In Book 1, Ch. 55 of his Discourses, Machiavelli describes the the state of corruption in Italy when he is living and compares it to the golden days of Rome. He cites a sense of public duty (pg. 72) as the foundation of a stable political system. In an example from ancient Rome, the senate passed a decree that everyone pay a tax, but it wasn't enforced, and the government trusted the populace to act within their good conscience. Machiavelli says that in his day, such “public spiritedness” is rare except for in the German republics. (pg. 72) German republics are able to stave off corruption by promoting equality and avoiding a rise of a “gentlemen” class. In all other parts of the world, Italy being “the most far gone of them all,” (pg. 72) there is no respect for religion, for the law, or for military service by those who hold government office. (pg. 75)
In America today, we see a similar disrespect for the law and public duty in the populace as well as in “gentlemen” (Machiavelli defines a “gentleman” as one who lives in luxury without working) which is becoming more important. Public movements, such as Occupy Wall Street, are drawing attention to the corruption among the richest Americans who don’t work, pay taxes, follow laws, etc. Machiavelli offers two solutions to introduce a new political system or control a region where corruption is rampant. His first is to establish a monarchy, because the “heavy hand of a king” is needed to halt the unlimited ambition and corruption of the elite who are so corrupt that the laws alone will not restrain them. Americans are pretty anti-monarchy but his conclusion to set up a republic in a place where there is a fair number of gentlemen is even more dramatic. Machiavelli concludes that, only by killing all of the gentlemen, can a republic be set up in a region where there is corruption.
Looking back to today’s corruption and gentlemen, which of Machiavelli’s suggestions would be the best for the United States? In our history, we have seen an expansion of executive power to reign in overstretching monopolies and unethical industrial practices, a watered down adaptation of a monarchy. We have also imprisoned CEOs and corrupt politicians, though many would argue not nearly enough. Machiavelli hated half-measures and might consider our actions today too soft. Are things as bad as they were in Machiavelli’s time or is it because there is less corruption, our responses need to be less brutal?
When Machiavelli is discussing Italy’s lack for respect for religion I think it was extra interesting that he actually blamed the church for the state’s failure. Claiming that the Italian church was neither strong enough to conquer Italy and unite it under one ruler, nor was the church weak enough to allow anyone else to conquer the state. His statement that religion is useful in commanding armies, inspiring people, keeping men in line, and making criminals ashamed of themselves all makes a lot of sense to me (pg. 66). He later states that when those in power use deception through religion, that the people become skeptical and religion thus becomes corrupt, as what happened in Italy. With the failure of religion comes the failure of institutions and thus the sole cause of Machiavelli’s attitude that Italy is “the most far gone of them all” as you pointed out above.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe that any of Machiavelli’s suggestions would be good to apply to the current situation in the US. It’s interesting to think about the level that corruption has spread throughout our country. We are at a constant struggle to keep checks and balances in place. But as Machiavelli points out: once the people are corrupt it is almost impossible to bring back a good republic. It seems obvious that many of those in higher power are already corrupt. And the imprisoning of corrupt CEOs and politicians isn’t making a mark on the quality of trustworthiness in our system. It feels like as the years go on, more and more people find it in their best interests to disobey the laws set down from above and partake in whatever path best suits their interests. Our punishments today are less brutal in the sense of less blood and outrage from people, but the use of less brutal punishments allows for those with power to better hold on to their power by avoiding immediate public outrage in today’s world. I’m not so sure that I would say that the amount of corruption today is any less than that of the time Machiavelli writes of. It just may be that corruption is more efficiently concealed and more effectively harnessed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo thy excellency, Jeremy Rowe:
ReplyDeleteNice post! I enjoyed your mentioning of the German communities and how they kept equality in check. It is truly a shame that way of life did not spread through the ages to the U.S. and our modern day society. And it is a truly brain-twisting inquiry that you have put forth.
I do think things are as bad as in Machiavelli's time, but in different ways.These days there are still people who are feuding over land and trying to change the law, but not with the same tactics as back in Machiavelli's time, and it is not always as evident to the populace. These days it is not physical wars we are fighting in the U.S., but social and economic ones.
I do not believe in war or violence though. I am a believer in positive actions. Thinking and doing as many positive things as one can is the best way to accomplish any matter in my opinion. However, the "gentlemen" of today have utter contempt for positivity, unless it is in their favor. Like Machiavelli says of the nobility in his time, "...[they] are very keen to dominate..." (61). That being said I still believe there is a chance to foster positivity in these peoples hearts.
I believe the only true way to accomplish a task such as creating social equality in the U.S. is to prepare, like the Germans did. Those who are economically oppressed need to get in touch with the basic human in them. They need to learn how to grow their own food, get their own water, set up their own shelter, make their own clothing. Most of all though, they need to learn how to survive without money. For if they can survive without money than they have no need for the elite, who provide them with everything that they need. At that point they are liberated to do what they wish, which includes boycotting the elite and their demands. They can leave their jobs, harmonize with their surroundings, and create lasting social equality. But as Machiavelli also points out, the way of life would have to be maintained; "...you must repeatedly bring it back to its founding principles," if you want it to survive for long.
Not saying it would easy; some laws would have to be created or eliminated, and it would take a lot of time, effort, and cooperation to do but I think given the right opportunity it could work.
Machiavelli also states that another reason the German republics are so successful is because they avoid all contact with their neighbors. "...the Germans do not have numerous contacts with their neighbors, for their neighbors rarely visit them, and they rarely visit their neighbors. They have been content with the products of the local economy, eating food grown and raised nearby, and dressing in wool from their own sheep. This removes the primary reason for contact with foreigners, and with it, the primary source of all corruption. They have avoided being infected with the customs of the French, the Spanish, or the Italians; and these three nations between them are the source of corruption throughout the world" (pg 72). Clearly, in today's society with all the technology that is available, this kind of isolation is impossible for any country. Perhaps Machiavelli only viewed this kind of isolation is instrumental to Germany's success because France, Spain, and Italy were especially corrupt; but I'm sure there is comparable corruption in our world today. Given our access to technology and travel, it would be impossible not to be exposed to these other countries. I brought up this second reason of Machiavelli's, because I think to answer this question of how the US should proceed is more complex than just how we deal with our "gentlemen" class. I don't have a good answer to how the US should proceed (kill off the elite, or establish a monarchy), but even if I could defend either one of those paths, I think our exposure to other societies complicates the situation. It seems highly unlikely that the kind of isolation Machiavelli describes will ever exist again, so maybe his two answers to the problem of the gentlemen class are no longer applicable.
ReplyDeleteI like this post, because I appreciate how it draws out the bottom line that you really can't ever fully eradicate "gentlemen" from a society. The passages that you refer to reminds me of Machiavelli's views in "Discourses" in which he talks about the presence of good and evil, and how there will always be each in the world in varying degrees, but ever present.
ReplyDeleteWhile Machiavelli muses over the possibility of removing corruption, and thereby, one can conclude, eradicating some (if not all) gentlemen, I believe that it is unfortunately impossible. Throughout history, time and time again, there have been revolutions and movements to equalize society and remove corruption (Occupy Wall Street, Tunisia, the French Revolution), but "gentlemen" and/or bad people survive and eventually thrive yet again despite previous set-backs from the public. This is true of monarchies as well - every time one is set up, it is also eventually dismantled. In my opinion, while Machiavelli can break down each issue (the issue of gentlemen/corruption, the issue of monarchies) on its own and provide a solution, it appears to me as though each problem is the other's solution, which loops Machiavelli's prescriptions into an infinite cycle, rendering them to be more mere observations of human society and less than wise doctrines to a general populace.
It's interesting that you bring up the revolutions to eradicate gentleman because it reminds me of my Greek history class. We talked about a spectrum of wealth disparity. On the left side of the spectrum, there is no disparity, on the right side, there is a lot of disparity. Throughout history, we see a general 'comfort zone' in the middle, say, 40-60% of the spectrum. Right in the middle. Through greed and corruption, the point on the spectrum slowly moves to the right. Still in the comfort zone for its first few advances and no one really minds. But as it continues to the right, more people begin to notice, more people become upset, and there is a redistribution of land, money, power, etc, which resets the point in the comfort zone. This is the cycle that the Greeks endured, which is what Livy saw when writing his history of Rome. It's of little surprise that Machiavelli picks up on this cycle.
DeleteIt's always interesting when Machiavelli talks about the glory days of ancient Rome even though Rome itself had its fair share of corruption, especially in its later years with emperors such as Caligula and Nero. However.. Rome had a very strong republic and there was a sense of public duty and respect for the law. Comparisons between ancient Rome, renaissance Italy, and the United States are quite sad for I also agree that there is a similar disrespect for public duty and the law in these modern times.
ReplyDeleteCorruption is widespread no doubt, that is something we unfortunately cannot fix. Like Jordan pointed out, throughout history there have been revolutions and movements to remove corruption but those movements have been thwarted by the very people we strive so hard to remove. Simply put, power corrupts.
Machiavelli's suggestions would not work in these modern times, or at all. 'Killing' the gentlemen won't do. Senseless violence solves nothing and will only promote more chaos. Like others have suggested, isolation in today's society will not work due to our vast technological advances. You will have an incredibly hard time isolating yourself from others.
Perhaps the poor could become more self-reliant but that would take a lot of work and preparations.
I honestly do not think that there is/nor will there ever be a clear answer to this problem. Perhaps the abuse of power and corruption is simply a part of human nature.