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.