Human nature has been the discussion of many of philosophical works. There are some who believe human beings are inherently bad, individualistic and greedy. There are those who believe humans are inherently good and seek the best possible outcomes for society as a whole. Upon reading Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto, and John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government the audience may begin to understand how those ideas of human nature can have an effect on an individual’s political ideology.
Machiavelli, Marx, and Locke all expressed in their works how they viewed human nature and gave historical background and evidence of how their opinions of human nature directly affected their political ideology and how a society should be run. Machiavelli viewed humans as inherently selfish and corrupt, these is his main argument for the need for a political dictatorship as the ultimate form of government. Locke viewed human nature as rational, this led him to sovereignty being in the hands of the people. His ideas reflect those of a liberal and democratic society.
Lastly, Marx’s views humans as rational, leading him to believe that humans are capable of governing themselves without the exploitation of the bourgeoisie. Although Machiavelli, Locke and Marx all have different assumptions about human nature each of their assumptions greatly shaped their conception of politics. Niccolo Machiavelli’s political ideals are reflective of a dictatorship which is influenced by the selfish nature of human beings. The Prince was written by Niccolo Machiavelli while he was in exile.
In his efforts to return to politics, Machiavelli wrote the Prince in order to exert the true nature of a successful leader, and once again be in the good graces of the Medici’s who were rising to power in Italy. The Prince reveals what Machiavelli views to be a successful leader. The Prince also reveals how Machiavelli views the nature of humans and how that effects how a dictator/leader should rule. Machiavelli believes human beings are selfish, greedy, easily manipulated, and incapable of self-governing as it often ends in their own demise.
[F]or men change their rulers willingly, hoping to better themselves, and this hope induces them to take up arms against him who rules: wherein they are deceived, because they afterwards find by experience they have gone from bad to worse” (Machiavelli 201). Human selfishness inhibits the individual’s ability to make rational long-term decisions thus deeming them incapable of self-governing. If given the people the right to make their own decisions, their greed ill cloud their judgment and cause them to make decisions that may not be in their best interest.
If the society is not capable of self-governing they will need a strong leader and Machiavelli has the recipe for the perfect leader Although Machiavelli views the common people as malleable he does acknowledge that human nature can be unpredictable. “The nature of the people is variable, and whilst it is easy to persuade them, it is difficult to fix them in that persuasion” (Machiavelli 414). The best way in Machiavelli’s opinion to persuade the people is to create a bond of love and fear so that the people remain loyal and faithful to the ruler.
Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with” (Machiavelli 944). He acknowledges the people should love and fear their rulers, but if a ruler is to choose only one, it is better to be feared. Machiavelli argues that a monarchy or dictatorship is the best form of rule over the people.
In general, men are ungrateful, fickle, and cowardly so they are in need of a ruler ho is fearless and powerful to rule them (Machiavelli 946). Human beings are not capable of self-government due to their ignorance and selfishness. In the eyes of Machiavelli, only a dictator ruthless enough to do whatever it takes to maintain order and loyalty to the state is worthy of governing the land. Machiavelli saw a successful leader as a powerful dictator who provides guidance to the people, in contrast to Locke, who believed people are designed to self-govern. For John Locke, humans are quite capable of self-governing.
In fact, they are not only capable of self-governing, they are responsible to govern themselves and the government has the duty to uphold the laws which protect the self-governing people. Locke wrote two treaties on government. In the first he rejects the idea that the people cannot be governed by religious bodies or those who claim to de divinely chosen. I rejected the notion that monarchs are the chosen leaders based on religious decree. He introduces a new idea of liberalism where church and state are separate. In his Second Treatise of Government, he describes the role government is to play in society.
He speaks of democrat ideals in which the people hold sovereignty and are rational enough to self-govern. He advocates for a government that is by the people and for the people, which is built on an infrastructure of different but equal powers. Equality and liberty are a rights of all men. “[…] creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection” (Locke §4). Because men are equally there is no need for a supreme leader which is contrary to what Machiavelli wrote in The Prince.
Humans are all equal and capable of conferring with one another to protect society at large. Oppressive governmental regimes, monarchies, or dictatorships are not necessary because there is no individual who supersedes the other making them a worthy leader. Because of this government is to sever the people. The people are all responsible for the greater good of the people. All men are created equal and are to treat each as such. Human nature makes all beings equal eliminating the idea that a supreme leader is divinely elected, and give the power back to the people.
Government is to be chosen by the people as the government is designed to serve the people. Those who are united into one body, and have a common established law and judicature to appeal to, with authority to decide controversies between them, and punish offenders, are in civil society one with another: but those who have no such common appeal, I mean on earth, are still in the state of nature, each being, where there is no other, judge for himself, and executioner: which is, as I have before showed it, the perfect state of nature (Second Treatise, §87).
Locke argues that the people have sovereignty no matter who you are. Control of the people is in the hands of the people and not an oppressive government or regime. The people are their own judges, they are to decide their laws and consequences for violating those laws. Society is kept in control by conferring and agreeing on a system with which people can coexist. Even those who may not desire to be the decision makers, must as it is their duty to themselves and society at large. It is their duty because it is a birth right and responsibility to one’s self to protect individual and collective freedom from oppression.
Locke’s idea that human beings are rational beings is similar to Marx in that they both believe humans are rational beings but they differ a bit as far as political ideology. In the late 1800s communism was under harsh scrutiny. Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto to explain the history of class struggles in Europe and how communism was the ultimate form of government meant to bring equality to society and end the oppressive rule of the rising Bourgeoisie class. For Marx, humans are rational beings.
But in a bourgeoisie capitalist dominated society, reality has become distorted and diminished a once functioning society. Industrialization has created a society of working class citizens who are manipulated, easily exploited, and oppressed for monetary gains. This is counterintuitive for the advancement of society and a successful government and brings about struggles of class. Therefore Marx argues the working class should be in control of government, because they are the ones ho keep the bourgeoisie rich and the economy running.
Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat” (Marx 14). Marx argues the average working class citizens are capable of governing the land and distributing wealth evenly amongst the people. Writing is simply not enough he calls for revolution in order to restore peace and end the impoverishment of many people. For Marx, Communism is the ultimate form of government in which all people can reach. This is the case because communism seeks to make the people equal.
He would attain this equality by riding of the bourgeoisie class through the proletariats. The first step is to absolve private property which the bourgeois class has monopolized, and create a collective society. In a communist society wealth is shared among the collective. “Capital is, therefore, not a personal, it is a social power. When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property” (Marx 14).
Marx lived in a society where the elite ruling class received the majority of the country’s wealth. Humans are rational and capable of self-governing but are not given the opportunity to flourish in society because they are being oppressed. Humans are not to be exploited. Humans are equal and deserve equal treatment for the work they output which is what communism seeks to do. Once the Proletariat is the ruling class communism will be in effect and land will be distributed and used for the common good of the people, not the 1% elite ruling class.
Although Marx’ ideas of government differ from Locke, he also writes of equality and the injustices to man when a ruling class dictates society with the sole motivation to earn money through exploitation. Mar ends the manifesto by stating, “WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE” (Marx 607) Although Marx, Locke, and Machiavelli differ on human nature and politics they there is no doubt that their ideals of human nature shaped their views on politics and how society should be run. Machiavelli saw humans as flawed and incapable of self-governing thus they are in need of a powerful leader.
While Locke is on the opposite end of the spectrum and believed human beings are capable of self-governing because men are created equal. Marx alludes that humans are equal and capable of reason by suggesting wealth be distributed evenly and eliciting that the government has a duty to distribute wealth evenly to the people and not hoard it for the elite upper class leaving the remainder of the country impoverished. All three differ in opinion but are all heavily swayed by their ideas of human nature.
