Interpreting Locke and Marx Ideologies
Power and authority describe the ability to rule or dominate. The power to rule can be monocratic or democratic. In John Locke’s “The Second Treatise on Government” he emphasized the importance of upholding democratic form of government while Niccolo Machiavelli’s, “The Prince” supports the monocratic rulership whereby power may be granted to a dictator temporarily without undermining the republic. Locke argues that Machiavelli represented the interests of dictators who ruled without people’s consent. The purpose of this essay is to describe the reasons that led Locke to draw such a conclusion. Locke also featured the rights to property by individuals and Karl Marx argued that he represented the ideology of capitalism even before the emergence of modern industry. The paper also describes the reasons that led Marx to make such conclusions.
Why Locke would argue that Machiavelli represents the interests of dictators who rule without the consent of the people.
Locke is against absolute power and asserts that people should be allowed to own some powers and not give it all to the government. Contrastingly, Machiavelli argues that all power should be bestowed to one individual who should make all the decisions without involving the opinions of the followers (Machiavelli, 2008, p.12). People are naturally selfish and would do whatever they wish to gratify their desires. In this regard, Machiavelli upholds that the prince should have all authority to rule the people with force to maintain order and sanity without their consent. In this consideration, it suffices to allude that Locke feels that Machiavelli regards the interests of the dictators. Locke argues that human beings are free by nature and subjecting them to a dictating ruler denies them their natural rights (Locke, 2014, p.4). According to him, people have the right to participate in political decision-making to make laws that govern them. Respectively, one can state that Locke is right because when people participate in making laws, it would be easier for them to conform and adhere willingly than when subjected to obey the laws they did not make themselves. Otherwise, a prince will only strive to attain his interests in formulating the rules that govern his people, because he already has all the authority and no fear for victimization.
In his perspective, Machiavelli argues that sanity and order are easily attained if an authoritative ruler sets the laws alone and enforces them to society. This means that the ruler dictates what is to be upheld as morally right and what is to attract a state punishment. In this regard, although people may forcefully adjust to the set rules, the ruler still assumes full powers and authority to alter them at his conveniences. Such deprives the followers of their rights to decline the suppressive rules and are prompted to obey regardless of their cruelty. The dictatorship form of government bestows the ability to ignore the ethical concerns, dictates of conscience and justice to the prince rights (Locke, 2014, p.5). As such, the ruler chooses what actions to take regardless of the impacts they may have on society. Further, one contend with Locke’s opinion because the prince may only be interested in maintaining their power and indirectly enhancing the stability of the state, even when the consequences may severely affect his people. While Locke defends the principle of majority rule, the above situation may lead to severe consequences because although the prince is entitled to acquire sanity in society, his interests always remain a priority.