 |
| The Bolshevik Revolution led to a new government in Russia (http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/russia/leninandbolshevikrevolutionrev1.shtml) |
 |
| The beheading of Louis XVI led to a new government in France that was democratic (http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/russia/leninandbolshevikrevolutionrev1.shtml) |
Totalitarian rule does not work on a large scale system. As you can see, these are all large scale countries with a lot of people and a lot of land to govern over. While the ruler is looking out for the people and is trying to do what is best for the people, at times the people do not want to be imposed on these rules. Part of it was back then there was no such thing as cars and planes so in order to reach the people you needed to go on horseback or if it was late enough, you drove by train. These people all the way in the corners of the country may not receive news until days or weeks later. Why listen to someone when they are so far away from you? You might as well at that point govern yourself. Also, they were in a time where new ideas were going around. People latched on to these ideas and knew that their government was not treating them fairly and wanted a new government or reform. The monarchy tried in its power all that they can to quell these ideas of democracy and human rights but at times they just angered the people which led to revolt. In the case of Germany, Hitler led his totalitarian government to his own demise. He was trying to do what was best for himself and his people, but his ego got in the way. He fought a two front battle and in the end, his country fell apart and he ended up dead in a bunker. Both the Russian revolution and the dissolution of the USSR as well as the end of the French monarchy had to do with money issues. The inability of leadership and new ideas from leaders also led to their demise. But why can't one ruler control all of these issues to lead to a happy and successful country?
As one ruler, he needs to control everything that goes on in his country. Even though he has people that tell him what the country wants, he cannot serve all of the people in the country and everyone's interest. He has to make decisions based on what he thinks is best for the country. By not serving the rights of other people and not voting on laws like a democratic society, someone is going to be angered by the results. You cannot vote out the ruler so he can essentially do as he pleases while angering his constituents. After years of pissing people, there will be discontent that can lead to a revolt. Large scale monarchies can not control everyone and cater to everyone's needs. Since the ruler can not cater to the ruled, it creates dissension and can lead to revolt.
Also, new technology can play an impact in the way countries fall. New ideas and new technologies lead to the demise of countries. France and the Russian monarchy have fallen apart to new ideas such as Rousseau, Locke, Montesquieu and Russia fell to the ideas of Karl Marx. New technology leads to demise of countries as well such as new weaponry and cars and planes and trains. It helps new ideas spread and helped connect conspirators to help lead a revolt.
Monarchies and Machiavellian principles can only work in small scale societies. Countries like Brunei, Oman, Qatar, and Swaziland have worked because they have such a small area to control it is easier to control and cater to the needs of the people to do what is best for the people. They are also countries that aren't as developed as countries like England, France, and Russia. These countries can keep their monarchy in tact and not worry about revolt for now because they are catering to the needs of the people.
Do you think an absolute monarchy or another form of government can work under a large scale society such as the US and Russia? Do you think there are problems that will arise as well with these societies? Can a small scale Machiavellian society truly survive?
Machiavellianism is not totalitarianism/fascism/monarchism. These types of extreme political systems (especially in the examples you gave) are in fact the opposite of what Machiavelli would consider wise governing. By over extending their reach and becoming "hated" by the populace, they incite revolutions and ultimately lose power - what is exactly not in their self interest.
ReplyDeleteA better example of Machiavellianism in politics might be modern US foreign policy. We (we referring to the US) act in the self interest of our own state when conducting international affairs, for the most part. Sure we send some aid to Indonesia when there's a tsunami, but we don't get involved in places like Darfur that would take significant amounts of money/time/US troops and provide nothing in return. Getting involved in situations like do nothing to further our self interest, but places more politically relevant and with access to natural resources (read: Libya) are a different matter.
This compasionless, but ultimately logical and expedient way of doing things is what Machiavellianism is about, not authoritarianism.
I would have to agree in that you have the wrong conception of Machiavellianism. Machiavellianism is not a form of government, but rather an ideology. It is the pragmatic approach to politics in doing what is best for the state, not an absolutist style of government. Machiavelli principles, rather, can be applied to politicians in our society in the United States in their decisions they make everyday.
ReplyDeleteJohn and Jonathan, while I respect your opinion that I may have given the wrong concept of the Machiavellian theory, I believe that the Machiavellian theory is a set of ideals that people have used in order to survive in the way they govern. Governments and rulers use ideas from the past in order to find the best way they can rule. While you make think these examples are way to extreme, they are still governments that did use ideals from the Machiavellian theory that influenced the way they governed. My ideas may be extreme but you cannot say that Stalin was trying to silence his critics by sending them into work camps in order to show that he is the authority in Russia. He came in like a lion, as Machiavelli states to do, and he made sure that there would be no dissenters of what he did when it came to ruling the country. You can even look at the Reign of Terror, which was supposed to be a new democratic society where they sent thousands of dissenters to the guillotine in order to stop people from going against them. They came in like a lion to show their authority then used other Machiavellian principles on how to rule after they killed who they needed to kill. They did not last either. While you think American foreign policy is based on Machiavellian principles, I will disagree with you in that the examples you chose are a form of Real Politique which was a form of governing made famous by Otto von Bismarck while he was in the Prussian government, which later became the German government. Ideals are ideals and different governments take ideals from political scientists all the time in order to better run their country. While we did discuss in class that Machiavelli was not for Princely governing and this could have been a satire, all in all people did take this seriously to use in every day governing. The examples I used may have not used all of Machiavelli's ideas and could have used other ideas from other thinkers, the fact of the matter is that they used the ideals. John, even though becoming hated is not in their self interest as rulers, they tried to do their best in ruling their country and doing the best for their country before they got overrun. The goal is never to be hated but sometimes the odds are not in your favor in what you inherited as a ruler or the times have forced you to make decisions that you thought were within the best interest of your country. All I am saying is that the ideas from The Prince were inspired some ways in the way people governed. Even though communist leaders looked to the Communist Manifesto in how to run a communist country economically, it does not teach them how to rule per say. The way they ruled is based off of other great leaders and thinkers and these leaders did take ideas from Machiavelli in order to rule their respective countries. Machiavelli was basing these ideas on city-states, not large scale countries so the ideas of Machiavelli may have not been able to translate to a large scale monarchy and that is partially why these monarchies fall apart. While you may not think I understood the full idea of Machiavellianism, Machiavellianism is a concept that can be translated into any kind of society, while I disagree that a large scale society that is based off of The Prince, like a monarchy or a Communist society, that is ruled totalitarian cannot work because of the reasons I had above.
ReplyDeleteI am sorry to say it, but I am inclined to agree with both John and Jon on the matter of applying the Machiavellian theory. What I got from The Prince is more of a way to act when one has any political power, not just in the roll of an absolute monarch. Machiavelli wrote it with his mind set in 1500 warring Italy. There were multiple of these little state-cities who were trying to fight over governing rights with families at the head of each. Machiavelli wrote out his cut throat masterpiece to benefit these people, not necessarily authoritarian nations like you have listed above. Machiavelli said his Prince had to be good at committing evil acts. The nations you listed out had leaders not practicing that ideal whatsoever; why do you think they are deemed as evil here in America? I lean more towards the Machiavellian way as an acting mentor for anyone in political power. Running dirty ads on an opponent, torturing a terrorist for national security, doing whatever is necessary to land a good outcome for the governed body of people one is to protect, which deeds land a good man the dirty hands The Prince is famous for. I think Machiavelli would have slapped people like Hitler, Mussolini, multiple Czars, etc. Your argument, in my opinion, is more suited towards attacking Hobbes' theory of governing rather than Machiavelli's ideals.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think this is what Machiavelli was trying to say when he said that although it is important to be feared, it is as important to not be hated. The rulers that fell, like Czar Nicholas II of Imperial Russia, fell because they overstepped the limits of their power. Although at a time they were feared by there people, it was through their violation of their peoples' rights and liberties that led to the people (or the nobles in the case of 11th century England) to demand political changes, whether they be new amendments, revolutions, or the coup of their respective leader. Had the leaders not abused their power for selfish gains and instead only used it in regard to the security of the state, then perhaps many of these conflicts that you have mentioned above, could have been avoided.
ReplyDeleteMatt, I agree with you that it would be difficult to maintain an authoritarian rule in a large-scale society such as the United States. However, historically, elements of authoritarian rule have been incorporated within the United States. I believe that the censorship of press and aggressive invasion of privacy that occurred during the period of McCarthyism is evidence of this. Just as in smaller societies such as Brunei, Oman and Qatar, the government has the ability to censor press and easily accuse individuals of treason and dissidence. Our government even created a committee called the House Un-American Activities Committee in order to specifically investigate those who posed were possible communist or leftist sympathizers. These larger governments may be more developed which may me that they may be more likely to have the means (in terms of the number of people) or the technology to maintain this kind of authoritarian rule as well.
ReplyDelete