Alexander Moreno

History 202
May 23 2012


This paper will discuss how The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli impacted western heritage
in the 20
th
century. Niccolo Machiavelli wrote his famous dissertation on power, The
Prince, in 1517. His thoughts on the rules of power encompass the struggles for every level
of power, from the proletariat struggling in the corporate world to strategies performed by
the world leader in the sixteenth century to now. The philosophies set in The Prince,
known as Machiavellianism, have been viewed as evil throughout the centuries, but as most
business leaders and politicians agree Machiavelli has only defined the physics of power.
He analyzed power and the way Italy could gain enough to become its own state and keep
control. His ideas have echoed through time with Henry Kissinger, the Secretary of State
under the Nixon administration, President Truman, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, and even
corporate and business men alike have been linked with Machiavelliamism. This topic
raises several questions including how did Machiavelliamism impact western heritage?

When Machiavelli mentioned "fancies", he was referring to the theories set prior to his
own. Theories which recognized men as good, thus able to be controlled by good. But in
this quote Machiavelli points out that men do not live in such a fashion. Therefore, those
acts which are "other than good" are necessary for acquisition and preservation of power
in society. Machiavelli set the precedent for the cold and calculated regardless of the
century they live in. He discusses frankly, the necessity of cruel actions to keep power. He
was in the business of power preservation not piety. Those who desire power in any
situation may look to his strategies for solid aid. "...he (the leader of the state) must stick to
the good so long as he can, but, being compelled be necessity, he must be ready to take the
way of the evil." Thus the term Machiavelliamism is defined: "The political doctrine of
Machiavelli, which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft
and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power." This definition
implies that in the arena of power the end justifies the means. This essentially the core of
Machiavelianism. The priority for the power holder is to keep the security of the state
regardless of the morality of the means. He sought the truth of keeping power in the
context of a real and sinful society; not the way the church would view society. However
Machiavelli did not believe in pursuing evil for evil's sake, rather when the only way to
keep power is to act evilly, one must. Good and evil are equal in the contest for power.

So what circumstances call for amoral actions in our modern society? Henry Kissinger said:
"There are some situations in which the more the survival is threatened the narrower the
margin of choice becomes, unless you say you would rather have your society destroyed
than to pursue marginal means." Henry Kissinger has been called the greatest diplomat of
our time. He recognized the need for separation of morals from the power struggle; the
irrelevance of morality in politics. For his theories he also been called the Machiavelli of the
20th century. Like a true Machiavellian he, as Secretary of State under the Nixon
administration, systematically analyzed the struggle between the democracy of the United
States and the threatening communism of China and the Soviet Union. What is our
objective? Our means? What is the worst that can happen? What is the best? Henry
Kissinger asked himself these questions when he designed the policy of detente with China
and the Soviet Union. His objective: to contain the threatening communism. Record of the
report to China is cited in Kissinger's book, Diplomacy, quoted from the Second Annual
Report of The Nixon Papers: "We are prepared to establish a dialogue with Peking. We
cannot accept its ideological precepts, or notion that Communist China must exercise
hegemony over Asia. But neither do we wish to impose on China an international position
that denies its legitimate national interest."

The United States stood to gain much. These legitimate national interests were to increase
trade and halt of the nuclear arms race. These goals were further pursued when President
Nixon visited Moscow, with the same intentions, for the signing of the Strategic Arms
Limitations Talks, S.A.L.T. In both instances, Henry Kissinger identified the objective and
perceived strategic gain. He delicately avoided the worst that could of happened. With his
policy of detente the potential for nuclear war was reversed to a harmony of two vast
powers working cooperatively for their interests. The United States was no longer blinded
by its precepts that communism is evil, rather by the idea that these two countries great
powers needed to deal with each other in a mutually beneficial way.
If these steps to cooperate with these communist super powers the outcome could have
been war. In words of Machiavelli: "By making provision is advance, princes may easily
avoid such difficulties; but if they wait until they are at hand, the medicine will not be in
time, for by then the malady will have grown incurable."

Looking back further in history, what caused President Harry Truman to drop the atomic
bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The casualties reached approximately 120,000 with the
extending effects of radiation. To quote the Machiavellian Henry Kissinger, was the survival
of the United States so threatened that the use of such marginal means was necessary? How
many American lives did they save because the war was ended by this extreme means? It
has been stated that the strategies of Machiavelli show no prejudices for good or evil
means. They have disregard for the principles establishing the power structure. President
Truman used Machiavellian principles to support democracy but others have used his
tactics for other ideals.

Lenin used Machiavellian tactics for a communist revolution, for Machiavellian was not
only interested in the survival of a principality but the way the principality acquired its
power. The communist revolution led by Lenin is a modern example of the destruction of
an old principality to a new. Machiaviavelli outlines the unfailing process to be followed for
a modern revolution. In the book it mentions a leader who is guiding his fellow citizens as
a citizen must stamp out the old principality, establish new government, appoint new
officials, and instill respect and gradually fear for the principal leadership. Were these not
the blue prints for the Russian revolutionary followed by Lenin? After he became leader of
the Bolsheviks, he led them in a successful revolution. With his communist ideals pushing
them, the Bolsheviks threw out the Provisional Government at the Winter Palace, a symbol
of the old principality. Once the complete destruction of the old principality was over, Lenin
appointed a new hierarchic system. He established himself as head of that system and
developed a reputation of cruelty. Another of the many Machiavellian principals that
Lenin followed was this: "I (Machiavelli) conclude that since men love as they themselves
determine but fear as their ruler determines, a wise prince must rely upon what he and not
others control." Destroy old principals, appoint new officials, establish a respected
leadership. . . Could these be the same blue prints for other aspects of the human power
struggle? Every four years in the United States a version of this change of power takes place
on a smaller scale. With the change of presidents, an entirely new administration is
established. If the elections change the shift of power of president across party lines, an
even more drastic transformation takes place. Moreover, this change of principalities
happens almost daily in the corporate world. With the leadership of new management, the
entire policy system may change as well as the product and the image.
Machiavelli is not restricted to politics. His physics of power cross over into all arenas. As
Adolfe A. Berle wrote: "The head of a big manufacturing corporation . . ., within area of his
capacity to make decisions and give orders, is though less spectacularly, in the same
position as a head of government . . . [though the] . . .scope of power is tiny compared the
same rules apply."

These rules are the consistency of The Prince used by politicians and businessman alike. As
a whole, the strategies of Machiavelli are even more applicable to the world of business
than to the present day world of politics. Like the prince, the business person regards his
own welfare more greedily than any of the present day politicians because the politician's
power is given to him by a vote and the business person's power are given to him by the
dollar. The executive knows that the best way to self preservation is through power by the
people by manipulating their passions. A company's system of appealing to the customer's
trust and loyalty, in turn earning their money, puts an executive prince at the head of a
corporate kingdom. Throughout history there have been businessmen who have succeeded
to becoming a tycoon by these principals of The Prince.

In conclusion all human struggles boil down to the struggle for power. It is only the basics
of social Darwinism. Machiavellian principals are exploited on other levels than those first
intended by the author for their universal truth. His theories of power have transcended
the political arena and revealed the basic functions of the human struggle for power. In the
same way the modern governmental principalities understand this, the 20th century
corporate tycoon down to the struggling proletariat, understand Machiavellian principles.
For if they do not and hope to succeed, they will be compelled to learn : for who can defy
physics? Machiavelli's greatest insight was this:
"For the manner in which men live is so far removed from the way in which men ought to
live, that he who leaves the common course for that which he ought to follow will find that
it leads him to ruin rather than to safety. For a man who, in all respects, will carry out only
his professions of good, will be apt to be ruined among so many that are evil. A prince
therefore who desires to maintain himself must learn not always to be good..."