A Defence of Machiavelli

Several weeks ago I discussed an article by Sebastian Purcell in which he critiques Machiavelli as a teacher of evil. In that essay, I provided a brief defence of him, but here I shall go into more detail on why Machiavelli was not, in fact, a teacher of evil, but rather an almost tragic anti-hero of Medieval Italy.

I think a good place to begin here is to relay the state of Italy before Machiavelli was writing. Machiavelli was born in 1469, only a few generations before, in 1392, did the conflict between the Guelphs and the Ghibellines come to a close. The Guelphs were forces supporting the Pope and the Ghibellines were supporting the Holy Roman Emperor. The conflict was over the balance of power within the Holy Roman Empire. What was the result? No matter who won, the smaller and relatively weaker states of Italy always lost to stronger states.

Indeed, during Machiavelli's lifetime, countries like France and Spain were able to take advantage of the Italian states. A millennia and a half ago, Italy was the strongest state in the world in the Roman empire. How far it had fallen.

Machiavelli perhaps did not have ambitions to restore the Roman empire over Europe, but certainly he had hopes of preventing the bullying of these small Italian nations. His goal for this? To unify Italy into a single cohesive unit. By what means could this happen?

Invariably, it would have to be some sort of monarch, a prince, perhaps; hence the name of his most famous work. Could it have been the masses? No, they were too disorganised to form a long term plan for some esoteric goal such as protecting the long term interests of Italy; perhaps beyond their lifetime. On the other hand, smaller Lords of smaller states are unlikely to give up their positions of power to a centralised king. They prefer being big fish in small ponds to small fish in big ponds.

All of this pointed towards a king of Italy. We might note here that eventually Italy did unify under a monarchy, just as Machiavelli predicted, and also until Italy did unify under a monarchy, Italy was exploited by larger states, just as Machiavelli feared.

This all begs a question: who would this king be? Well, for Machiavelli, there was a clear answer. The de Medici family had the money and influence to attempt to do this. The Prince was unmistakably a gift to the de Medici family in the hopes that they would be able to use that knowledge to bring about a unification of Italy.

This is, of course, where people say Machiavelli is evil. Reading The Prince they find all sorts of advice that is seemingly immoral. Such as presenting the binary choice between totally integrating an enemy or totally destroying it. However, I disagree. Consider being a peasant around that time. What would you prefer: the nobles continue to gallivant across the battlefields burning towns or crops in the name of "chivalry" or would you rather they were fast, direct and to the point in their warfare when it does happen? Of course, one might say that the war was already immoral to begin with and we should do away with it and to this I say that point is simply not relevant. Why? Well, were you personally ever able to stop wars? No? Then let us be more pragmatic about this.

So, if all I say is true, the natural question becomes "why, then, is Machiavelli so hated?". Indeed, this is the most important question, and, dear reader, if I am not able to provide an ample explanation, you should, nay, you must reject my arguments wholesale!

Turning to Burnham, in The Machiavellians he presents a compelling argument to why Machiavelli has such a negative reputation. First, consider thinkers who have at one time been rejected. Galileo or Darwin had their times of being shunned, but over time, the weight of their scientific discoveries absolved them; turning the tide even to acceptance. Such has not happened with Machiavelli, despite his dedication to political science.

Machiavelli is not only disregarded as a scientist, but, in fact, he is presented as evil. His "evil" is discovering methods of governance, which hardly seems evil. If a man kills another with a hammer we do not say the hammersmith was evil, nor the man who originally invented hammers thousands of years ago. This can not explain why Machiavelli is so hated.

Burnham’s conclusion is that Machiavelli is hated for the simple reason that if his thoughts were understood by the masses in their genuine form, it would be threatening to the ruling elite of a nation. Therefore, the elites, the state, must employ every "official" thinker – every lawyer, philosopher, academic, editor, talk show host, lecturer to decry Machiavelli at every opportunity, to save that seed from sprouting.

This leaves one question, why do these intellectuals support the state so much? Rothbard in Anatomy of the State provides a great answer when discussing "How the State Preserves Itself". Rothbard says

For this essential acceptance, the majority must be persuaded by ideology that their government is good, wise and, at least, inevitable, and certainly better than other conceivable alternatives. Promoting this ideology among the people is the vital social task of the "intellectuals." For the masses of men do not create their own ideas, or indeed think through these ideas independently; they follow passively the ideas adopted and disseminated by the body of intellectuals. The intellectuals are, therefore, the "opinion-molders" in society. And since it is precisely a molding of opinion that the State most desperately needs, the basis for age-old alliance between the State and the intellectuals becomes clear.

Of course, this clarifies why the state needs the intellectual. Why does the intellectual need the state, and is therefore ready to do its bidding? Rothbard explains

Put simply, we may state that the intellectual’s livelihood in the free market is never too secure; for the intellectual must depend on the values and choices of the masses of his fellow men, and it is precisely characteristic of the masses that they are generally uninterested in intellectual matters. The State, on the other hand, is willing to offer the intellectuals a secure and permanent berth in the State apparatus; and thus a secure income and the panoply of prestige. For the intellectuals will be handsomely rewarded for the important function they perform for the State rulers, of which group they now become a part.

Rothbard certainly pulls no punches here. At any rate, we have identified the reasons for why so many consider "Machiavellian" an insult – like a great chain from the state through the intellectuals, filtering down into culture does this thought come. Such thought is a necessary component of the totalising state, for few are such an enemy to it as Machiavelli. We can go as far as to say that Machiavelli is not evil, quite the opposite, Machiavelli is an essential defender of freedom.

References

Murray N Rothbard Anatomy of the State, 1974

James Burnham The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom, 1943

Niccolò Machiavelli The Prince, 1532