Category: Political Science Notes

After reading this article you will learn about Socialism:- 1. Definition and Origin of Socialism 2. Nature of Socialism 3. Classification 4. Transitional Character.

Definition and Origin of Socialism:

Maurice Cornforth defines socialism in the following words:

“Socialism is the social ownership of means of production and their utilization to satisfy the material and cultural requirements of the whole of society. Socialism is necessary because only by such a radical transformation of economic basis of society can the evils resulting from capitalism be done away with and new powerful techniques be fully utilized”.

This definition provides certain basic features of socialism of which Marx and Engels thought a lot. One is, the forces of production will be placed under the control of society which will ensure their proper utilization.

Socialism envisages a radical change or transformation of the economic basis of society. Third is, this radical transformation will cure the evils created by capitalism. Fourth is, capitalism may have some good effects. But these so-called good effects of capitalism are for the benefit of the capitalist class which is powerful almost in all respects.

Scientific socialism has been viewed as the “science about the proletarian class struggle and the socialist revolution, about the socio-political laws behind the building of socialism and communism and about the world revolutionary process as a whole”.

As a science, socialism has its own laws and categories, reflecting the basic aspects of revolutionary transformation of capitalist into communist society. The laws relate to the socialist revolution, establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the transition from capitalism to socialism and then to communism. How the working class will conduct a class struggle scientific socialism relates that.

So it provides guidance for revolutionary struggle. It contains the principles, laws and techniques of a new society classless society. Scientific socialism is not a conceptual matter; it is an operative aspect of historical transition from capitalism to communism.

Scientific socialism (henceforth S. S.) deals with the various stages of revolutionary struggle and nature of socialist society. The evils of capitalism created large scale discontent in the minds of men and they were in search of a way out.

People well aware to the evil effects of capitalism believed that only a socialist society could save the working class people and common men from all types of exploitation and oppression. How is socialism indebted to capitalism for its emergence that is to be briefly investigated?

Engels has said:

“Modern socialism, in its essence, is the direct product of the recognition of the class antagonisms existing in the society of today between proprietors and non-proprietors, between capitalists, and wage workers, of the anarchy existing in production. But in its theoretical form modern socialism originally appears ostensibly as a more logical extension of the principles laid down by the great French philosophers of the nineteenth century.”

What Engels emphasizes is that socialism is the logical consequence of historical development of society which is materialist interpretation of history. Elaborating Engels’s view Kolakowski writes, Capitalism creates the precondi­tion of the new society not only by revolutionizing technology and evolving new forms of cooperation joint stock companies in which property and management are separate, and likewise cooperative factories are to be regarded as transitional forms or instances of the abandonment of the capitalist mode of production within the system itself.

In this sense socialism is not simply the negation of capitalism but also a continuation of it and of the socializing process based on the technological development of the present age”. Capitalism creates the necessary preconditions of socialism.

The growth of capitalism has always been accompanied by unprecedented increase in wealth the major share of which goes to the hands of few. The toiling masses are plunged into unbound impoverishment. The growth of technology and harnessing of the natural resources have hardly come to the benefit of working people.

All these evil aspects of capitalism have worked as potential source of discontent. People in general have formed the firm conviction that the continuation of capitalism cannot materialize the hope of emancipation.

Capitalists will never direct science and technology to the overall progress of society. The only way to get rid of capitalism is to overthrow it.

Summarizing the evils of capitalism Maurice Cornforth says “The great capitalist monopolies of today subjugate everything to their drive for maximum profits, to secure which they step up the exploitation, annex other countries and plunder their resources, militaries the national economy and prepare for and wage wars.”

Nature of Socialism:

We are now in a position to form the conclusion that its advent is inevitable, specially if we accept the materialist interpretation of history with the help of dialectic. Marx and Engels were sure that nobody desired the advent of capitalism.

In the same way socialism must come. Capitalism calls for a certain versatility in the working class and thus creates conditions for an upheaval.

“The growth of capitalism reaches a stage which the capitalists cannot control. There is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property, on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions by which they are fettered…….. they bring disorder into the whole bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them” (Manifesto).

The crisis of capitalism in this way appears and it clears the way of socialism. In support of this view we quote few words from Kolakowski “Socialism reaps the harvest of capitalism and without the latter it could only be an empty dream. The new society will arise out of the catastrophe towards which capitalism is swiftly yet unconsciously tending.”

The weapons with which bour­geoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself. The weapons are not proletarians’ own.

There is a common notion that socialism means the abolition of poverty or luxurious consumption of bourgeoisie. In socialism there exists neither poverty of many nor luxury of few. But it is more than this.

It promises the growth of all and abolition of all inequalities. The characteristic feature of socialism is it abolishes human alienation. In capitalism labourer is alienated from the productive system.

He is also alienated from nature, from himself that is, from his own activity, and also from other men. Socialism does not imply the redistribution of wealth or income, while the old system will continue to exist. The old economic will be overthrown in socialism.

Socialism abolishes the wage labour system of capitalism. That is, there shall be no sale of labour power. The whole material production is devoted to use value. The scale and character of production in all branches will be governed purely by social needs and not by the desire or profit making.

Socialism means that the vast resources of modern technique are developed and utilized to meet the needs of the people. The productive forces being released from private control will be used for the general welfare of the society.

Socialism promises increased productiveness and greater intens
ity of labour. They both augment the mass of articles produced in a given time. By suppressing the capitalist mode of production the length of the working day could be reduced to the necessary labour time.

Again, in socialism the distinction between necessary and surplus labour will lose its importance and meaning. The surplus value derived from surplus labour will be abolished in socialism. Worker will get enough time for their own recreation. They will devote time to the cultural activities and finer pursuits.

Socialism not only assertively talks about the full satisfaction of material needs, but all-round development of human personality. Socialism promises to liberate human power from bondage.

Capitalist system of production imposes manifold barriers through division of labour and many other ways. Marx, that is why, wanted to bring an end of the division of labour which was crippling workers both physically and spiritually.

Socialism does not mean that human development and creativity cease to exist, but that there are no longer any social restrictions upon them. In socialism the realm of freedom will be considerably expanded. Being released from physical necessity human beings will invest energy for greater and nobler purposes.

Classification of Socialism:

Manifesto contains a precise but useful classification of socialism. According to this classification socialism is of three type’s Feudalistic socialism; Bourgeois socialism and Utopian socialism. Before the Industrial Revolution the feudal lords and the aristo­crats were combined together and formed a class which was the basic class.

After industrialization the emergence of bourgeoisie cornered the aristocracy and it became the basic class whereas the aristocrats were relegated to the non-basic class. This was not possible for the aristocracy to swallow.

The aristocrats and landlords revolted against the bourgeois domination and in order to arouse the sympathy of the workers and peasants they indicated the bourgeoisie. The aristocrats were able to relieve their feelings by penning lampoons against their new masters and by uttering sinister prophesy of impending doom. Such was the origin of feudalistic socialism.

The feudalists pointed out that the capitalists were exploiters, but they forgot that they were also exploiters. The aristocrats inspired educated people to write pamphlets exposing the nature and extent of bourgeois exploitation.

The second type of socialism is petty-bourgeois socialism. Petty-bourgeoisie is a class that stands between proletariat and bourgeoisie and is perpetually consti­tuted as a supplementary component of bourgeois society.

The members of the petty-bourgeois class have made a shrewd analysis of capitalist system and have exposed the contradiction; it blames capitalism for all evils. Petty-bourgeoisie further condemns the capitalism for introduction of machinery and division of labour.

It emphasizes the wretchedness of proletariat, anarchy of production, gross inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the industrial wars the nations wage for mutual extermination, and the breakup of the old family ties. But in practice the petty-bourgeois socialism wants to re-establish the old methods of production and these with old property relations.

Let us deal with German socialism. In France there developed a system of socialist thought. The German philosophers borrowed the basic principles of French philosophical thought and adopted it to the soil of Germany. But the socio-political conditions of two countries were not identical and as a result of it the key concepts of French socialism were considerably distorted.

The German socialists demanded political movement for realization of socialist goals, such as abolition of repressive measures of government and bourgeois law, establishment of liberty and equality, protection of the freedom of press. But unfortunately the German socialists failed to champion the interests of proletarians.

The capitalist class is very clever. Sometimes this class takes measures to remove some grievances of people. But one should not think that this class does this out of benevolence, but simply to safeguard the interests.

Economists, philanthropists, humanitarians and welfare workers fall within the category of bourgeois or conservative socialism. They want prevention of cruelty to animals and various types of reforms.

They tacitly admit the evils of bourgeois society. But they think that class struggle is not the solution of grievances. Compromises, adjustments and reforms are the best ways of alleviating the miseries.

They want the extant society without its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They want the bourgeoisie without the proletariat. Of Utopian socialists the prominent figures were Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier and Robert Owen.

They felt the miserable conditions of the working class and were also aware of the reasons of pathetic conditions. But unfortunately they failed to suggest any way out. Marx and Engels agreed with some of the views of the Utopian socialists but disagreed with their suggestions.

Transitional Character of Socialism:

There is a confusion even among the serious students of Marxism that socialism and communism are one and same thing. It can be used interchangeably. But a deep study of Marxian literature reveals that two are separate concepts and separate stages of social development. Maurice Cornforth in his illuminating work points out certain transitional features of socialism.

An analysis of these features is necessary in order to grasp the transition from socialism to communism. One such feature is, socialism abolishes all classes and class exploitation and also exploitation by man. Cornforth’s interpretation is that abolition of classes and class antagonisms does not mean that classes will be completely abolished. The remnants of reactionary or bourgeois classes will remain in a socialist society.

Even there may not be classes; there may be agents of classes. Holders of big private property will be forcibly expropriated, but the same method cannot be applied to small property holders.

The small and middle peasants very often act as agents of capitalists and their extermination takes time.

Engels said:

“In effecting transition from private enter­prise and private possession to cooperative ones, not forcibly but by dint of example and the proffer of social assistance for this purpose”.

The second transitional feature is socialism institutes a social ownership of the means of production and makes man the master of machine. But this ambitious objective cannot be achieved overnight. This is a long process.

“It involves a thoroughgoing re-training of labour to educate and train all-around people”. The process of removal of subordination of labourer to the division of labour begins in socialism and the process continues until communism arrives. To remove the sub-ordination is the goal of socialism but it is not fully achieved in socialism. Because of this there is the question of transition.

Socialism aims that every requirement of man shall be satisfied. This objective cannot be realized immediately because of certain constraints from which socialism suffers. Particularly the satisfaction of the requirement wants immense advance of production and all-round development of the economy. Socialism coming out of the womb of capitalism cannot perform miracles.

In socialism individuals receive a share of social product not according to the need of each, but according to the quantity and quality of work each has contributed. When all sorts of commodities are produced abundantly there will be a flood of commodities and people will get what they require. There may be difference in quality and quantity of labour, but needs will never remain unfulfilled.

Upload and Share Your Article:

This article provides notes on Marxism and Political Economy.

It is generally observed that one of the very important foundations or components of Marxism is British political economy or simply political economy. It is called British because its chief founders or propagators were by birth British. There are few definitions of what is exactly meant by political economy.

An important definition is it indicates the area which studies resource allocation and determination of aggregate economic activity.

Its more specific meaning in a Marxist context relates to the corpus of work of certain writers who dealt with the distribution and accumulation of economic surplus, and the attendant problems of determination of prices, wages, employment and the efficacy or otherwise of political arrangements to promote accumulation.

It is called political economy because the economy or economic affairs and policy making are associated with the art of government.

The government is primarily concerned with the political affairs of the state. But a government cannot consist­ently ignore the economic aspects and because of this government generally takes active interests in the economic affairs such as the causes of the wealth of nations, price fixation, and distribution of wealth.

Since seventeenth century the term political economy is in circulation, particularly in the academic circles. A good number of scholars believe that for the general welfare of the people a government must see that the economy acts within certain conditions and these conditions must aim at general progress. Summarily, political economy wants to emphasize the general control of state over the functioning of economy.

Political economy has three broad traditions, one is, the tradition of classical political economy.

Another is the Marxian tradition and, finally, the tradition of political economics which uses statistical and modeling techniques to test the hypotheses about the relationship between government and the economy.

Though the term political economy was widely known to academic circles Marx was the first person who gave importance to the concept. In Marxism the term means the corpus of works of several economists and writers some of whom are Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Malthus, James Mill and his son J. S. Mill etc.

Marx focused his attention on the economic writings of Adam Smith (1723-1790) and David Ricardo (1772-1823). Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations was a widely read and much discussed book. In it he-said that the political economy is a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator.

An important aspect of political economy is commerce or economic prosperity and growth of political liberty are closely related. Adam Smith strongly argued that progress of commerce or economy as a whole could come if government regulations are relaxed considerably.

If the producers or capitalists are not given sufficient liberty the growth of economy will be adversely affected. Naturally liberty can be regarded as the important factor of the growth of industry and commerce.

This doctrine of Adam Smith is generally called the laissez-faire. Smith’s another message was that individuals shall be allowed to pursue or implement their economic objectives and political interference shall have no voice at all.

The economic policies must be free from political interference but all the policies shall have political purposes. This doctrine of Adam Smith drew the attention of Marx and he thought that Adam Smith’s doctrine paved the way of unhindered growth of capitalism and exploitation of working class.

Upload and Share Your Article:

After reading this article you will learn about Revisionism:- 1. Definition and Nature of Revisionism 2. Origin of Revisionism 3. Bernstein’s Criticisms 4. Evaluation of Bernstein’s Revisionism.

Definition and Nature of Revisionism:

The term revisionism is used in a pejorative sense. People use the word revisionism to deprecate some ideas, ideology and concept. The German synonym of this word is durchsehen.

It is to be noted here that to revise or review something is not bad or condemnable at all. But in the Marxian literature it carries a special connotation. The Marxists use the term revisionism or revisionists to condemn those who have deviated from orthodox Marxism.

The term revisionism has a broad meaning. At different time’s different persons or group of persons were nicknamed revisionists. Trotsky, Kautsky, Tito, Carrillo, Lukacs, Korsch and even Mao were called revisionists.

The broadness of the term originated from the variety of interpretations of Marx’s philosophy. Different persons interpreted Marx’s principles in their own ways and that gave rise to variety of opinions sometimes leading to contradictory lines. When the principles, policies, programmes and ideology of some persons were in conflict with those of the official line the former were called revisionists. In narrower sense the opposition to Marxism is revisionism.

Some intellectuals and socialist minded people questioned the economic philosophy and principles of Marx and Engels and expressed their doubt about the practical importance of Marx’s ideas. These people came to be called revisionists.

The interesting point here is that the revisionists did not intend to abandon Marx’s ideas but they questioned the applicability of his principles. However, they agreed with his socialist philosophy.

The revisionists agreed with some of the fundamental principles of Marx and Engels, but disagreed with others. The social, economic and political conditions are changing rapidly and in the background of this change the revisionists strongly felt the need of changing the basic tenets of Marxism.

They felt that attachment to any particular principle would lead to failure. This approach is generally called revisionism.

A recent critic has explained the term in the following words:

“Revisionists were not the people who abandoned Marxism completely or never had been Marxists, but those who sought to modify the traditional doctrine or who held that some of its essential features were no longer applicable in the present state of society… Later the term was also applied to those who attempted to supplement Marxism in Kantian line.”

So any change of or supplement to Marxism held by the official line came to be treated as revisionism. Revisionism is used in both wider and narrower sense. In wider sense it is integral to Marxist theory and practice, “predicated as that must be on a social ontology which has self-creation through labour as the fundamental characteristic of being human”.

But the term is rarely used in wider sense “Marxism became canonised and revisionism gained a narrower, negative and shifting connotation. Before 1914 revisionism became synonymous with those writers and political figures who, while starting from Marxist premises, came by degrees to call in question various elements of the doctrine, especially Marx’s prediction as to the development of capitalism and the inevitability of socialist revolution”.

Herbert Marcuse, in his noted work Reason and Revolution, observes that Marx’s various principles began to undergo changes immediately after his death. So long Engels was alive he resisted this change by offering “authentic” interpretation of Marx’s ideas.

Let us, for the sake of clarity quote Marcuse:

“The history of Marxism has confirmed the affinity between Hegel’s motives and the critical interest of the materialist dialectic as applied to society. The schools of Marxism that abandoned the revolutionary foundations of Marxist theory were the same that outspokenly repudiated the Hegelian aspects of the Marxian theory, especially the dialectic. The revisionist writing and thought, which expressed the growing faith of large socialist groups in a peaceful evolution from capitalism to socialism, attempted to change socialism from a theoretical and practical antithesis to capitalist system into a parliamentary movement within the system”.

In the opinion of orthodox Marxists the change or amendment of original views of Marx is sheer opportunism. Because Marx arrived at certain conclusions after studying history scientifically.

At least the Marxists viewed it in that light. Some of the revisionists termed Marxism as the remnants of utopianism. Revisionism replaced the revolutionary action by faith in natural evolution and reformism. Bernstein called the dialectic as the treacherous element in the Marxian doctrine, the trap that is laid for all consistent thinking.

He declared that the “share” of dialectic consists in its inappropriate abstraction from the specific particularities of things. He defended the matter of fact quality of the fixed and stable objects as against any notion of their dialectical negation.

Bernstein’s revisionism attacks not only certain principles of Marxism but it’s very root. The dialectical method is the centre-stage of Marxian philosophy. In fixed and stable condition, according to revisionism, the state of affairs evolves towards a rational society.

Origin of Revisionism:

It is generally believed by some scholars of Western political thought that Bernstein is the originator of revisionism. This is partially correct. It is true that Bernstein’s interpretation of Marxism gave birth to revisionism in a large scale but its true origin can be traced to the anti-socialist laws that were implemented in the eighties of the nineteenth century.

A good number of socialist thinkers published articles in socialist journals to ventilate their own views. But these writings were not in consonance to the views of Marx and Engels. Revisionism practically originated from this.

It has already been indicated that Hochberg, Bernstein and Schramm published a journal. This journal published the views of the authors which contained ideas about socialism that were not to the true spirit of Marx and Engels.

These surreptitiously revised the original idea of socialism. The “Three Zurichers” berated the Social Democratic Party for being a one-sided workers’ party.

In their journal Bernstein, Hochberg and Schramm made the following suggestions:

(a) They wanted the Social Democrats to cease their attacks on the bourgeoisie,

(b) To open up the party to bourgeois elements,

(c) Bourgeois intellectuals will be allowed to hold party posts in view of the workers’ lack of education,

(d) Marx and Engels along with all Social Democrats must renounce the revolutionary methods and aims,

(e) Finally they must use legal, parliamentary methods and reforms.

These five suggestions constitute the core of Bernstein’s revisionism, Bernstein and two other Zurichers concluded that if these five “principles” are strictly followed socialism will be achieved and there would be no necessity of Marx’s class struggle and armed revolution.

Marx and Engels were highly indignant. Marx said that the three-star constel­lation were out to denigrate Social-Democrats. The purpose of Bernstein, Hochberg and Schramm was to abandon the revolutionary struggle and to surrender uncon­ditionally to the police regime of Bismarck.

Marx and Engels also vowed at this time that the ulterior motive and revisionism of Bernstein and company must be fought tooth and nail. Marx
and Engels issued a “circular letter” criticizing the Right opportunism of three Zurichers.

Marx and Engels wrote in the “circular letter” – “It is the representatives of the petty bourgeoisie who are here making themselves heard, full of anxiety that the proletariat, under the pressure of revolutionary position may go too far.”

Bernstein’s disagreement with Marxists was widening day after day. He made all-out efforts to launch a polemical onslaught against the Marxists and the death of Engels brought for him the opportunity.

In 1897-98 he published few articles under the title “Problems of Socialism and the Task of Social Democracy.” In these articles he attacked the theoretical basis of Marxism. Bernstein proclaimed himself a true socialist and he wanted to prove that his was the true method. He criticized Marx’s concept of matter in the light of Kant’s idealism.

On March 6, 1895, few months before his death, Engels wrote an Introduction for the reprint of the Class struggles in France 1848-50. In this Introduction he made the following polemical observation which is regarded as the potential source of revisionism; “History has proved us wrong. It has made it clear that the state of economic development on the continent at that time was not, by a long way, ripe for the elimination of capitalist production; it has proved this by the economic revolution which, since 1848, has seized the whole of the continent, and has caused big industry to take real root in France, Austria, Hungary while it has made Germany positively an industrial country of the first rank.”

“The franchise has been transformed from a means of deception which it was before, into an instrument of emancipation. In election agitation it provided us with a means, second to none, of getting in touch with the mass of the people where they still stand aloof from us; of forcing all the parties to defend their views and actions against our attacks before all the people. It provided our representatives in the Reichstag with a platform from which they could speak to their opponents in parliament.”

“With the successful utilization of universal suffrage an entirely new method of proletarian struggle came into operation, and this method quickly developed further. It was found that the state institutions…offer the working class still further opportunities to fight these very institutions. The workers took part in elections to particular Diets, to municipal councils and to trades courts; they contested with the bourgeoisie every post in the occupation of which a sufficient part of the proletariat had a say. And so it happened that the bourgeoisie and the government came to be much more afraid of the legal than the illegal action of the workers’ party.”

“The conditions of the struggle had essentially changed. Rebellion in the old style, street fighting with barricades, which decided the issue everywhere up to 1848, was to a considerable extent obsolete. A real victory of an insurrection over the military in street fighting, a victory as between two armies, is one of the rarest exceptions. The most that an insurrection can achieve in the way of actual tactical operations is the proper construction and defence of single barricade…Hence passive defence is the prevailing form of fighting; the attack will rise here and there; but only by way of exception, to occasional thrusts and flank assaults.”

Engels further observes that earlier it was thought that a small group of persons with revolutionary zeal could throw a surprise attack and achieve object. The large scale participation of masses was not thought as a part of revolutionary activities. In the Introduction Engels has changed his earlier view.

This Introduction has intro­duced a new controversy which is whether a revolution requires a few dedicated and well-trained revolutionaries or large scale mass participation. Engels was a practical man and a close observer of political events that were happening in several parts of Europe. He saw that the political incidents that took place during the then last fifty years (1846-1895) clearly revealed that for a successful revolution large scale mass participation was a “must”. General public must be well-acquainted with the important aspects of revolution and its keys to success.

It is not possible for few revolutionaries to achieve success. He also said that there had occurred sea changes in political arena which cannot be dismissed as silly affairs. The leaders of revolution must bring them into active consideration. This clearly indicates the change in view that Engels held earlier and what he held in 1895. This is treated by many as the origin of revisionism.

Slow and intensive propaganda through pamphlets and booklets, mass meeting close contact with the public, to propagate the necessity of revolution and parlia­mentary tactics are recognized as the immediate task of the party. This general principle is applicable to all countries. Engels has announced that the pressing conditions always require the revision of tactics. The revolutionary situations everywhere are never uniform.

What would be the exact method that depends upon the particular situation, Engels concludes, whatever may happen in other countries German Social Democracy, as the vanguard of international movement, must continue to pursue the above tactics. We have extensively quoted Engels’s view in order to trace the origin of revisionism.

Bernstein’s Criticisms on Revisionism:

Bernstein had criticized Marxian philosophy from several standpoints. These may be arranged under the following points. Bernstein’s first objection is that “Engels had written of a revision of tactics, but in fact this was a revision of strategy, a revision of the premises of theoretical Marxism. The errors denounced by Engels were not merely a result of contingent factors; they derived from essential points of doctrine”.

Bernstein’s another objection is that in Marxian theory, there is no coordination between theory and reality. To make a theory acceptable and useful there must be a unity between the two.

So far as the theory is concerned, Marx is quite right. But the theory has very little connection with practice. In one of his letters Bernstein wrote; “The doctrine (i.e., Marxism) is not sufficiently realistic for me. It has lagged behind the practical development of the movement. It may still be all right for Russia…but in Germany we have outgrown its old form.”

In this observation Bernstein clearly indicated that he had no quarrel with Marx’s theory. He framed conclusions and made predictions on the basis of Marx’s analysis of history based on dialectical materialism. But he observed that the political and economic situation in Germany and several other West European countries differed from what Marx said.

In the third place, the difference between theory and practice is due to the fact that Marxism is mainly out-dated and Utopian. He had said that the tactics and methods of workers’ movement had changed remarkably and naturally Marxian tactics were irrelevant for the prevailing conditions of Germany.

His purpose was to liberate workers’ movement from the encumbrances of old theory and methods. Then the movement would be able to achieve its goals. “The defect of Marxism” says Bernstein “lay in its excessive abstraction and theoretical phraseology.”

This is the greatest defect of his Capital. In spite of scientifically the Capital does not evoke considerable interest because of the excessive abstraction.

Bernstein’s another criticism against Marxism is that it is based on “a priorism”. The proletariat will seize power through revolution or through political catastrophe. This idea or notion, according to Bernstein, is based on an “a priorism”. That means proletariat will or must revolt or the capitalist system must face th
e inevitable catastrophe. The assumptions are; the society will be polarized between two main classes bourgeois and proletariat, there will emerge the growing immiseration of the proletarians, economic conditions will progressively worsen. Ultimately, the revolution will overthrow the regime.

Bernstein observes that the study of history reveals that the events of society have not proceeded according to the predictions of Marx and his “a priorism”.

If so, Marxism and the predictions of Marx have faced with a very big question mark. But Marx’s predictions constitute the most vital aspect of his theory. Bernstein claimed that he made this observation on the basis of his studies of economy.

Bernstein in support of his view also said that even Engels, his lifelong friend, did not hesitate to admit that the earlier assumption regarding the activities of capitalism had proved false.

Here it is to be noted that the economic situation of many countries of Europe had undergone rapid changes after the death of Marx in 1883 and Engels curiously and seriously observed those changes.

Evaluation of Bernstein’s Revisionism:

Although Bernstein rejected Marx’s “historical tendency of capitalist accumulation”, according to Colletti “this is the most verified of all Marx’s predictions; the capitalist concentration and centralization he forecast.”

The eminent American economist Leontiev, espousing Marx’s theory, said:

“The record is indeed impressive; increasing concentration of wealth, rapid elimination of small and medium sized enterprises, progressive limitation of competition, incessant technological progress accompanied by ever-growing impor­tance of fixed capital and last but not least the un-diminishing amplitude of recurrent business cycles an unsurpassed series of prognostications fulfilled, against which modern economic theory with all its refinements has little to show indeed.”

Rosa Luxemburg and Kautsky both have rejected Bernstein’s criticism. Luxemburg and Kautsky have said that by rejecting Marx’s theory of collapse of capitalism Bernstein abandoned the nucleus of Marxism.

So it is not Bernstein’s revisionism, it is abandonment of Marxism. Bernstein rejected not only Marx’s theory of capitalism along with its collapse but also many other important theories of Marx. Kautsky has said, “Capitalist society has failed; its dissolution is only a question of time; irresistible economic development leads with natural necessity to the bank­ruptcy of the capitalist mode of production.”

Even in the eighties of the twentieth century and in the first decade of the twenty-first century capitalism has been found to face crises. This clearly indicates that Marx’s analysis of capitalism is correct.

On the other hand Bernstein fails to assure us that his analysis is true to the fact. By advancing queer logic he rejected the collapse of capitalism, but facts of actual situation offer us a different picture.

Let us quote a small passage from Colletti’s book:

“In the Great Depression lasting from 1873 to 1895 all the fundamental categories of Marx’s analysis came fully into play the tendency of the rate of profit to fall due to the organic composition of capital, stagnation and partial saturation of outlets for investment, unimpeded action of competition, which apart from affecting profit margins, resulted in spectacular fall in prices”.

Engels got the opportunity to witness the catastrophic consequences of the crisis of capitalism predicted by Marx and also by him. Even in the twentieth century there were also a number of depressions both small and big.

So Bernstein’s contention that capitalism would never collapse because of its self-regulatory mechanism does not hold good in practice. Rather, Marx’s predictions are more correct.

Bernstein did not agree with the inevitability of socialism propounded by Marx and Engels. Engels was also aware that progress of socialism or its inevitability was faced with a big question mark and he also advanced the reasons.

According to Engels, when colonialism was at its zenith the British capitalists earned unimagi­nable amount of profit through the sale of its product in the larger areas of the markets of Asia and Africa and the British workers got a share of this profit which satisfied them.

Naturally they were not concerned with socialism. The disinterest­edness of the British working class was a major factor of why socialism could not make any advancement. Engels called it the privileged position of the British working class. He repeatedly pointed it out to Kautsky when the latter in London in 1885.

Bernstein vehemently criticized Marx’s theory of the autonomy of economy and, again, this can be repudiated in the following way. In his letter to Bloch (1890) Engels said, “If anybody twists this (economic determinism) into saying that economic elements are the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract phrase.”

After this assertion of Engels there cannot be any doubt what Marx and Engels wanted to say. They categorically denied the accusation of “fatalism”. Kautsky also said that both Marx and Engels specifically acknowledged the importance of human factor and human invention in history.

The overthrow of capitalism, Marx said, could never be performed by purely economic causes. We thus see that Bernstein levelled fabricated and ill-conceived charges against Marx.

Bernstein repeatedly said one thing “What is generally called the ultimate goal of socialism is nothing to me; the movement is everything.” Kolakowski says that what Bernstein exactly wants to say is not clear at all, rather it distorts the ideas of Marx elaborated in The Civil War in France and in the German Ideology.

Marx said that the scientific socialism did not offer the working class a rosy picture of a perfect socialist society nor even a perfect society. The purpose of Marx in these two books and in other writings was to show and ascertain the economic and social tendencies and to arouse the consciousness of the workers and activate them so that they could change the existing social order.

It was necessary to study natural historical tendencies in embryo or, as he put it in 1843, to force these petrified relationship to dance by playing their own tune to them. This attitude of Marx was certainly opposed to all sentimental and moralizing Utopias, but not to the hope of a single violent revolution.

Marx had said that so long there was capitalism; workers would not be able to improve their economic condition. Bernstein rejected this important premise of Marx. He said that, even in the worst form of capitalism, through concerted efforts and agitations, the workers can improve their lot.

If we accept Bernstein’s contention then socialism as a revolutionary doctrine immediately loses its importance. The implication is: socialism is no longer a revolutionary doctrine. But the Marxists are not prepared at all to make any compromise.

Bernstein’s thought suffers from a serious contradiction. If the workers can improve their economic conditions under capitalist system through democratic processes and parliamentary initiative then socialism is definitely unnecessary.

Why should the workers strive for socialism? Socialism is not a superior system to capitalism. Let capitalism be a permanent system and workers enjoy heavenly peace and comfort.

It may be asked naively if capitalism is endowed with self-regulatory mechanism to cure the ills of over-production, why did capitalism fall into the great depression in the last quarter of the nineteenth century?

Again there was great depression in the thirties of the current century. Why did the self-regulated mechanism fail? Bernstein was quite aware of the earlier depression and he could not provide any satisfactory explanation
.

Rosa Luxemburg criticized Bernstein on the following ground:

If we accept Bernstein’s logic that capitalism can be reformed from within, the consequences of anarchical production can be removed and finally, by all these means, the sufferings of the workers can be mitigated, then there is no necessity of revolution at all. Does the working of the capitalist system assure us in the light.

The answer is an emphatic no. Reforms are impossible in the capitalist system. The workers are exploited and they continue to be exploited. The only way out is revolution. It is true that in some countries or in some industries the workers may get higher wages or certain other fringe benefits, but the Marxists firmly hold the view that this is not the solution of the problem.

Explaining Luxemburg’s view Kolakowski says:

“The state of things cannot be eliminated or be improved without expropriating the capitalists. There is a qualitative difference between revolution and reforms of any kind”.

Kolakowsky has correctly differentiated revolution from reforms. Reforms of capitalism can definitely change the economic conditions of the working class in a very limited scale but these have no capacity to bring about radical changes.

Bernstein committed a blunder. He thought that piecemeal changes in economic and other fields could bring about a large amount of economic progress. But this is not correct.

First of all, the capitalists and their cohorts will not allow any important change that could improve the conditions of the working class.

Secondly, in capitalist system there was very little scope to fight against the capitalists as well as the state administration. Both the capitalists and the state are bound by an unholy alliance.

Luxemburg further observes that three consequences are associated with the development of capitalism:

(a) Break-down of capitalism is inevitable because of the anarchical conditions in production,

(b) Gradual socialization of the productive process augurs the advent of a future social system which will be free from exploitation,

(c) Maturity of workers’ consciousness and organizing capacity will make revolution inevitable.

All these three facilitate the advent of scientific social­ism. Unfortunately, Bernstein rejects these basic principles of Marxism.

The rejection means to throw out Marxism. In Luxemburg’s own words:

“But if one admits with Bernstein that capitalist development does not move in the direction of its own ruin, then socialism ceases to be objectively necessary.”

The ruin of capitalism and the emergence of socialism are the fundamental premises of Marxism. Bernstein refuses to oblige the Marxists by showing allegiance to these premises.

We can criticize Bernstein for his anti-Marxist stance, but we cannot excuse him for his blatant espousal for colonialism.

If he were a real socialist he could keep himself above the parochial German interests. His contemporary Germany was a big colonial power and much of her economic interests was connected with the colonies for that reason Bernstein supported colonialism.

He had no sympathy for the people exploited by German colonialism. Some critics are of opinion that he supported both capitalism and colonialism because his numerous friends who were capitalists wanted capitalism and colonialism.

Again, these persons wanted to capture and retain state power. Bernstein was quite conscious of it and, perhaps mainly for that reason, he supported capitalism in a roundabout way.

Bernstein also could not free himself from illusion and Utopian thought. He had great faith on reforms and parliamentary enactments. If all these were so powerful then Britain would have been the first country in the world to achieve socialism.

History tells us the opposite. Bernstein’s revisionism or evolutionary socialism is the German brand of Fabian Socialism of Britain. In Bernstein’s time the German workers succeeded in getting some benefits from the capitalists by employing collective bargaining and other trade union methods. This encouraged Bernstein and he thought that socialism could not be equated with attainment of certain economic gains since it was not its chief objective.

Socialism aims at the complete emancipation of workers and all-round progress of society. Reforms might have the capacity to alleviate the sufferings of workers, but general upliftment is impossible.

Moreover, the Utopian socialists, particularly Robert Owen, left no stone unturned to change the heart and outlook of capitalists, but the petrified heart showed no sign of melting. So Bernstein’s hope is simply Utopian.

Bernstein was fundamentally a man of bourgeois mentality. He was allured by the ever-increasing popularity of socialism. His association with Engels made him sympathetic to socialism. But at the same time, because of his bourgeois mentality, he could not dissociate himself from the bourgeois system.

He attempted an effort for a compromise—compromise between bourgeois system and socialist goals. The tangible result is evolutionary socialism. But socialism understands no compromise; it makes no room for the rehabilitation of moribund capitalism.

In fact, it is ruthless, it wants capitalism’s collapse. Peaceful coexistence between capitalism and socialism is impossible.

Conclusion to Bernstein’s Revisionism:

Bernstein’s revisionism has been vehemently criticized but something still may be said in its support. Revisionism of Bernstein, it has been noted, is not without any root.

Engels has already acknowledged the futility of agitational techniques for the realization of demands or mobilization of forces for the seizure of political power.

Engels himself admitted the utility of parliamentary tactics, reforms and other democratic methods of movements. Bernstein also emphasized upon these methods for the attainment of worker’s demands.

Hence in the strictest sense Bernstein cannot be blamed for advocating revisionism. Since the death of Marx in 1883 the political scenario of Europe was undergoing rapid changes. Elections were held in many parts, workers were participating in those elections, in many places movements were very peaceful arid industrialists were cooperating so far as the demands of workers were concerned.

Bernstein witnessed all these incidents and from that he came to the conclusion that violent agitation or revolutionary struggle against the capitalists had lost sharpness and, according to Bernstein, time had arisen to review the old method and think about new methods.

Workers in many parts of Western Europe laid their hope upon reforms as a means of realizing demand. This encouraged revisionism.

Kolakawski has ob­served:

“The history of revisionism does not suggest that the working class is naturally revolutionary because it is forced to sell its labour power and is incurably alienated in consequence. Thus it was not only in the doctrinal field that revisionism called into question the traditional belief in the revolutionary mission of the proletariat, the belief was challenged, perhaps more effectively still, by the success of revisionism as a social phenomenon, which robbed socialism of the glamorous prospect of a final battle for universal liberation”.

We think that Kolakawski’s assessment of revisionism is quite correct. Kolakawski arrived at this conclusion in the background of the failure of socialism in Eastern European countries.

We know that Stalin imposed communism in East European states, but after few years they were faced with crisis and ultimately the communist governments collapsed.

The mere fact is that the people of these states did not cooperate with the dictatorial communist governments. Many of them felt that the economic condition of common men could be improved through de
mocratic ways.

There is a good amount of force and violence in revolution which is the way suggested by socialism for the radical change of society. It is a fact that the rise in the popularity of revisionism was chiefly due to the drawbacks of orthodox doctrinaire Marxism and people’s strong apathy to violent methods of class struggle. For some reason the workers at the beginning of the 20th century came to the conclusion that violent class struggle and class animosity would lead nowhere and because of that “conviction” they came to lay faith on traditional parliamentary means and reforms as weapons for the realization of demands.

It can also be added that after the Second World War both the workers and the capitalists have changed considerably. The capitalists thought that for industrialization work­ers were indispensable and for that they began to meet the basic and reasonable demands of workers.

Again, the workers abandoned the militancy of agitation. They launched peaceful agitation and adopted collective bargaining to fulfill their de­mands. This is one of the causes of the declining condition of Marxism.

It is said that Marxism has two broad aspects-theoretical and practical. So far as the former in concerned there is no place of revising or amending the basic tenets. It is perfectly right. But the theoretical aspect of a doctrine of social science is not all.

It ought to be tested by the events of real world. That is, the theory must be applied to reality and if it comes out with flying colours then the theory shall be accepted.

The practical aspect of Marxian doctrine, it is said, is not above criticism. Lenin and many of his successors wanted to implement Marxism in erstwhile Soviet Union. Particularly Lenin was serious in regard to the application of Marxism on the soil of Russia.

In several fields during the regime of Communist Party Russia achieved miraculous success but ultimately, in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed leading to the creation of several independent sovereign states that subsequently formed the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Many critics hastily conclude that the inherent defects of Marxism might be considered as the chief factor of disintegration of Russia.

Today in the 21st century and at the beginning of a millennium we are of opinion that theoretical Marxism has lost a major portion of its sharpness or validity. In the present day world situation practically there is no place of applying orthodox Marxism.

Even China who claims to be a communist state has adopted many economic and other policies which do not corroborate Marxian doctrine. Particu­larly China’s acceptance of capitalism’s liberal economic policies does not, in the remotest way, support orthodox Marxism and critics conclude that this is sheer rejection of Marxism.

If Bernstein were alive today he would have danced at the sight of these two memorable incidents fall of Soviet Union and entry of liberal economic policies into China.

At the beginning of the eighties of the nineteenth century Fabian Society was convinced that only socialism could save the British working class from increasing poverty and squalor of life. But under no circumstances it could be Marxian socialism, because the British working class had already developed a strong apathy against violent revolution which was the only way of achieving socialism.

Moreover, people’s consciousness and victory of numerous democratic methods have blunted the sharpness of Marxian techniques. Fabian Society in this way laid the foundation of a socialism which is popularly called evolutionary socialism.

Bernstein’s revision­ism is also directed to that purpose. Today in many parts of the world there is to be found either evolutionary socialism or any of its variety. Theoretical Marxism, to use a mild term, has been kept in abeyance.

There is no place of lamentation so far as this miserable fate of orthodox Marxism is concerned. There is a gulf of difference between capitalism of Marx’s time and capitalism of the twenty first century.

The capitalists have changed, amended, and in some cases have rejected their means, so also has socialism. The capitalism of 19th century will dismally fail (if it were alive today) to solve the problems of the 21st century. For its own survival it has adjusted itself with the changed situation.

The same is applicable to socialism. Today there is nothing like “agmark” capitalism or socialism. Both are subject to change for the adjustment of changed situation.

The orthodox capitalist countries have been found to adapt some socialist methods. The reverse is also true. The case of China may be cited as an example. One may call it a compromise between capitalism and socialism and many may refuse to be in the line. But the mere fact is that in a social science there is hardly any place of any orthodox ideology.

A compromise or adjustment between different “isms” or ideologies is always found and that is the trend and the trend is a realistic one. If amelioration of people’s condition through the implementation of any political ideology is the leitmotif then adjustment or compromise between different ideologies is indispensable. This is the cause of the emergence of revisionism or evolutionary socialism. This was spearheaded by Fabian Society in England and Bernstein in Germany.

It they were not, other persons could have performed the job. A method or technique or person is the product of a practical situation. Marx and Engels were the products of Industrial Revolution. Fabian Socialism and Bernstein’s revisionism were the products of the economic, political and other conditions of the twenty-first century. Hence Bernstein cannot be blamed.

The revisionism created a foundation of a new social democracy. Let us quote Kolakowski “This new doctrine was a compromise between liberalism and Marxian socialism and socialist variant of liberalism. It was applied to situations other than those envisaged by classical Marxism and appealed to different psychological motivations”.

There is no doubt that compared with theoretical Marxian socialism; the appeal of evolutionary socialism is quite broad and far-reaching. Its appeal spreads too many sections of society.

Here lies the credit of evolutionary socialism in general and Bernstein’s revisionism in particular. Even revisionism or the revised form of socialism is not the last word. Today we are seriously thinking about “welfarism”.

Both big and small states of all the continents are adopting policies and strategies for improving the economic and other conditions of people. These are collectively called welfare policies. Many of the principles of socialism are included into it.

Upload and Share Your Article:

After reading this article you will learn about the contributions of Francis Herbert Bradley to political thought.

In political philosophy there is very little contribution of Francis Herbert Bradley. He is still remembered by students of history of political thought because of his connection with the Oxford idealist school.

His famous book Ethical Studies was published in 1876. T. H. Green was then alive. There is a chapter in this book “My Station and Its Duties.” It was in the philosophy remarks Copplestone, of Francis Herbert Bradley that emphasize on the subject.

Object relationship was decisively sup­planted by the idea of supra-national one, the all-embracing Absolute.

Green was Hegelian no doubt but Hegelianism reached its culmination in Francis Herbert Bradley. Bradley develops the idea that the state is a moral organism and the individual is a part of it.

He performs all his duties simply as a moral unit. In the chapter “My Station and Its Duties” Bradley says that one’s duties are specified, by one’s station, by one’s place and function in the social organism. This announcement leads him to assert that morality not only is but ought to be relative.

“That is to say it is not simply a question of noting the empirical fact that moral convictions have differed in certain respects in different societies. Bradley maintains in addition that moral codes would be of no use unless they were relative to given societies”.

To put it in other words, the morality or moral actions are to be judged in the background of particular society. Bradley wants to emphasize that what a man will do is decided by his position in the society.

Besides, he is an integral part of the social organism. Naturally, he has very little freedom in respect of what he will do. Francis Herbert Bradley borrows the conception of moral organism from Plato and Hegel.

According to Plato, there is a function for every man appropriate to his position and it is his righteousness to perform that function. This function is also commensurate with the structure, nature and purpose of the society.

So to refuse to perform the socially ordained duty is immorality. Again, Hegel says that the spirit of the nation (which is a spirit of social righteousness), controls and entirely dominates from within each person, so that he feel to be his own very being and looks upon it as his absolute final aim.

In Bradley’s conception the state is an organic unity. The functions are deter­mined by the state and the individual performs them.

His morality, his freedom, his righteousness and everything else lie in his ability to discharge those duties. Francis Herbert Bradley has said – “In fact what we call an individual man is what he is because of and by virtue of community, and communities are not mere names but something real.”

The identity and character of the individual are determined by the community in which he is born and brought up.

We quote Barker:

“Already at birth the child is what he is in virtues of the communities he has something of the family character, something of the national character, something of the civilized character which comes from human society. As he grows, the community in which he lives pours itself into his being in the language he learns and the social atmosphere he breathes, so that the consent of his being implies in its every fibre relations of community”.

The individuals find their fullness of character if they sincerely cultivate their specific duties.

Francis Herbert Bradley says:

“The breadth of my life is not measured by the multitude of my pursuits, not the space I take up amongst other men, but by the fullness of the whole life which I know as mine.” Bradley’s state is a “moral organism”.

Its parts are the citizens. But there is a difference between the parts of the body and those of the state. Parts of the state are self-conscious.

Upload and Share Your Article:

This article justifies that Rousseau is a Totalitarian Thinker.

Rousseau is really a controversial person. He has been regarded by a good number of scholars as a great apostle of liberty or freedom. Simultaneously he has been depicted as a supporter of totalitarianism.

These two terms are like pole apart. J. J. Talmon first draws our attention through his well-known book The Origin of Totalitarian Democracy published in 1953. Explaining Talmon’s argument McClelland maintains: “Talmon thinks that the totalitarian state can demand unquestioning obedience and the right to interfere with what it pleases”.

Totalitarianism implies that the words and authority of the government or person or the party are final and nobody can question. This type of government is based on an ideology. So whatever the government does is supported by the ideology.

It has been claimed that Rousseau propagated an ideology and that ideology has been briefly stated by J. S. McClelland:

“Rousseau’s insistence that the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of force and fraud is an ideological statement.”

To fight against this fraud and deterioration of morality, ethics and general values Rousseau wanted to make the state or its administrative system all-powerful. In Rousseau’s time there were no party governments or—like today—all-powerful bureaucracy. His state and general will are all-powerful.

There are few elements of totalitarianism in his writings and one such element is “forced to be free.” He has said that if anyone refuses to accept the decision or directions of the general will he will be forced to accept it.

His firm belief was that the general will represents the real will of all. The welfare of all individuals contain in this general will.

This will can never be wrong. All the individuals, participating in an open assembly, decided the general will. So such a will can never be wrong. If it is the exact nature of general will every individual is bound to obey or accept it.

Any refusal will be followed by application of force. That is why he has used the very controversial words— “forced to be free.” The coexistence between force and freedom is practically impossible.

It is unfortunate that Rousseau has made that coexistence. In other words, force and freedom can never be bed-fellows. The result is that Rousseau has been depicted as a totalitarian.

Why Rousseau is called a totalitarian thinker is quite manifest in his observation he makes in Chapter VI (The Limits of the Sovereign Power); “If the state is a moral person whose life is in the union of its members, and if the most important of its cares is the care for its own preservation, it must have a universal and compelling force, in order to move and dispose each part as may be most advantageous to the whole. As nature gives each man absolute power over all its members also.”

The passage is quite lengthy. What I want to emphasize is that the seeds of totalitarianism are to be found in Rousseau’s writing and this allegation is not baseless. Knowingly or unknowingly, Rousseau made certain statements or comments which have made his readers or commentators brand him as a totalitarian.

But there are many scholars who claim that Rousseau was not totalitarian, though there are certain aspects in his thought which hint at his totalitarianism. The renowned scholar Plamenatz is of opinion that Rousseau was a democrat in toto. A totalitarian minded person cannot start his book—Man is born free and every­where he is in chains. A totalitarian cannot suggest an open assembly for law making and administrative purposes. He was a great supporter of popular sovereignty and direct democracy.

In his A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality he unequivocally condemns the gross inequality. His most controversial phrase—forced to be free— is treated as a vital source of totalitarianism. But many thinkers are of opinion that the real meaning of the term is none will be allowed to do any harm to society.

Once the general will is formed, everyone is legally bound to obey its conditions because he was a participant in the process of general will. Even today, in all democratic states, once a law has been enacted by the law-making body it is binding on all. But do we call it totalitarian?

Maurice Cranston is of opinion that it is very difficult to find out the seeds or elements of totalitarianism in the writing of Rousseau. J. S. McClelland says that though Talmon has said that Rousseau was a totalitarian there is doubt about it.

There are enough elements of democracy in the writings of Rousseau. From his writings we come to know that lie did not like the British model of parliamentary system.

He, on the other hand, thought of periodic system of open general assembly and the formation of general will. In his opinion society is evil, irrational and corrupt. In such society there are inequalities.

These are to be corrected with a strong hand and that has been suggested by him. It has been said that all the socialists of subsequent ages are called the grandchildren of Rousseau.

It is admitted on all hands that there are certain perceptible aspects of totalitarianism in socialist thought and in that sense he might be called a totalitarian.

Upload and Share Your Article:

After reading this article you will learn about Machiavelli:- 1. History of Machiavelli 2. Life and Time of Machiavelli 3. Political Ideas.

History of Machiavelli:

Machiavelli  was the first thinker who freed political science or theory from the clutches of religion and morality. He was not interested in high moral or religious principles. His main concern was power and the practical or political interests of the state. It would be the primary concern of the prince in particular and government in general to protect the interests of state.

In this connection R. N. Berki writes:

“He is also renowned for being exceptionally outspoken and candid in his views, writing with a clinical detachment or sometimes even cynicism about issues. Such as the use of violence and deception in politics”.

In other words Machiavelli was the first thinker who took an unequivocal stand in regard to the relationship between religion, morality and virtue on the one hand and politics on the other. He adopted a very clear stand about politics, religion and morality.

He never denounced virtue, morality and religion. But what he emphasized is that the domain of morality and religion is quite different from that of politics and the prince must maintain it in his treat mental of politics.

Machiavelli strongly advocated a dichotomy between morality and religion on the one hand and politics on the other. But Skinner is of opinion that. This dichotomy is not Machiavelli’s own creation or discovery.

Aristotle in his Politics adopted such form of dichotomy and Machiavelli scrupulously adopted Aristotelian method. Aristotle held the view that the “qualities which deserve admiration in a prince may be different from those which deserve admiration in a private citizen”.

Even many other thinkers following Aristotle and Machiavelli said that “the virtues of the rulers are one thing; the virtues of the people are another.” In this way Machiavelli established a separate set of virtues for the prince or the ruler.

In The Prince he emphasized that the prince must follow a virtue which is “creative”—creative in the sense that the virtue of the prince would be able to maintain the state. With the help of his virtues the prince would “fight off” his enemies.

We, therefore, find that Machiavelli used the word “virtue” not in any conventional sense. The supreme objective of a prince is always to maintain the unity of his state and to bring it under good administration. People of the state always demand that they are not to be oppressed and exploited.

It is the primary duty of the ruler to look after it and if any ruler fails to achieve it he is unfit for the post of ruler or to be called a prince. At the same time Machiavelli declared that if a prince or ruler fails to achieve this objective he cannot demand obligation from his subjects.

In this way Machiavelli had established a new norm for politics and that norm is politics has nothing to do with the conventional type of morality or ethics.

We further observe that Machiavelli denounced his contem­porary political theories because they failed to emphasize the importance of power. In his opinion power is the most important aspect of political theory.

Even today we cannot deny this concept power politics or practical politics does not give full recognition to morality or religion. Last of all we hold the view that he built up a wall between politics and religion not guided by personal preference but by the prevailing situation of his time.

Life and Time of Machiavelli:

Niccolo Machiavelli, one of the most controversial figures of Western political thought, was born in 1469 and passed away in 1527. At the age of 29 he enrolled in the public service of his native state Florence. His services lasted only for fourteen years. Machiavelli was one of the top policy-makers of the state.

He had close connection with the highest echelons of state administration and this enabled him to come in contact with the inner circles of policy-making and policy application of state administration.

He was so important figure of state administration that he was very often sent for diplomatic missions to France and Germany. But as ill luck would have it he was accused of serious crimes and for this he had to suffer punishment. In 1512 he lost his job. But his removal from job appeared to him as blessing in disguise.

He fully utilised this forced retirement in constructive work. During the forced leisure he wrote his famous book The Prince which was published in 1513. He ardently hoped that he would get back his earlier job but his hopes remained unfulfilled.

Naturally Machiavelli remained a jobless person or, we may say, in forced retirement. But he utilised it for academic purposes. He published another book The Discourses. The Prince is called by many as an advice book because it contains number of advices to a prince in respect of what he should do and should not do.

Do’s and don’ts are the central idea of The Prince. But the Discourses is an attempt to dissect and analyze the state or body politic. It also discourses the philosophical and historical aspects of contemporary politics.

Speaking about the content of the Prince Ebenstein writes:

The most revolution­ary aspect of The Prince is not so much what it says as what it ignores. Before Machiavelli all political writings—from Plato to Aristotle through the Middle Ages to the Renaissance—had one central question – the end of the state. Political power was assumed to be a means only—a means in the service of higher ends—such as justice, good life, freedom or God. Machiavelli ignores the issue of the end of the state in extra-political terms.

He assumes that power is an end in itself and he confines his inquiry into the means that are best suited to acquire, retain and expand power.

Dunning, a noted interpreter of Western political thought, writes:

“In no system of political philosophy is the influence of environment more manifest than in that of Machiavelli. The brilliant Florentine was in the fullest sense the child of his time”.

The impact of contemporary events always falls upon the thinker and this is more prominent in the case of Machiavelli.

The Renaissance brought about an upheaval in the social, political and to some extent in the economic sphere of many European states and Machiavelli’s Florence or other states were no exception.

Machiavelli’s contemporary Italy was divided into the following five states- Kingdom Naples in the south, Milan in the North West, and Venice in the north-east, the Republic of Florence, and the Papal state.

This division of Italy, Machiavelli was convinced, was the root cause of the backwardness and numerous ills from which Italy suffered. So the unification of Italy was the burning question because it was strongly felt that without unification any progress was impossible.

Not only this, the whole of Italy was under the strong grip of corruption and mismanagement. A strong and powerful ruler was the need of the time and Machiavelli focused his attention to that. His conviction was that only a powerful prince could save Italy from disunity, profligacy and debauchery.

Political Ideas of Machiavelli:

1. Absolutism:

At the beginning of the 16th century we see a very important aspect of modern political theory which can simply be stated as modern absolutism. In the opinion of Sabine, Machiavelli is the father of this absolutism.

He suggested the separation between religion, morality and politics. In political matters the king will have th
e last word to say and all other centres must submit to political power.

In the words of Sabine:

“Absolute monarchy overturned feudal constitutionalism and the free city-states, on which medieval civilization had largely depended….Eccle­siastical rulers were everywhere subjected more and more to royal control and in the end church’s legal authority disappeared”.

Both Renaissance and Reformation drastically cut the wings of church and papacy which created vacuum in social and political fields and this was forthwith filled up by the emergence of absolute royal power.

Hence absolute royal power became the order of European politics. The growth of absolute monarchy, like that of feudal constitutional monarchy, took place in almost every part of western Europe.

The question is why the absolute monarchy came to be the order of the day of European politics. In the medieval period the church or the Ecclesiastical authority in all possible ways discouraged the people to ignore the financial issues which ultimately resulted in the complete stagnation of economy. Both Renaissance and Reformation enlightened people’s mind, thought and outlook and this, in turn inspired them to go out in search of money and wealth.

In the new situation and atmosphere the medieval institutions were remodelled and partially revolutionized to cope with the new situation. Before Renaissance and Reformation trade and commerce were local and they operated in certain fixed routes.

After these two, both trade and commerce became international or, we can say, the operation of trade and commerce expanded considerably. The wealth of many nations increased beyond imagination and simultaneously many people having considerable enterprise came to be the owners of newly created wealth.

That is wealth, power and enterprise were in the hands of few persons and they came to be called capitalist class or bourgeois class. Before Renaissance and Reformation, in European society there was class of nobility and after these two there arose a new class—the capitalist class and finally the old class of nobility was forced to submit to the class of capitalists.

The capitalist class saw that the citadel of wealth and property would face insecurity if military power and administration remained out of its control. In other words, the bourgeois class was very much eager to control the power and military of the state.

The power of the kings in all practical senses must be absolute but it must remain under the control and supervision of the capitalists. At the time of Machiavelli the capitalists were rising quite rapidly and they sought royal protection for the growth of trade and commerce. The meteoric rise of the power of kings appeared to be salubrious to the bourgeoisie.

This class thought that with the help of the royal power it would be able to secure its wealth, because the king was the authority of military and bureaucratic administration. Machiavelli fully understood the social, economic and political situation of Italy and at the same time he thought that only an absolute monarch or prince with enormous power could save Italy.

Democracy, liberalism, people’s rights etc. had very little importance to him. Only an absolute monarchy was the need of the day.

Machiavelli was a great patriot and nationalist. He was convinced that only a powerful king could unite divided Italy. A powerful prince could hasten the economic progress.

A united Italy was badly needed and a prince with enormous power at his disposal could achieve it. Like other Italians Machiavelli held the church responsible for the miserable condition of Italy.

So we hold the view that the prevailing situation forced Machiavelli to strongly argue for a strong monarchy. Machiavelli was a practical man and he had wide interests and curiosity in politics.

Italy of his time was weak politically and militarily. She was cornered in European politics. This ignoble position of Italy pained Machiavelli and he decided that Italy must be saved at any cost. Installation of an absolute power was the only solution.

Absolute power of the prince was the only way. In support of his conclusion Machiavelli drew examples from ancient history of various European states.

It means that at first he took a decision or selected a way and after that he gathered “facts in support of his decision. This some people call Machiavellian. The word Machiavellian is also used to denote “some action on the part of a state, a politician or even a friend. By calling an action Machiavellian we mean that it is selfish, cunning and without any moral justification”.

Though Machiavellism is used in pejorative sense we think that it is unjust because his method of analysis and objective cannot be subject of denouncement. The objective situation compelled him to advocate for an absolute power and separate politics from morality and religion. Many people may not like him or even may denounce him but a neutral assessment will support him.

Machiavelli and Renaissance:

Many critics of Western political thought prefer to call Machiavelli as the child of Renaissance. W. T. Jones says “Machiavelli was the child of Florence and of the Renaissance. All the qualities which characterise his city and his age appear in his own personality”.

An important aspect of Renaissance is that, coming under its influence, man began to judge and value everything, specially politics, in a new light. Even they scanned the values such as morality, justice, religion.

In the Middle Ages man was mesmerized by the church, Pope and, above all, by religion. He had no independent thinking power. But the advent of Renaissance changed this situation and man began to think of religion, values etc. by applying his own reason.

Machiavelli also adopted it. He broke the traditional path. He analysed social, political conditions in the light of new thought, reason and perspective. So both ordinary men and Machiavelli changed their line of thinking and way of values.

He thought that man was not created simply to follow the advice of church and adopt certain religious principles.

He also observed that the orthodox religion has considerably dwarfed his power of thinking and ability to follow or adapt reason. This created a precarious situation in the Italian society.

He observed that Renais­sance everywhere of Europe created a new thought and advancement of learning. Renaissance inspired man to know more and to advance forward. But the people of Italy remained in darkness.

Machiavelli arrived at the decision that the people of Italy must be saved from this position and new thought shall be injected in their “blood”. Being influenced by Renaissance he thought in this line.

The study of history inculcated a new idea in his mind and that was the service and loyalty to God and church could never be a factor of social upliftment. For this purpose it is required that man must serve society and man. The influence of religion, ethics and morality must be removed and people must be made practical.

He declared that in public affairs religion, morality and ethics must have no status. Only a powerful prince with absolute power at his disposal can achieve this. W. T. Jones writes: “A product of Renaissance, such as Machiavelli repudiates the old medieval nation of an objective moral order, determined by God, and in accordance with whose prescriptions men live best.

On the contrary, for him that life is best which brings fame, distinction, honours, and reputation to a man” Needless to say that Machiavelli received his materialistic outlook from the Renaissance. The Renaissance taught man the important lesson that if man desires better living and better situation he must look to the material situation—and not to God or religion or morality. All these are subjective and cannot help man to attain overall upliftment.

Before Renais
sance man was the doll at the hands of Pope and this resulted in the loss of reason and rationality. But he must think that he is endowed with reason, rationality, and power of judgment. By applying all these qualities he can considerably improve his material condition.

The subservience to God, morality, religion has no power to change and improve man’s material condition. People of post-Renaissance period acquired this idea and Machiavelli thought it prudent to apply it for the general improvement of Italian society. This is materialism, and we also call it Machiavellism.

2. Reason of the State:

The most revolutionary aspect of Machiavelli’s idea about politics is the reason of the state. Ebenstein writes: Before Machiavelli all political writings—from Plato and Aristotle through Middle Ages to the Renaissance—had one central question—The end of the state.

Political power was assumed to be a means only—a means to the service of higher ends such as justice, the good life, freedom or God—Machiavelli ignores the issue of the end of the state in the extra-political terms. He assumes that power is an end in itself and he confines his inquires into the means that are best suited to acquire, retain, and expand power.

The fact is that the central concept of Machiavelli’s political philosophy is the power of the state and, without power, the state is almost nothing. Studying history he formed the conclusion that only power can save Italy. If there is any message in The Prince, then it is that the sole objectives of the prince shall be to acquire power to make the state self-sufficient in all respects so that it can compete with other states. This is called the reason of the state.

The concept—reason of the state—is regarded by many—constitutes the central idea of Machiavelli’s political theory or ideas. It means that a state may have many ambitious aims but the most important one is to strengthen its position by acquiring power because without power a state is almost nothing.

A true prince must accumulate physical power by any means and apply it for the sake of the state. In the Discourses he said: “A prince must build on sound foundation, otherwise he is bound to come to grief.

The main foundations of every state are good laws and good arms”. Why so much emphasis on arms and power? Machiavelli had a thorough knowledge about human nature. In order to fight human beings of this nature a prince must have enormous power.

The power of the prince means the power of the state. Hobbes also held the same view. The point, however, is, these issues or aspects have met at a single point and this point is—the nature of society, the nature of human beings and the duty of the prince. These three have combinedly constituted the concept of reason of the state.

Speaking about the reason of the state (or regione di state) Skinner maintains “Machiavelli’s The Prince was first printed in 1532, and thereafter the Machiavellian defenders of region di state showed an increasing disposition to argue that if the main aim of the political theorist is to offer genuinely useful advice on how to maintain one’s state, then the less edifying aspects of prevailing political practice ought to be acknowledged and even recommended rather than merely outlawed”.

Skinner also observes that many have condemned his concept- reason of the state. But it is to be well-remembered that there was no alternative way.

He wanted to save Italy from further deterioration and, in order to achieve that ambitious goal; the state of his imagination must have a positive and clear role. He did not think of a state in Platonic background.

Some critics also say that Machiavelli’s attitude towards religion, ethics and morality is unpardonable. But his idea of state and reason of the state are impressive.

He possessed a clear conception about human nature and for such nature a powerful state is essential. Here lies the reason of the state. From history he collected numerous instances why a very powerful state is needed.

Machiavelli was a practical man and he was not guided by any sentiment. That built up his reason of the state.

3. Power Politics and Self-Sufficient State:

Machiavelli’s two concepts—power politics and self-sufficient state—are closely connected. J. R. Hale in his article—Machiavelli and the Self-Sufficient State—observes: It is noteworthy how much Machiavelli sees politics as a battle—a constant struggle for power. All politics, in his sense, are power politics.

After the Second World War the whole world was in the grip of power politics which means most or all the big powers converted the whole world into a battle-field.

The leaders of the super or major powers believed that war was the only way to solve all the problems. Machiavelli, almost in the same way, treated war as the only instrument capable to solve social and political problems. He writes in The Prince “Therefore, if a prince wants to maintain his rule he must learn how not to be virtuous, and to make use of this or not according to need.

Everyone realizes how praiseworthy it is for a prince to honour his word or to be straight-forward rather than in his dealings; nonetheless contemporary experience shows that princes who have achieved great things have been those who have given their word lightly, who have known how to trick men with their cunning, and who, in the end, have overcome those abiding by honest principles.”

In the theory of power politics there is no place of honesty and scruples. The sole aim of the prince or ruler of the state would be to achieve the goal. This goal is the interest of the state. To make the state powerful so that it can fight any ill-design of another state.

In the thought and action of the prince the only idea will get priority: The state must be made powerful at any cost because without military power the state is quite incapable to achieve its objective.

In The Prince Machiavelli has elaborately discussed the concept of power: “There are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second.

So a prince must understand how to make a nice use of the beast and the man…. Prince must know how to act according to the nature of both and that he cannot survive otherwise” (Machiavelli: The Prince). Machiavelli advised his prince to make a proper use of both law and brute force and in this way he was supposed to achieve success.

He advised his prince to sacrifice honesty, morality, religion for the benefit, or, more generally, for the cause of the state. It would never be regarded prudence on the part of the prince if he sacrifices the interest of the republic at the altar of honesty and religion. This is regarded as the reason of the state.

The interest of the state will be achieved if it is made all-powerful. He could not see anything of the state outside or beyond power. Both for survival and development of state power is indispen­sable. In the Discourses he has elaborated this idea. He supported his contention by drawing instances.

Another part or aspect of Machiavelli’s contribution to politics is his idea of self- sufficient state. His idea of power politics reason of state and self-sufficient state are all closely related, J. R. Hale in his illuminating article—Machiavelli And the Self- Sufficient State has thrown ample light on this aspect.

He says that Machiavelli did not appeal to the Christian morality or religion for the benefit of the state. To him the state was all-in-all and he was not prepared to sacrifice a small part of the interest of the state.

Without a powerful state people’s progress and welfare would remain unfulfilled. It is the reason of the state or raison d’tat. If t
he raison d’tat is achieved or successfully established the state will achieve the status of self-sufficiency. So behind the concept of power politics there was an idea of a self-sufficient state in his mind.

The word self-sufficient is really a comprehensive term. But to Machiavelli it had a definite connotation. In order to be self-sufficient a state first of all must be powerful so that it can defeat the ill-motives of foreign states.

After a state has achieved self-sufficiency in power (specially military power) it can land on other activities. The military power is at the top of all considerations.

In the concluding part of his analysis J. R. Hale writes “Machiavelli’s assumption that the state must pursue a policy of self-interest in terms of raison d’etat is not a Bible morality, was later echoed by theorists like Hegel, and men of action like Bismarck and Hitler.

Today the problem which Machiavelli stated is as urgent as ever” We think that what was true at the time of Machiavelli is still correct. Today the big or super powers are continuously fighting to establish their over-all supremacy.

They do not know where they will reach. Machiavelli thought that the accumulation of military power was the most prudent way to establish one’s supremacy. It was wrong. Even today the big or super powers think in the same line. It is also wrong.

However, Machiavelli of Florence is not dead; he is still alive in the minds of the leaders of today’s big powers.

Hale concludes:

We can throw away Machiavelli the bogey, but, if we are to think realistically about politics the state and the super-state perhaps we still need the pugnacious common sense of Machiavelli the man”. Both in national and international fields, power and politics are all-in-all. So we cannot blame Machiavelli.

4. Politics and Religion:

Renaissance, Luther, Calvin and Machiavelli are almost contemporary. Both democ­racy and individualism are the products of the Renaissance. But simultaneously despotism emerged along with them.

Church and papacy were forced to surrender their supremacy and dictatorial manner or functioning and the vacuum created in this way were forthwith filled up by the rise of monarchy.

The dominating power of kings became absolutely prominent. Out of democracy, individualism and despotism, only despotism was able to draw special attention of Machiavelli.

McClelland aptly observes:

In the Discourses Machiavelli makes it perfectly clear that the ruthless rule of a new prince is only one of the forms of government.

Machiavelli was quite acquainted with various forms of government including democracy or republicanism. But he preferred dictatorship or despotism as the most suitable form of government.

It is generally observed that he was the chief supporter of despotism because in his judgment only a despotic ruler could save Italy from the despicable condition. Somehow he arrived at the conclusion that a strong and powerful ruler was needed for Italy. Democracy could not save her. To Machiavelli politics was an end and its mechanism was military power.

He was chiefly concerned with the mechanics of government. He studied history of many European states and the knowledge he gathered was that Italy needed an autocratic government.

“He was not a prisoner of indecision. It was his conviction. He writes almost wholly of the mechanics of government, of the means by which states may be made strong of the politics by which they can expand their power”.

According to Sabine and many others political and military measures are of primary interest because Machiavelli thought that only these two had the power to save a state. He strongly advocated a separation between politics and religion and without this separation the state could not reach its goal. His open declaration was that the purpose of politics was to preserve and augment political power.

He was so adamant in this respect that he was not prepared to make any compromise. The policy adopted by the prince may be cruel, faithless or lawless, but that, is quite immaterial. The point is whether it could help the prince to achieve success.

The policy of the prince is quite moral or ethical and he is religious-minded but it is useless so far as its capacity to achieve success is concerned.

Machiavelli was not against morality, religion, ethics etc. Rather, he was indif­ferent. That is, he adopted an indifferent stand or attitude towards these. It is called moral indifference.

In Discourses he made the following observation “our religion places the supreme happiness in humility, lowliness, and a contempt for worldly objects, whilst the others on the contrary, places the supreme good in grandeur of soul, strength of body.

These principles seem to me to have made men feeble and caused them to become an easy prey to evil minded men”. In this passage we find that he did not suggest to be immoral or anti-religious. He was of opinion that religion; morality etc. should be kept aside for special and personal use.

If a prince wants to achieve success he must make serious efforts to separate religion and morality from politics. He should use these for his personal use only.

The prince must not hesitate to use immoral means and unethical ways and corrupt practices to achieve success in political fields.

A prince should not run after admiration. His subjects may throw him eulogy and admiration for being honest and religious minded. But they will never forgive him for his failure in political affairs.

Machiavelli recommends a double standard of morality and ethics—one for the ruler and the other for the private citizens or persons. The reason suggested by Machiavelli is that the supreme objective of the prince is to achieve success in political fields: Religion, morality and ethics should not be allowed to stand on the way of success.

But the private persons have not such objectives and naturally they have the freedom to follow moral and religious ways. Machiavelli has suggested that the virtue of a prince is different from that of an ordinary person.

Skinner observes “the whole of Machiavelli’s advice is governed by a highly original sense of what should be taken to constitute true virtu in a prince………. With Machiavelli the concept of virtu is simply used to refer to whatever range of qualities the prince may find it necessary to acquire in order to maintain his state and achieve great things”.

It is clear that morality, ethics and religion in the case of a prince are combinedly called virtu and the prince must adopt this virtu honestly. He should be least concerned with what happens in religion or morality.

By recommending the above Machiavelli clearly indicated the separation between politics and religion. This may also be called the “autonomy of politics”, which implies that the politics has an exclusively different world. This is called secularism of politics or secularisation of politics.

Machiavelli thought that politics and religion are different because their fields are separate. He had a firm belief that for all sorts of corruption in politics, religion is absolutely responsible.

A prince or a political man could never achieve success by scrupulously following religious, moral and ethical means. If a man becomes prince he should avoid moral and religious ways by all means.

There is emotion in morality and religion. A prince true to his name must give no recognition to the religious and moral feelings. Explaining the stand adopted by Machiavelli Skinner observes “if a ruler is genuinely concerned to maintain his state he will have to shake off the demands of Christian virtue, wholeheartedly embracing the very different morality which his situation dictates ” It is to be noted here that “to maintain the state” and reason of the state are concepts of immense importance and Mach
iavelli took these seriously.

A state must be maintained in the face of all odds or adverse situations and a judicious prince must reject the conventional religion and morality. This is the fulcrum of Machiavellian concept of secularization of politics.

If a prince honestly follows the Christian virtue that will stand on the way of success. Hence he recommended two separate compartments—one for politics and the other for religion.

His clear view was that when the safety of our country is absolutely at stake there need be no question of what is just or unjust, merciful or cruel, praiseworthy or disgraceful, but all other considerations set aside, that course alone is to be taken which may save our country and maintain its liberty. To him religion, ethics and morality were mystical concepts but the state was a real element.

He was out and out a materialist and for that reason he refused to give proper recognition to the mystical elements such as religion and morality State or politics has a separate and at the same time real or concrete domain.

Florence was the birthplace of Machiavelli and birthplace of several celebrities. But this Florence was in an ignoble position or situation which he could not tolerate. His idea was that Florence or any other state was reality and in that sense politics was also a reality. But religion is not a reality. Hence state and politics are reality.

5. Idea about State:

It would be wrong to brand Machiavelli as a systematic political philosopher or thinker or a theoretician about state. His main concern was his birthplace Florence and overall progress of Italy, especially Florence, an important centre of art and literature.

In The Prince he said:

“A prince must build on sound foundations of every state, new states as well as ancient or composite ones, are good laws and good arms ” But above all the prince must focus his attention On building up a powerful army.

Only an army can make a state self-sufficient. Here we like to note that Machiavelli’s state was mainly a military state, it is not liberal or democratic state. He was not interested in democracy at all. He thought that with the help of military strength a state can achieve its object.

He was out and out a materialist and wanted to build up the concept of state on materialism. He did not run after idealism, philosophy, morality etc. Even he did not think in those lines and this was the special characteristic of Machiavelli’s state. G. W. Allen says: “He was really concerned only with the actual states of his day. He had crude notions of how the states came into being and he had the idea that all institutions tend to corruption owing to inherent defects arising from the nature of man. He believed that out of corruption comes, or may come, new healthy growth and that all tend to move in a circle. He conceived the state as something very unstable”.

Machiavelli’s state was not only a military state, it was an absolutist state and above all it was a secular state. It was a state quite indifferent to morality, to religion, to ethics. We can say he predicted a twentieth century state—a state of power and politics.

Let us again quote Allen:

“Not only has it no vital relation to church it has no relation to God or to any cosmic purposes.” He had a firm conviction that religion, politics and ethics could not cohabit. The area of politics is absolutely separate from that of religion and morality. Today we frequently talk about secular state. But it is to be remembered that several centuries ago Machiavelli, the son of Florence, laid the foundation of such a state.”

Some interpreters of Machiavelli’s political thought are of opinion that he had an idea of nation-state. He wanted to demarcate the boundary of each state to ensure the proper administration and jurisdiction. In the opinion of a critic “That Machiavelli perceived the advantage to a government of having subjects similar in language, customs and habits of life, is quite clear.” In the last chapter of The Prince he had suggested that all the foreigners were to be ordered to leave Italy.

He had the intention to convert Italy into one nation one state. This demand was revived in twentieth century. Today we frequently talk about right to self-determination— Machiavelli perhaps had that idea. Machiavelli had an apprehension that the foreigners were responsible for the present condition of Italy.

He had an apprehen­sion that if the prince proceeds to drive away all the foreigners from the soil of Italy then armed conflict with other states was inevitable and, for that reason, he suggested that a prince must proceed to build up a strong army to strengthen his defence and must not depend on mercenaries because they are useless and dangerous. Some critics may say that Machiavelli was a narrow-minded political thinker. May be so. But it is true that he was a patriot and loved his motherland more than any other contemporary politician.

6. Omnipotent Legislator:

Machiavelli’s concept of state or his philosophy is closely connected with his notion of omnipotent legislator.

He makes the following observation in Discourses:

“But we must assume, as a general rule, that it never or rarely happens that a republic or monarchy is well-constituted, or its old institutions entirely reformed, unless it is done by only one individual, it is even necessary that he whose mind has conceived such a constitution should be alone in carrying it into effect.”

We have already observed that Machiavelli’s main concern was a well-ordered and properly constituted state and he was fully conscious that law was the main instrument which was capable of achieving this objective. His belief was that only a good prince was unable to bring his state under proper administration.

Two instruments were necessary—one is good law and the other is well-regulated army. The prince first of all will try to administer the state with the help of law and, where necessary, army will be called. Interpreters of Machiavelli’s political thought are of opinion that he advised his prince to rely mainly on law.

Sabine observes “The law-giver is the architect not only of the state but of society as well, with all its moral, religious and economic institutions”.

Machiavelli received the importance of law from Greek political thought. In ancient Greece Solon (B. C. 638-559) was of opinion that law was the chief instrument which could ensure justice. Needless to say that Solon was a famous legislator.

He relied on good law and legislator on the ground that human nature was not always up to standard—men are corrupt and self-interest seeking. To cope or fight with them good laws are essential.

In his opinion human beings are selfish and egoist. To bring such persons under the administration, law was essential and for that reason he heavily relied upon law. To sum up, in Machiavelli’s view, law was the most important part of state administration.

But the question is why an omnipotent legislator. We have already quoted a long passage from Discourses. He said “it never or rarely happen a republic is well- administered unless it is done by only one individual.”

So we can easily conclude that he had no faith on any legislative body or legislature. His prince had no limit to what extent he could go and similarly his law-giver had unlimited power to make law.

Machiavelli does not clearly say whether his omnipotent legislator and king is the same person or not. But from his different comments in Discourses and The Prince it appears to us that he wanted to entrust the powers of law-making and administration in the same hands.

An able prince, he hoped, would be able to make good laws which would build a solid foundation for
a prosperous state.

Sabine observes:

“He can tear down old states and build new, change forms of government, transplant populations and build new virtues into the character of his subjects” A good administrator is also a good legislator.

Machiavelli advised his prince to focus attention to both making of law and streamlining general administration. We can say that all his contemporaries were thinking of a good and all-powerful administration.

Like Plato, Machiavelli did not think of a philosopher king, but the idea of an able and powerful administrator was quite active in his mind. This is an interesting aspect of Machiavelli’s political thought which we can call “Machiavellism”.

Of course there are other aspects of Machiavellism but Sabine is of opinion that it is an important aspect. Finally, Machiavelli says that to what extent a person is a good administrator and legislator that requires to be judged by his success.

Assessment of Political Ideas of Machiavelli:

The assessment of Machiavelli’s political thought can best be described in the words of Sabine. He says – “No man of his age saw so clearly the direction that political evolution was taking throughout Europe. No man knew better than he the archaism of the institutions that were being displaced or accepted more readily the part that naked force was playing in the process. Yet no one in that age appreciated more highly the inchoate sense of national unity on which this force was obscurely based. No one was more clearly aware of the moral and political corruption that went with the decay of long-accustomed loyalties and pieties”.

This assessment of Sabine is perfectly correct. Machiavelli had profound knowledge about social and political conditions of Italy and that created a lot of frustration and agony in his mind.

He was a great patriot and he thought that Italy could be saved from this ignoble condition. He, for that reason, adopted an uncompromising stand. He, it is true, took an uncom­promising attitude towards religion, morality and ethics.

The dominating role of church and papacy was primarily responsible for the all-round deterioration of human society. He pinpointed it and suggested a way out. We may not agree with his suggestion, but the mere fact is that he had no other solution. “Indoctrinated as he was in the pagan revival in Italy he was unable both by training and temperament to grasp the constitutional and the moral ideals that European politics would carry over from the Middle Ages”

At the beginning of the sixteenth century constitutionalism was not highly rated as a good palliative for social and political malady. He understood the malady and applied his knowledge and experience. We may not agree but we cannot blame him.

He was a materialist and, at the same time, realist. Berki says that Machiavelli had clear conception about all the aspects of his contemporary society. Let us quote few words from Berki – of course, in truth Machiavelli’s cynicism and practical concern are not the most important things about him, what we have to realise is that he had a clear and by no means ignoble, political vision” Every political philosopher is the product of his time and Machiavelli is no exception. Plato, Aristotle, Marx all luminaries fall within this category. He believed that only a powerful prince could save Italy.

If we judge Machiavelli in a conventional way it will be found that he was guilty—guilty in the sense that he advised prince and politician to ignore morality and ethics. But he is to be judged in the background of his time and if we do this our conclusion will be of different nature. He is a thinker par excellence. His knowledge about contemporary political situation was really laudable. What he said is quite natural. He was a patriot, he was a practical man. Applying the best of his knowledge he advised the prince in such manner.

Dunning said “The influence of Machiavelli upon the history of political theories can hardly be exaggerated. Not only the method and substance of his philosophy but also the marvelous literary art with which it was expressed served to win for its universal attention” . We appreciate Dunning’s assessment. His literary art is praiseworthy, but more praiseworthy is his good command over real situation of his contemporary Italy.

His idea of power politics is absolutely pragmatic. His advice to the prince was— if he wants to achieve unity and progress of his state his sole aim would be to make his state militarily powerful and to that extent he must ignore Christian values, moral considerations and ethical judgments.

Interesting to note that in the second half of the twentieth century the leaders of the superpowers followed the same track which created several crises.

We do not know whether Machiavelli’s prince followed his advice. But politician of seventies and eighties of the twentieth century exactly did the same thing. Machiavelli’s state is the real state.

It is never the embodiment of Christian values or morality. The state has an autonomous value and that value is the power of the state. This is the reason of the state or raison d’tat. He advised his prince to make the republic as strong as possible so that it would have not to depend upon others.

We know that erstwhile Soviet Union and United States did the same thing in the fifties and sixties of the last century. In 1969 the 500th birth anniversary of Machiavelli was observed in many parts of the Western World. This indicates that Machiavelli’s political thought has lasting value and this relates to his concept of power and particularly power politics.

Machiavelli was quite aware that misdistribution of poverty was the chief factor of conflict among the various classes of society. Both Marx and Engels recognized it. He believed that a powerful prince with enormous military power could save the society from this evil. He did not think of revolution. But it is not his fault. At the beginning of the sixteenth century the socio-economic-political condition of Italy was not ripe for a revolution and for that reason he did not lay emphasis on revolution.

“Machiavelli anticipates Hobbes in believing that the glory of a prince can consist of nothing but the prosperity and contentment of his people” If a prince succeeds in unifying and strengthening his republic that will ensure the all-round prosperity of the state. We can remember that Thomas Hobbes also thought almost in the same line.

In his opinion the anarchy of the state of nature was not congenial for the progress of the society and for that reason he suggested that a new society would be built up at the head of which there shall be a powerful sovereign authority.

The sovereign authority will rule the state with law and sword. There is hardly any difference between Machiavelli’s prince and Hobbes’ Leviathan. In the strictest sense, both are of the same category.

Some critics charge him as the founder of fascism. The Michigan University has published a collection of essays under the title—”Communism, Fascism and Democ­racy—The Theoretical Foundations.

In one of the essays Machiavelli has been depicted as the supporter of fascism. Fascism does not understand anything other than power and, more particularly, naked and unscrupulous power. Machiavelli advised his prince to adopt such power. Like Machiavelli, Hegel was also the worshipper of absolute power. Hitler was the disciple of these two thinkers.

Machiavelli was also a supporter of the bourgeoisie. As a result of Renaissance the trade and communication among nations expanded at a meteoric rate and some adventurist people earned a lot of money from trade and business. These people constituted a class called the capitalist class.

Although, this class at the time of Machiavelli was just emerging or in nascent condition. He thought it his duty to support the cause if t
his class. His conviction was that an absolute monarchy would be the best possible form of government. This led him to support absolute monarchy.

Upload and Share Your Article: