The Prince of Machiavelli and Adolf Hitler

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), the Italian philosopher and diplomat, has contributed a lot of discourses to the Western thoughts on political theory and histography. Niccolo Machiavelli was born of an old citizen family in Florence in 1469. His writings, though famous for their political philosophy content, have often been referned to as maddening and unsystematic. He is the founder of the modern political science. His writings on ethics and moral have influenced many of the 20^th century writers.

Not much is recognized regarding his life until 1498, when he was selected second chancellor and secretary to the Florentine Republic. His book the Prince is exceptional, not for the given explanation on how to run other lands and how to manage them, but since it gives recommendation that frequently ignores all moral and ethical rules. According to Machiavelli everybody is so far alienated they how he ought to live for those reason. Therefore, it is essential for a prince, longing to sustain himself, to gain knowledge on how to be able to use it according to essentiality.

This paper deals with a study of Machiavelli's concept of virtue, human nature and politics. It also makes an attempt to compare the ideas of Hobbes and how these are opposing to the ideas of Machiavelli.

Machiavelli attributed many meanings to the concept of Virtue. Foremost among them is that virtue is the part of a good life. Next he says virtue is the political ability. According to him a virtuous man attains his goal in his political life. He further argues that virtue is the physical ability or strength. Another theory that he postulates relates virtue to utility, were he opines that virtue of a thing lies in its utility. Machiavelli clarifies the term virtue clear in his work, "The Prince," by describing the positive qualities of the prince. While speaking of the principalities, Machiavelli points out two factors that are the fate of the ruler which is the fortune and ability. He says that virtue is not needed to acquire a hereditary principle but if the rulers have to attain a new principle he needs virtue.

The Prince is a diverse book on making and managing principalities since it does not give an insight on an ideal prince, however, Machiavelli describes using illustrations, which princes are the most victorious in acquiring and sustaining power. Machiavelli gives his illustrations from his personal studies made whilst he was on ambassadorial missions in Florence and from his analysis in primordial history.  It has been a universal observation between political philosophers the existence of a special connection between legitimate authority and moral goodness. It is accurately this moralistic view of power that Machiavelli criticizes in his popular article, The Prince.

According to him, there is no ethical basis to critic the disparity between lawful and unlawful uses application of power. To a certain extent, power and authority are fundamentally coequal: somebody who has power has the all rights to order; however, righteousness does not guarantee power and that good individual has no more power because of being good (Machiavelli 78). Therefore, in direct antagonism to a moralizing theory of politics, Machiavelli outlined that the only genuine apprehension of the political ruler is the attainment and safeguarding of power. Machiavelli argument presents an incisive disapproval of the theory of authority by the dispute that the idea of lawful rights of ruler ship contributes nothing to the real control of power. The Prince professed to reveal the insecure political pragmatism of an author who is fully conscious that honesty and right are inadequate to succeed and sustain political office. Machiavelli hence tries to study and educate on the regulations of political power. According to him, power typically describes political action, and therefore, it is indispensable for any winning ruler to be acquainted on how power is to be utilized. That is, by means of the appropriate use of power, Machiavelli considers that people can be obedient and that the leader will be competent in maintaining security and safety in the state.

Machiavelli's political hypothesis, then, signifies a concentrated attempt to keep out matters of power and legality from contemplation in the debate on political judgement and political decision-making. He emphasized more plainly in his handling of the connection between force and law. Machiavelli recognizes that good arms and good laws comprise the dual basis of a regimented political structure. However, he instantly attaches that because compulsion generates legality, he will focus his concentration on force. Legitimacy of law according to him rests completely upon the danger of hash force; authority as a right is impossible for Machiavelli, distant from the authority to implement it. Subsequently, Machiavelli concludes that panic is at all times favoured than fondness in subjects, just as aggression and dishonesty are superior to legitimacy in efficiently domineering them never passes. Consequently, he cannot actually be said to have a presumption of responsibility apart from the obligation of power; individuals comply with just because they are afraid of outcomes of accomplishing, be it the loss of life or of human rights.

Concurrently, a Machiavellian perception openly opposes the idea of any foundation for authority autonomous of the total control of power. To him, individuals are obliged to comply with, simply in respect to the advanced power of the country. If someone considers not follow a particular law, what ultimately leads him to succumb to that the law will be either the real exercise of that power or a horror of the power of the country. It is authority, which is finally essential for the enforcement of contradictory views of what should be done.

Machiavelli brings out a full and inclusive account of the approaches, personal qualities, as well as methods, which are essential in order to grow and uphold power. There is a revelation that Machiavelli’s exact purpose utilises the techniques delineated in his book as a portrayal of human characters. The procedure of rising to supremacy brings with it a superfluity of intrinsic problems that must be persistently overcome previous to, during, and past conquest. There was also a warning by Machiavelli that there would be nothing more difficulty undertaking, or more probable of failure or more risky withdraw, than to be a leader planning to establish a government. The talents and strength required to overcome these barriers comprise a set of merits that Machiavelli termed it as a virtue. This is a significant characteristic of his Prince. Similarly, this is a set of merits that he takes to aim at overthrowing the customary paradigm.

Machiavelli was unsuccessful in particularly describing a virtue, but he accomplishes great lengths in defining how people with virtues think and act. He argues that a successful ruler must implement a reasonable merge of “beastly qualities” demonstrated by the fox as well as the lion. He stated that the lion does not distinguish ways of avoiding traps, with the fox not simply crushed by wolves. The recklessness of the sturdy, hostile lion must be irritated with the sly vigilance of the bodily weaker fox.

Machiavelli displays fox like attributes with those of lion in his literature. He repeatedly makes daring, unpleasant comments like mentioning that persons have to either be caressed or else crushed. He declares himself as powerful and bravely pushed his personal agenda, sensitive but scared of the reality that he is absolutely bucking the recognized cultures.

Additionally, Machiavelli is witty enough to fake kindness with the ordinary morality to a given extend. After considering the carnage of Agathocles, with several strengths that Machiavelli celebrated, he sides with the feelings of the reader. He mentioned that a person should not term a virtue as a massacre of another fellow citizens and should not be merciless or without religion. This demonstrates Machiavelli’s foxlike scheming in evading the consequences of the reader concerning his exit from traditional principles. His hypocrisy is obvious later in his writings when he persuaded untruthfulness, unkindness and misuse of religion as a way to acquiring power.

The Prince delineates many doctrines significant for the conqueror to judge throughout all phases of his ascend to rule. For example, when conquering a foreign country, Machiavelli supports autonomy of attempts very much. Particularly, he gives direction to evade making needless alliances and to exploits troops involving only his own citizens. In his own logical attack, Machiavelli takes analogous loom by relying solitary on his analysis of historical episodes and not on other scholars’ opinion (Machiavelli 36).

Another fascinating technique of invasion that Machiavelli both approves for political divergence and employs in his own encounter is the exploit of religion as a way of rationalization. He directs Ferdinand of Aragon to utilize the religion’s premise to get funds for his military and to validate attacks on Africa. Once a country is conquered, there is an essential changeover period as the victor sets up himself as the lawful ruler. It is tremendously hard to establish a fresh regime more than beating the past regime’s armed forces. As Machiavelli declares, it is crucial to give felony whomever you obtain authority when you turn into a new leader. Machiavelli ensured the demolition of the leftovers of power of the customary moral as well as his former principled leaders. In a straight hit against Plato’s bequest, he condemns lofty dialogue of an advanced kingdom. He also dishonoured, in a slight way, the ethical power of the Catholic cathedral by taking it as a harshly political institution. It also treats the papacy as an expedient authoritarianism.

His argument in The Prince is intended to exhibit that political affairs can only comprehensibly be distinct in terms of the superiority of coercive control; authority as a right to order has no autonomous prominence. He demonstrates this declaration by orientation to the discernible realism of public life and political affairs as well as by opinion informative the egocentric nature of all human behaviour. For Machiavelli it is pointless and ineffectual to speak of any assert to power and the right to order which is separate from the control of superior political control. The leader who follows his rights on his own will certainly wilt and pass away by those similar rights, since in the play of political divergence those who favour power to authority are most probable to be successful. Without exemption, the power of states and their rules and regulations will never be recognized if not sustained by a show of authority, which makes compliance unavoidable. The techniques for acquiring compliance are diverse, and depend greatly upon the prudence that the prince employs. Therefore, the victorious ruler wants extraordinary training (Machiavelli 45).

Concerning the advice to preserve the lawful status quo, Machiavelli leaves many social customs comparatively untouched, regardless of efforts to redefine vice and virtue. Definitely, his value does not inflict any new ethical restrictions. However, it is more lenient concept, for heartening typically unexpected behaviour.

The prince of Machiavelli is portrayed as someone who has both weaknesses and desirable qualities. He still exhibits the strengths for the sake of his presentability to his subjects so as to conceal the undesirable qualities and this allows the prince to keep himself safe on the throne. He did not fault himself on being weak. This is because ‘some virtues that were thought to be good for the state would bring ruin yet some vices would bring prosperity and security’ (Machiavelli ch. 15, par. 2). This argument forms the point of discussion for this essay in view of Adolf Hitler as a leader.

According to Machiavelli, Adolf Hitler would have made an exemplary prince because he ruled his subjects by being mean towards them without eliciting hatred. He manipulated their conscience by arranging his speeches at a time when they were all too tired and did not have any power to rebel. It is cruel to manipulate people in such a state. He also introduced curfews around the cities and designated some places in Germany as out of bounds so that he can control them (Machiavelli ch. 16, par. 2).

When the question of fear versus love arises, Machiavelli states in no uncertain terms that it is better to be feared than to be loved. This is because people take advantage of love and eventually cause the prince to ruin as he quotes ‘...but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails’ (Machiavelli ch. 17, par. 4). Adolf Hitler punished his insurgents and this instilled fear in the people. He formed a language of fear that people understood. He also formed an army which frightened all the people in Germany. A Nazi soldier was loyal to Hitler and to the people. He was equal to Hitler. People feared the German army since they knew that the Nazi didn’t forgive traitors. This does not mean that Germans hated Hitler. Machiavelli says that love should be inspired by avoiding hate, because hatred causes rebellion. However, not only didn’t Germans rebel against Hitler, but they hailed and supported him.

A Machiavellian prince would not disarm his subjects. Like Adolf Hitler, he arms them and prepares them to be ready to defend their state at all costs. Hitler had many spies and Nazi soldiers and even the common people were given the right to defend themselves against foreigners or traitors. Hitler gave the Nazis the best warships and made sure that only the best were dispatched to the frontline (Machiavelli ch. 20, par. 2 and 6).

A true Machiavellian prince should be able to gain and maintain faith and trust of his people. He should be able to withhold his weaknesses from the people so that when he takes measure to defend the state even through unacceptable means, the subjects would still support him. Hitler had an uncanny ability to remember occurrences. The Nazis therefore would not dare lie to him because he could remember even the dates when such events occurred. He could also manipulate propaganda and even though this was done for self-preservation, the people gave that very response that Hitler wanted (Machiavelli ch. 19, par. 6).

According to Machiavelli, a prince should position himself either as a true friend or an enemy. This is to ensure his self protection by making those who consider him to be a true friend rally behind him. Adolf Hitler lived to be a true Machiavellian prince because he declared war on those rallied behind the United States of America and therefore, the Germans knew that he was on their side.  He organized a Nazi crusade and totally eliminated his adversaries. During the holocaust, Hitler took the side of one group, made us of their wants and exalted them by defeating their foes (Machiavelli ch 21, par. 3).

Adolf Hitler’s mind would not be changed by anyone. He never sought anyone’s counsel, he only received reports about the progress of war in the field and dispatched orders that were to be followed to the letter. According to Machiavelli, this is done in order to avoid conflicts and flattering (Machiavelli ch 23, par. 4).

Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes

According to him, a Prince should try to assimilate a new territory with a different culture to his original territory. He should also try to protect the weaker territories and prevent the powerful territory from attaining more power. Therefore, he should try to maintain the balance between the different powers. This balancing of power can be seen as a novel concept because it is in cumbent on a leader or ruler to make serve that the strong does not victimize the weak. Such a quality is the true virtue of a ruler and politics should make all endeavors to maintain a balance of power. He should also be courageous to tackle problems before it is too late. He should also not hesitate in going for wars or using his power.

According to Machiavelli, an ordinary person can also become a Prince if he has fortune and ability. Human history has witnessed a lot of instances where individuals from lower strata of the society have risen to become leaders by the sheer power of will and ability. Hitler, who became the Fuhrer from the status of an ordinary soldier, is a best example. The leader or ruler also needs to be innovative and make suitable changes in the social set up of his country, according to the need of the hour. This can be perceived as the main mission of politics and it strives to achieve this through the leader.

When a prince tries to make a changes in his kingdom there may be many to oppose such reforms mainly because the change may not be of any benefit to them. When he has to confront such situations, a prince should be ready to make use of the force to control the opposition and over come the resistance. A prince may attain power due to two reasons: either through his abilities or through inheritance. However, it does not matter how he gains the power but the power attained can be useful only if he has the good fortune to be able to maintain it. Political leadership thus requires an element of fortune also to be successful.

Machiavelli then goes on to state that virtue is more related to politics than reality. If a prince obtains power by evil means and not by his ability or fortune he will not receive any glory. Therefore power should be used virtuously and not cruelly. When power is used cruelly, it may create constant fear among the people. Again, history has witnessed many a kingdoms fall because the kings did not use their power wisely. The same example of Hitler validates the argument that power cruelly used can cause the downfall of the leader and his entire empire. If the power is used with a purpose, it could be considered as virtuous. Machiavelli states that a virtuous prince is not loved but is always respected by the people. Hence, if a prince is virtuous he gets the support of his people at the time of need.

Another major aspect of virtue is a prince's passion for warfare. During the times of peace he should be engaged in the studies of the war skills so that he can overcome the difficulties during his unfortunate times, when war occurs. A virtuous prince is the one who does not lose his power because of being good. There will be many who are not good and always ready to destroy others. So Machiavelli says that "it is necessary for a virtuous prince to not lose his power and he should maintain his kingdom" (The concept of virtue in Machiavelli 2008).

Throughout his work, The Prince, Machiavelli makes an attempt to analyze the actual human behavior. Machiavelli is having a pessimistic view towards humans. Nature of human is that man possesses both good and bad qualities and according to him humans are those with self-love and self-interest, full of evil, cruelty, violence and war. He writes that "man has qualities that will bring him either praise or blame" (Machiavelli's View of Human Nature n.d.).He is of the opinion that since prince is a man, there is a possibility that he may exhibit these qualities.

He seems connote to the idea that in order to be virtuous, a leader needs to suppress the bad traits in him and upload the qualities that will project him as a good person in public view therefore, a prince should try to display good qualities only towards to the public. Machiavelli believes that humans are evil by their nature because of the uncontrollable lust of their body and they cannot be truly virtuous while they are defending against the corruption of the world. In his words to the prince he says that "....men a wretched creatures who would not keep their word to you, you need keep your word to them" (Machiavelli's Philosophy on Human Nature 2005). Still, he does not insist that prince should mistreat the citizens.

According to him, men are those who act up on their self interest and do nothing for their state. When the prince is in trouble people turn against him. Machiavelli states that human beings are greedy for profit and they worry less about causing harm to those who love them dearly. In the work, The Prince, Machiavelli also describes the concept of politics. He says that an ideal government is that which calculates and schemes its political gain and authority. He further states that politics has nothing to do with the morals, ethics or religion. According to Machiavelli, many of the American politicians seek support from the people who make up the government. Once a person attains the political power he tries to satisfy his own self interests, without giving much value to the overall interest of the public, which he should serve.

He says that it is not the duty of the government to make each and every one of the state prosperous but it does only the duty of taking and giving incomes from one person to another. In this process there may be both beneficiaries and victims. He argues that morality is not needed to attain political power. Since all people are basically evil in nature, the political power must be used to check the upcoming evils in the society. He also believes that end always justifies the means even though the means engages the use of evil or harmful devices.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), a renowned philosopher who became popular for his unique and original political thoughts, has opposed many of the Machiavelli concepts. Both of these philosophers have kept their focus on political theory. When Hobbe's theory focuses on the social interest between the people and its government, the theories of Machiavelli focus on the qualities that form a successful ruler. According to Hobbes there is constant war between men and this is due to their competition and he says that if two men desire for the same thing and are not able to get it both of them become enemies and even thinks of destroying each other. In Machiavelli's concept, he promotes a secular state and he does not trust human beings. As discussed earlier they do not support the ruler when he is in need.

Machiavelli does not make a distinction between the wartime and the peace time. According to him there is a period of domestic peace and also of war. But Hobbes makes a distinction between the time of peace and the time of war. The former does not define power but the latter does it explicitly. Machiavelli does not say that there is quarrel-some tendency among men and this ends in misery. But this is what Hobbes stated in his description of the nature of humans. Both fed that humans are selfish but Hobbes is harsher than Machiavelli's statements. Even though he makes such a harsh statement about men he accounts some good qualities they possess, of which Machiavelli fail to describe and they are mind or body relationship, imagination, will, reason and emotion. Hobbes defines that competition is the main cause for dispute among men. But Machiavelli thinks that this dispute is mainly because of the fear in the minds of the men. He adds that the fight between the men could be decreased if the fear in the minds of men is decreased. Machiavelli supports freewill whereas, Hobbes is determined in his view.    

Hobbes believes that it was foolish that people rule themselves and the thought that they need to be ruled by a king appeared to be stupid to him. Machiavelli states that that the ruler should do anything to attain his power and political status. An ideal ruler, according to Machiavelli, is an individual and a leader would communicate to citizens not in a two-way manner. His power is absolute and limitless and he does not find any reason to break his promises. Hobbes is in contrast with Machiavelli, in terms of who should rule the state. Machiavelli uses the political power to gain and maintain power whereas Hobbes says force should be used only to maintain the power which they gained through the will of the public.

This ideal ruler is the one who derives his force and he should be ready to submit to his subjects. He should rule his subjects in a dictatorial manner and not in a collaborative manner. His rights are limitless and his power is absolute. Hobbes is in contrast to these views of the Machiavelli. While Machiavelli states that the ruler is absolute in his power, Hobbes states that democratic body is more appropriate in ruling a state. While Machiavelli emphasize on the dictatorial rule, Hobbes gives importance to the democratic rule. According to Hobbes the right nature of power that an individual enjoys is in using his own power and not submitting under a dictatorial rule. Thus a ruler should work to motivate the interests of the subjects in his state and his duty is to govern them and to rule them. Since the ruler was brought into rule with the support of the citizen his duty is to lead and not rule them with his force. As discussed earlier Machiavelli is stating to use the force to maintain the power that he had gained, but Hobbes insists that the power which he gained with the help of force should be utilized for the well being of the public.

Conclusion:

By making an analysis of the theories put forward by Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes we could come to the conclusion that both these philosophers from different generation disagreed in many of the theories. They express views on the how a ruler should be and how to work out with it to lead the public. Hobbes believes in a government where the ruler interferes in the lives of the people only when it is needed. But in Hobbes' opinion ideal government is only the world of God. In Machiavelli's concept a state should be ruled by a strong monarch and his subjects should always respect him while in Hobbes concept there should be a strong relation with the God that is the ruler and his subjects. Hobbes idea is to support the subjects but the idea of Machiavelli is to rule.