Comrade-Z
21st July 2006, 10:22
(I'm not really sure if this goes in the history section or the theory section.)
Many of us are probably aware of how Machiavelli's writings constituted one of the first non-idealist and realist treatment of politics and political power. That in itself makes Machiavelli a useful contributor to understanding human society. However, I found this passage of Machiavelli's particularly interesting:
It is not unknown to me that many have been and still are of the opinion that the affairs of this world are so under the direction of Fortune and of God that man's prudence cannot control them; in fact, that man has no resource against them. For this reason many think there is no use in sweating much over such matters, but that one might as well let Chance take control. This opinion has been the more accepted in our times, because of the great changes in the state of the world that have been and now are seen every day, beyond all human surmise. And I myself, when thinking on these things, have now and then in some measure inclined to their view. Nevertheless, because the freedom of the will should not be wholly annulled, think it may be true that Fortune is arbiter of half of our actions, but that she still leaves the control of the other half, or about that, to us.
I liken her to one of those raging streams that, when they go mad, flood the plains, ruin the trees and the buildings, and take away the fields from one bank and put them down on the other. Everybody flees before them; everybody yields to their onrush without being able to resist anywhere. And though this is their nature, it does not cease to be true that, in calm weather, men can make some provisions against them with walls and dykes, so that, when the streams swell, their waters will go off through a canal, or their currents will not be so wild and do so much damage. The same is true of Fortune. She shows her power where there is no wise preparation for resisting her, and turns her fury where she knows that no walls and dykes have been made to hold her in. And if you consider Italy--the place where these variations occur and the cause that has set them in motion--you will see that she is a country without dykes and without any wall of defence. If, like Germany, Spain, and France, she had had a sufficient bulwark of military vigor, this hood would not have made the great changes it has, or would not have come at all.
In other words, contrary to the bourgeois myth of various subsequent political economists, people are not 100% "masters of their own fate," but find themselves placed in a certain material pretext which constrains what it is possible to do (and what it is possible to even imagine doing). But nor does God control all human affairs either, as some of Machiavelli's contemporaries still believed. Now here's the really interesting part:
This must suffice as regards opposition to fortune in general. But limiting myself more to particular cases, I would point out how one sees a certain prince to-day fortunate and to-morrow ruined, without seeing that he has changed in character or otherwise. I believe this arises in the first place from the causes that we have already discussed at length; that is to say, because the prince who bases himself entirely on fortune is ruined when fortune changes. I also believe that he is happy whose mode of procedure accords with the needs of the times, and similarly he is unfortunate whose mode of procedure is opposed to the times. For one sees that men in those things which lead them to the aim that each one has in view, namely, glory and riches [in other words, people operate out of perceived material self-interest and adapt their actions in accordance with the best "mode of procedure" for using one's material environment, such as technology and means of production, to attain one's goals.], proceed in various ways; one with circumspection, another with impetuosity, one by violence, another by cunning, one with patience, another with the reverse; and each by these diverse ways way arrive at his aim. One sees also two cautious men, one of whom succeeds in his designs, and the other not, and in the same way two men succeed equally by different methods, one being cautious, the other impetuous, which arises only from the nature of the times, which does or does not conform to their method of procedure. From this it results, as I have said, that two men, acting differently, attain the same effect, and of two others acting in the same way, one attains his goal and not the other. On this depend also the changes in prosperity, for it happens that time and circumstances are favorable to one who acts with caution and prudence he will be successful, but if time and circumstances change he will be ruined, because he does not change his mode of procedure.
Note that he is asserting that "circumstances change." He recognizes that societies are not static, and thus the dominance of rulers is not static either. Empires and social orders are not "eternal." And near the end here he is saying that rulers who do not change their "mode of procedure" (mode of production, basically) in accordance with the changing material circumstances become ruined. Senile and/or obsolete ruling classes, in other words. He continues discussing this:
No man is found so prudent as to be able to adapt himself to this, either because he cannot deviate from that to which his nature disposes him, or else because having always prospered by walking in one path, he cannot persuade himself that it is well to leave it; and therefore the cautious man, when it is time to act suddenly, does not know how to do so and is consequently ruined; for if one could change one's nature with time and circumstances, fortune would never change...I conclude then that fortune varying and men remaining fixed in their ways, they are successful so long as these ways conform to circumstances, but when they are opposed then they are unsuccessful.
Any thoughts? Does anybody know if Marx was familiar with Machiavelli in general and with The Prince in particular, and whether or not Marx was influenced by these ideas of Machiavelli's?
Many of us are probably aware of how Machiavelli's writings constituted one of the first non-idealist and realist treatment of politics and political power. That in itself makes Machiavelli a useful contributor to understanding human society. However, I found this passage of Machiavelli's particularly interesting:
It is not unknown to me that many have been and still are of the opinion that the affairs of this world are so under the direction of Fortune and of God that man's prudence cannot control them; in fact, that man has no resource against them. For this reason many think there is no use in sweating much over such matters, but that one might as well let Chance take control. This opinion has been the more accepted in our times, because of the great changes in the state of the world that have been and now are seen every day, beyond all human surmise. And I myself, when thinking on these things, have now and then in some measure inclined to their view. Nevertheless, because the freedom of the will should not be wholly annulled, think it may be true that Fortune is arbiter of half of our actions, but that she still leaves the control of the other half, or about that, to us.
I liken her to one of those raging streams that, when they go mad, flood the plains, ruin the trees and the buildings, and take away the fields from one bank and put them down on the other. Everybody flees before them; everybody yields to their onrush without being able to resist anywhere. And though this is their nature, it does not cease to be true that, in calm weather, men can make some provisions against them with walls and dykes, so that, when the streams swell, their waters will go off through a canal, or their currents will not be so wild and do so much damage. The same is true of Fortune. She shows her power where there is no wise preparation for resisting her, and turns her fury where she knows that no walls and dykes have been made to hold her in. And if you consider Italy--the place where these variations occur and the cause that has set them in motion--you will see that she is a country without dykes and without any wall of defence. If, like Germany, Spain, and France, she had had a sufficient bulwark of military vigor, this hood would not have made the great changes it has, or would not have come at all.
In other words, contrary to the bourgeois myth of various subsequent political economists, people are not 100% "masters of their own fate," but find themselves placed in a certain material pretext which constrains what it is possible to do (and what it is possible to even imagine doing). But nor does God control all human affairs either, as some of Machiavelli's contemporaries still believed. Now here's the really interesting part:
This must suffice as regards opposition to fortune in general. But limiting myself more to particular cases, I would point out how one sees a certain prince to-day fortunate and to-morrow ruined, without seeing that he has changed in character or otherwise. I believe this arises in the first place from the causes that we have already discussed at length; that is to say, because the prince who bases himself entirely on fortune is ruined when fortune changes. I also believe that he is happy whose mode of procedure accords with the needs of the times, and similarly he is unfortunate whose mode of procedure is opposed to the times. For one sees that men in those things which lead them to the aim that each one has in view, namely, glory and riches [in other words, people operate out of perceived material self-interest and adapt their actions in accordance with the best "mode of procedure" for using one's material environment, such as technology and means of production, to attain one's goals.], proceed in various ways; one with circumspection, another with impetuosity, one by violence, another by cunning, one with patience, another with the reverse; and each by these diverse ways way arrive at his aim. One sees also two cautious men, one of whom succeeds in his designs, and the other not, and in the same way two men succeed equally by different methods, one being cautious, the other impetuous, which arises only from the nature of the times, which does or does not conform to their method of procedure. From this it results, as I have said, that two men, acting differently, attain the same effect, and of two others acting in the same way, one attains his goal and not the other. On this depend also the changes in prosperity, for it happens that time and circumstances are favorable to one who acts with caution and prudence he will be successful, but if time and circumstances change he will be ruined, because he does not change his mode of procedure.
Note that he is asserting that "circumstances change." He recognizes that societies are not static, and thus the dominance of rulers is not static either. Empires and social orders are not "eternal." And near the end here he is saying that rulers who do not change their "mode of procedure" (mode of production, basically) in accordance with the changing material circumstances become ruined. Senile and/or obsolete ruling classes, in other words. He continues discussing this:
No man is found so prudent as to be able to adapt himself to this, either because he cannot deviate from that to which his nature disposes him, or else because having always prospered by walking in one path, he cannot persuade himself that it is well to leave it; and therefore the cautious man, when it is time to act suddenly, does not know how to do so and is consequently ruined; for if one could change one's nature with time and circumstances, fortune would never change...I conclude then that fortune varying and men remaining fixed in their ways, they are successful so long as these ways conform to circumstances, but when they are opposed then they are unsuccessful.
Any thoughts? Does anybody know if Marx was familiar with Machiavelli in general and with The Prince in particular, and whether or not Marx was influenced by these ideas of Machiavelli's?