Comparing and Contrasting Machiavelli's Ideas on Power with Karl Marx's Ideas on Money

Machiavelli’s interpretation of human nature was greatly shaped by his belief in God. In his writings, Machiavelli conceives that humans were given free will by God, and the choices made with such freedom established the innate flaws in humans. Based on that, he attributes the successes and failure of princes to their intrinsic weaknesses, and directs his writing towards those faults. His works are rooted in how personal attributes tend to affect the decisions one makes and focuses on the singular commanding force of power. Fixating on how the prince needs to draw people’s support, Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of doing what is best for the greater good. He proposed that working toward a selfish goal, instead of striving towards a better state, should warrant punishment. Machiavelli is a practical person and always thought of pragmatic ways to approach situations, applying to his notions regarding politics and

Karl Marx’s critique of political economy provides a scientific understanding of the history of capitalism. Through Marx’s critique, the history of society is revealed. Capitalism is not just an economic system in Marx’s analysis. It’s a “specific social form of labor” that is strongly related to society. Marx’s critique of capitalism provides us a deep

Niccolò Machiavelli was an activist of analyzing power. He believed firmly in his theories and he wanted to persuade everyone else of them as well. To comment on the common relationship that was seen between moral goodness and legitimate authority of those who held power, Machiavelli said that authority and power were essentially coequal.9 He believed that whomever had power obtained the right to command; but goodness does not ensure power. This implied that the only genuine apprehension of the administrative power was the attainment and preservation of powers which indirectly guided the maintenance of the state. That, to him, should have been the objective of all leaders. Machiavelli believed that one should do whatever it took, during the given circumstance, to keep his people in favor of him and to maintain the state. Thus, all leaders should have both a sly fox and ravenous wolf inside of him prepared to release when necessary.10

For most contemporary readers, Niccolò Machiavelli is a name synonymous with deceit, cunning, and manipulation, a reputation which stems almost entirely from his authorship of one of the central works of modern political philosophy: The Prince. Given this image, it is incredibly ironic that the Italian word virtù and its derivatives appear no less than seventy-two times throughout the work. While the translator goes to great lengths to adapt this versatile word to the context of the situation, it is nevertheless clear that virtù is closely related to its English cognate virtue. This, along with the political nature of Machiavelli’s work, shapes the discourse about the nature of princedoms into one in which the author explores the more

Machiavelli has long been required reading for everyone intrested in politics and power. In The Prince Niccolo M

The shift from the medieval era to early modernity in the political sphere is notably exemplified in the writings of Niccolò Machiavelli. Two of Machiavelli’s works, The Prince (1532) and Discourses (1531)

Marx viewed the ‘commodity’ as the most elementary form of modern wealth. The essence of the commodity is the

Niccolo Machiavelli and Karl Marx developed theories concerning wealth and poverty in our society, as well as different types of governments. For instance, Machiavelli supported a capitalist economic system, unlike Marx, who embraced socialism in the society. Machiavelli wrote a book "The Prince" that explained how to be an effective leader. The theme of the book is "the end justifies the means." A person could or should do whatever is necessary to achieve the desired goal. According to Machiavelli, there is no concept of a perfect ruler, but only effective or ineffective leaders. Therefore, he claims that there are no fair fighters, but only losers and winners. Contrary, Marx embraced democracy as good practice for the government. This paper will analyze whether Marx would buy Machiavelli 's thought that states "desired ends justify undesirable means" (Weng 1).

Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince examines the nature of power and his views of power are still somewhat in existence today. I'll discuss this in this essay, emphasizing the following theses. Machiavelli discusses power over the people, dictatorial power, and power with people, shared power. While it is possible for power with to attain greater prevalence in society, it will not completely eliminate power over. In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses two distinct groups of people, the political elite, including nobles and other princes, and the general public. Today in the United States, the first group, the political elite, includes political leaders, religious leaders, business leaders and the leaders of

Niccolo Machiavelli is a very pragmatic political theorist. His political theories are directly related to the current bad state of affairs in Italy that is in dire need of a new ruler to help bring order to the country. Some of his philosophies may sound extreme and many people may call him evil, but the truth is that Niccolo Machiavelli’s writings are only aimed at fixing the current corruptions and cruelties that filled the Italian community, and has written what he believed to be the most practical and efficient way to deal with it. Three points that Machiavelli illustrates in his book The Prince is first, that “it is better to be feared then loved,”# the second

Karl Marx describes “Society as a whole [as being] more and more [split] up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other-bourgeoisie and proletariat” (Marx 124).  As Marx made his distinction between upper class, bourgeoisie, and lower class, proletariats, it is important to keep in mind the societal structure at the time.  To understand how classes were created and the disparity between the rich and poor, or, bourgeoisie and proletariat, it is necessary to examine how people came to be rich and poor.  Exploring a time before money existed will help us to process and understand reasons why the binary between rich and poor exists and how it is reflective of low and high art distinctions.

I have always found great interest in the infamous Niccolo Machiavelli and his ways of thinking; my eye was drawn to him long before I knew I would be studying at Colorado State and even before I had any interest in politics. It was from young man know as Tupac Shakur, and let me tell you it is great to finally understand who Machiavelli is and the things he has done for the outlook on politics after hearing about how much respect and praise he got from the iconic rapper of the 1990s. In this paper I will be analyzing and contrasting Thomas More’s “Utopia” and Machiavelli’s “The Prince” and their ideas on subjects that include good governance and social orders, key reforms, and who should be held responsible for providing good governance and an orderly society.

Although misunderstood when introduced to society during their time, Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince and Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan have been two of the most influential political works in history. The Prince and Leviathan, although seen as immoral and almost wicked works of their time, have guided many political thinkers, even America’s own Thomas Jefferson, on the subject of governance and power. This paper will compare the similarities and differences between both works in terms of the historical settings in which they were written as well as between the two distinct political philosophies presented by each man. More specifically, this paper will differentiate the purpose of power between Machiavelli’s theory of an absolute ruler separated from morals and ethics compared to Hobbes’ reasoning for a necessary and absolute ruler to put an end to the chaotic “state of nature” he presents.

However, that said, some of his ideas continue to attract philosophical engagements even by the so-called first rank philosophers. This qualifies the incorporation of some of his ideologies into any comprehensive philosophical survey. This paper therefore zeros in on his political ideals that have culminated into what is known as Machiavelli’s political philosophy of ‘Machiavellism’ (Meinecke, 1965). The paper seeks to explore his political ideologies in general. Further, the paper seeks to establish based on any real evidence whether Machiavelli is indeed a ‘break’ in the political philosophy or otherwise. In keeping with the latter

This brings my analysis to the subject of religion and its relationship with political authority. Machiavelli feels religion is a double edged sword where an excess of it in government is harmful but the appearance that it is part of government is not only beneficiary, but necessary. Machiavelli writes that a political leader, "…should appear, upon seeing and hearing him, to be all mercy, all faithfulness, all integrity, all religion. And there is nothing more necessary than to seem to possess this last quality." (The Prince Chapter XVIII) Machiavelli's argument centers around his assertion that having all these qualities and employing them at all times is harmful because a leader often has to resort to contradictory measures in order to