Locke’s Critique of Machiavelli
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. This essay describes 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.
Locke would argue that Machiavelli represents the interests of dictators who rule without the consent of the people. Why would he reach that conclusion?
Locke is against absolute power and asserts that people should be allowed to own some powers and not give it all to the government. Contrary, 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). 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, 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). According to him, people have the right to participate in political decision-making to make laws that govern them. 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.
Machiavelli argued 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). In this regard, the ruler chooses what actions to take regardless of the impacts they may have on society. Further, the prince is only 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.
According to Locke, Machiavelli negates the natural freedom of human beings and moral ethics that guide society. Locke believes that while any rulership is meant to uphold the common good of its people, Machiavelli finds it noble for the prince to achieve his gratifications at the expense of his people’s rights (Locke, 2014). According to Machiavelli, human beings are naturally rancorous creatures that do not wilfully conform to reason, which prompts the Prince to disobey convention to retain power (Machiavelli, 2008). Therefore, for a prince to rule successfully, he must be ruthless because no man can ultimately be trusted. In this statement, it is clear that that governance should entail no consultations from the people being governed. The notion that no man can be trusted paves way for a ruler to exercise their ruthless behavior in administering services to the common people without being questioned. In this regard, the interests of the prince are still accorded priority at the expense of the common people, as Locke concludes.
Marx would argue that Locke represents the ideology of capitalism even before the emergence of the modern industry. Why would Marx reach that conclusion?
Capitalism is an economic and political system whereby the private owners of enterprises control the country’s trade, while the modern industry is a form of cooperation that involves division of labor and application of scientific knowledge by the use of machinery in production. In ancient times, people used to acquire property or work by their own hands before the invention of machinery which has taken an enormous percentage of the duties initially performed by people. In the modern world, the modern industry has taken over whereby laborers operate collectively in business through scientific knowledge. Such modernism has created capitalism which Marx argues that Locke represented even before the emergence of modern industry. In “The Second Treaties on Government”, Locke articulates various arguments that prompted Marx to make this conclusion. Locke portrays humans in a state of nature whereby they have to work to acquire money, food, shelter, and other necessities for survival. In the fifth chapter, Locke explains labor as a factor that allows an individual to possess a certain property which is bestowed freely to all humans by nature (Locke, 2014). According to him, working on an object makes it acquire ownership by its workers and hence excludes it from public ownership.
Individual labor on an object acts as the means to ‘purchase’ it for personal acquirement. This initiates the emergence of private property existence because such an object is restricted for use only by the person who works on it. In other words, if another person has to use that particular object, he or she has to seek prior permission from the ‘owner’ who may or may not grant such permission rights (Locke, 2014). While capitalism concerns a trade controlled by private enterprises, Marx bases his arguments on this ideology because an acquired property gains the dire control of the particular individual. Marx asserts that capitalists (owners of machines) maximized profits by exploiting the laborers in exchange for low wages. The capitalists competed with each other to dominate the property. He relates Locke’s theory with capitalism because for a person to acquire personal property, he has to assume materialistic goals. While Locke affirms that natural property is free for everyone to use, working on an object to privately own property by an individual poses the other people as stumbling blocks or ‘competitors’ to the desired property. In this regard, an interested party will perceive fellow individuals as enemies to the preservation of such property. In this regard, capitalism is evidenced because competition and restriction for such ‘free’ property are involved.
Further, Locke argues the natural law and the doctrines of natural rights bestowed to man by God imply that man has rights to private property. Although the natural property is free for use by every human being, individuals develop authority over them through a commanded possession rights (Locke, 2014). A man is meant to work, and the benefits of a particular piece of work are only bestowed to the worker unless he allows others the access. Once an individual labors on an object, he assumes the right to ownership and this restrains other people from its enjoyment, unless with prior authority from the ‘owner’, and hence, capitalism. Based on capitalism, goods and services belong to the owner and can only transfer such ownership to a willing buyer in exchange of something else or upon some agreed terms, and hence the claimed capitalism by Marx.
Summarily, the paper has featured the arguments in “The Second Treatise on Government” by Locke and “The Prince” by Machiavelli and the criticism accorded thereof. Locke supports the democratic governance which recognizes the natural rights of individuals while Machiavelli articulates monarch governorship. Machiavelli notes that human beings are ungrateful and disloyal. Therefore, having an authoritative figure will hold them back for fear of the punishment that could be enforced on them. In this regard, Locke concluded that Machiavelli described the interests of dictators by depriving the people of their rights to participate in establishing laws. Further, Locke described the rule of natural property that a worked upon an object, becomes private property of the ‘worker’ although it was initially meant for use by all humans freely and hence capitalism, which Marx felt that he introduced before the emergence of modern industry.
References
Locke, J. (2014). Second treatise of government: An essay concerning the true original, extent
and end of civil government. John Wiley & Sons.
Machiavelli, N. (2008). The prince. Hackett Publishing.