with the purges, forced famines, state terrorism, labor camps, and forced migrations, Stalin was responsible for the death of as many as 40 million people within the borders of the Soviet Union. ” Jewish Virtual Library, 1) This follows Machiavellian theory because Stalin was excessively cruel to millions of people and was respected for a long period of time because of fear.

Another theory that these totalitarians embody is the theory that a “prince” should ease their decisions on the well being of the state. For example: Karl Marx imposed his theory of communist-based Marxism on his state because he thought it was the best thing for the state. The Communist League explains “Marxist-Leninist accept the concept of social class put forward above, but hold that a person’s social class is determined not by the amount of his wealth, but by the source of his income as determined by his relation to labor and to the means of production. (Marxism and Class, 1) Marx created this intricate system of classes in order to maintain order thin his state. Although it was not successful, Marx created this policy for the well being of the state, so that the state could flourish. This relates to Machiavellian theory because Marx did as Machiavelli advised. He had the well being of the state in mind throughout his time of ruling. Another ruler who followed Machiavellian theory on well being of the state was Vladimir Lenin. Lenin not only followed a Marxist trend in his state, but he also tried to improve his state’s economy.

BBC states, “He introduced the New Economic Policy, here a measure of private enterprise was again permitted, a policy that continued for several years after his death. ” (BBC,I) Lenin introduced this policy in order to preserve the economy of his state. It lasted several years after his death, which means he was successful in doing so. Lenin laid out a structure for the state to thrive because he had the well being of the state in mind while making his decisions. This follows Machiavellian theory because Machiavelli said to make every decision based on the well being of the state.

Although he was cruel and used militaristic power, he was ultimately trying to better the state in his own way which is exactly what Machiavelli preaches. All in all, Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, and Vladimir Lenin were embodiments of the theories Machiavelli introduced in “The Prince”. They ruled and based their states on militaristic power, they ruled their states through cruelty and pain over compassion and love, and kept the well being of the state in mind in every decision they made. Machiavellian theories Justified their actions in that they each very closely followed them.

Karl Marx had a strong military and had the well being of the state in mind, throughout his time as ruler, and Vladimir Lenin had a strong military and also made sure to keep the well being of his state in mind. Although the states of these rulers were not very successful and resulted in the deaths of many people, they were supported by the Machiavellian theories. The lesson to be learned is that although their actions were supported by the Machiavellian theories, they caused severe damage and terror to the world and these theories should ultimately not be used in any type of modern government.

How does each author’s conceptualization of “the people” affect what kind of government they support? Life experience, culture, language, time of living and many other factors affected Lao Tzu’s and Niccolo Machiavelli’s views on how an ideal leader ought to govern a country. These views, expressed in their texts, reflected on how these writers perceived the fellow men. Lao Tzu is a Chinese philosopher and founder of Daoism.

He is the author of a philosophical document called “Tao-te Ching”. Niccolo Machiavelli, is a 15th century aristocrat and a writer, mostly famous for his political treatise, “The Prince”. This essay will attempt to analyze both authors’ views on human nature and the way these views affected the types of government supported. As mentioned above different lives of Lao Tzu and Machiavelli influenced their images of human nature. Lao Tzu worked in the court of the ruling dynasty and lived a quite stable and peaceful life in around the 5th century B. C.

E. Whereas Machiavelli lived during the time of political turmoil in Italy. He was suspected of conspiring against the royal family and was even tortured for that (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Thus, these different living conditions led both philosophers to think of “the people” differently: Lao Tzu had a positive opinion of individuals, which is contrary to that of Machiavelli’s suspicious and cynical image of “the people”. This is important to analyze because these views in some way determined the way they portrayed an ideal government.

Lao Tzu, in his “Tao-te Ching”, has an optimistic, almost idealistic perception of “the people”. His proposed attitude for the ruler to have toward citizens resembles that of parents toward a child. They treat the child with love and care. At the same time they let go of restrictions and rules, so that he/she learns from their own mistakes and grows up to be self-reliant. The “upbringing” of children can be compared to governing people. Lao Tzu in paradoxical way proposes to stick to the “practice of not doing” (Jacobus 24) and let the things take their natural course.

The author encourages leaders to give “the people” more freedom and rights: “I let go of the law and people become honest” (Jacobus 29). He believes in the good in people and in their ability to choose the morally good paths. He says: “Throw away morality and justice and people will do the right thing” (Jacobus 25). His description of an ideal government resembles a modern day democratic type of government as “democracy” literally means “ruled by the people” (Britannica Online Encyclopedia). “The Prince” reveals an entirely different view of “the people”.

Lao Tzu is mostly concerned with their well being. He advocates politics based on moral considerations while Machiavelli advices the leader not to bother with such things and focus more on practical politics. The latter is a reflection of a pessimistic and cynical view of “the people”. According to the author they are “ungrateful, fickle, avoiders of danger and greedy for gain” (Jacobus 46). The very title of the book, and its form as a handbook for the ruler, a single person, hint at support for monarchic type of government.

Monarchy is a type of political system in which authority is represented in a single person who exercises supreme power (Britannica Online Encyclopedia). Moreover, strictly speaking, Machiavelli basically says that “bad” people need a strict ruler, who would be feared. As a matter of fact “it is better to be feared than loved”, because love is temporal, while fear is constant (Jacobus 46). Therefore, his kingship seems more like an autocracy or even dictatorship. Dictators gain despotic power, which they then maintain through the use of intimidation and oppression (Britannica Online Encyclopedia).

The advice in these two texts, however, might not be as relevant as handbooks for politicians these days. Practice shows that there have not been many prosperous absolutely democratic governments, which at the same time imposed no laws and restrictions whatsoever; neither have there been many despotic monarchs in power to successfully run a country. The views of “the people” by both writers represent two extremes, and seem to be unrealistic and in a way paradoxical.

Reading and understanding both books, however, is still of significant value, because they represent the literary and historical legacy of political thought and most importantly they discalse the two particular ways of looking at the world. On the one side “The Prince” gives an insight of what the world looks like from a demoralized and cynical realist’s perspective. On the other hand “Tao-te Ching” expresses utopian perceptions of an idealist. To sum up Lao Tzu in his “Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching”, he advocates the “practice of not doing” as a way to govern people.

One of the reasons for that are the author’s high opinion of and belief in their ability to adopt a morally right behavior. He proposes for things to take their natural course. Therefore, adapted to modern times, the type of government that Lao Tzu supports resembles democracy. Machiavelli, on the contrary, views ‘the people’ as “simulators and deceivers”. Thus he directs “the prince” to rule by keeping ‘the people’ in awe. He signals his support for monarchy and, possibly, dictatorship.

Works Cited

1. Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Democracy. 15 Sep. 012. <http://www. britannica. com/EBchecked/topic/157129/democracy>
2. Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Dictatorship. 14 Sep. 2012. <http://www. britannica. com/EBchecked/topic/ 162240/dictatorship>
3. Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Monarchy. 15 Sep. 2012. <http://www. britannica. com/EBchecked/topic/ 388855/monarchy> Jacobus.
4. Lee A. A World of Ideas. Boston: Bedford / St. Martins, 2010. 925-28. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Niccolo Machavelli. 8 Sep. 2009. 14 Sep. 2012. <http://plato. stanford. edu/entries/machiavelli/>