The contradictory views of Niccolo Machiavelli on public life. Political and legal views of Nicollo Machiavelli. Biography of Niccolo Machiavelli

A realistic approach to understanding the past and present political life, the principle of unity of theory and practice was defended by the younger contemporary of Leonardo da Vinci, the outstanding historian and reformer of the science of state Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527). A native of Florence, widely educated in classical literature and legal issues, he served for more than ten years in the chancellery of the Republic during the restoration of its democratic order. After the restoration of Medici power in 1512, Machiavelli found himself in exile. The years of exile (1513-1520), which he served on his small estate near Florence, became the time of his most intense creative activity, sometimes the creation of the most significant works: “Discourses on the first decade of Titus Livy”, “The Sovereign”, treatise “On the Art of War” ", comedy "Mandrake".

Machiavelli's innovative political concept was based on a deep understanding of the historical destinies of ancient states, their ups and downs, but no less on a thoughtful analysis of the experience of modern times, especially the difficult trials that befell Italy due to foreign invasion. His merits included sober assessments of the peculiarities of the political development of different nations, the ability to identify cause-and-effect relationships of the most important events of the past and present, and the desire to determine the patterns of evolution state forms- all this is outside the theological context characteristic of medieval political thought. As a result, his works determined the leading role of Machiavelli in the Renaissance science of the state. As a political thinker, he revolutionized the established tradition, making the doctrine of the state consistently secular, freeing it from official church morality. He brought politics closer to science and art on the basis of studying reality itself and refusing to idealize it. Machiavelli built a theory that generalized not imaginary, but real, concrete state experience. The success of any ruler depends, in his opinion, on how carefully and impartially he has studied a specific situation, how adequate the tactics developed on this basis for achieving certain goals are, which should not only be built and thought out like a work of art, but also artistically carried out in life.

Rigid methods of government, the willingness to violate moral norms for the sake of success in politics - all this, in isolation from the patriotic goal that guided Machiavelli, was absolutized in subsequent political thought and received the name “Machiavellianism.” Although Machiavelli's concept is not identical to this concept, it was “Machiavellianism” that his critics, especially from the church camp, accused the bold thinker of.

Machiavelli's republican beliefs were clearly revealed in his last major work, “The History of Florence,” which brought him fame as an outstanding historian. Analyzing the medieval past of Florence and relying on the works of his predecessors, especially Leonardo Bruni, but also on extensive documentary material, Machiavelli for the first time so consistently considers and emphasizes the role of struggle in society, not only the clash of interests of individual groups of the ruling elite, but also demands and speeches wide sections of the urban population. Social contradictions and interests appear to him to be one of the most important factors of historical development.

Machiavelli's views on the historical process were characterized by the idea of ​​cyclicality, a natural change of state forms. In his opinion, it is not abstract theoretical calculations, but the real experience of history itself that reveals certain rules, principles for the alternation of these forms. Monarchy, as he shows in many examples, is replaced by oligarchy, which is replaced by a republic, which in turn gives way to individual rule - this is the cycle of state evolution among most peoples. The basis of this cyclical nature is the constant struggle of contradictions and interests inherent in the life of society, conflicts between small and large groups, and the “immutable course of events.” Machiavelli was the first to draw attention to the importance of understanding the dialectics of the historical process.

Machiavelli entered the culture of the High Renaissance not only as a brilliant historian and political thinker, but also with another facet of his talent - as a talented writer. He was a playwright, the author of the bright comedies “Mandrake” and “Clizia”, wrote poetry and prose, and was a master of the epistolary genre. Machiavelli wrote all his works in Italian, the virtues of which he highly valued and praised in his polemical “Dialogue on Our Language.” One of the largest figures in the culture of the Renaissance, Machiavelli sought to bring it closer different areas with each other and with all his creativity showed the fruitfulness of their unity.

Niccolo Machiavelli is a Renaissance philosopher, famous for his social, philosophical and political views. Among the works that characterize philosophical activity, the most popular are “The Prince” and “Discourses on the first decade of Titus Livy”, “On the art of war”, as well as plays, novels, lyrics and several philosophical discussions.

Niccolo Machiavelli - philosophy in brief

The Renaissance profoundly revised the established views of the Middle Ages. Using the example of the philosophy of Niccolò Machiavelli, one can delve into the changes: the concept of divine predestination human destiny, which occupied a central place in philosophical and religious teachings, was relegated to the background. It is replaced by the concept of fortune or the force of circumstances, thereby changing the role of a person - from now on he is in control of his destiny and is obliged to enter into battle with the prevailing circumstances.

Basic concepts of the philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli:

• Virtu: talent, human energy, which is on a par with fortune, like driving force stories.
• Fate. Human valor and labor contradict it.
• Free will, which is embodied in politics.

Political philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli briefly

Politics received primacy among other teachings in the philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli. According to the thinker, the rules and natural reasons that are embedded in it allow a person to express himself. Opportunities are revealed, you can take measures in the fight against a combination of circumstances, even foresee the further course of events, without blindly relying on fate or divine guidance, as was typical of the previous era.

Niccolò Machiavelli outlined his political views in his work “The Prince.” Politics, according to the thinker, is based on practice - actions determine the real outcome of the matter, and theoretical premises and empty chatter that took place earlier only create illusions out of nowhere. It is in the philosophy of N. Machiavelli that politics forever leaves the moral background, thereby moving to specifics and actions, consideration of the real actions of people instead of the eternal reflection on how they should act.

The policy is based on:

• Research into human quality and nature;
• Study of the relationship between public interests, forces and passions;
• Explaining the real state of affairs in society;
• Moving away from utopian dreams and dogmatism;

Social and philosophical views of Niccolo Machiavelli

The socio-philosophical views of Niccolo Machiavelli are based on the principle of human nature. According to the thinker himself, this principle is universal, since it applies to all citizens of the state, regardless of class.

Human nature, according to N. Machiavelli, is not sinless: all people are ungrateful, fickle, hypocritical, deceitful, they are attracted by profit. The egoistic essence of a person must be controlled by a strong hand, which the philosopher wrote about more specifically in “The Prince.” Since the author excludes the divine principle, moving away from religious views, only a true ruler, in his opinion, can lead the people.

A wise ruler, according to N. Machiavelli, is familiar with evil as the basis of human nature, but, at the same time, may not move away from good. It combines simultaneously the qualities lion And foxes – dignity, honor, valor and cunning, sophistication of mind.

(4 rated, rating: 4,25 out of 5)

Ministry of Education Russian Federation

Udmurt State University

Department: New and modern history And international relations

COURSE WORK

Topic: Political and legal views of Niccolo Machiavelli

Completed by: Zakurdaev A.S.

Student gr.124

Checked by: Sannikov N.I.

2003 Izhevsk.

Introduction……………………………………………………....3

1. Biography…………………………………………………….7

3. Machiavelli’s reality…………………………………….9

2. Religion in the state……………………………………11

4. Generosity and frugality………………………………...13

5. About cruelty and mercy and how

Which is better: to inspire love or fear…………………...…13

6. People and state…………………………………..…15

7. Greatness in war…………………………………………...18

8. Machiavelli’s historicism………………………….….……….19

Conclusion………………………………………………………..….…………21

List of sources used………….………………….22

INTRODUCTION

Since the existence of organized society, many have tried to give certain definitions of society, power, the type of management and subordination, and the main processes occurring in the life of the state. For many centuries, humanity has been changing: life, society, ideas about ethics and morality, the availability and limitations of freedom and action, the power of the few and the majority, and who should rule and who should obey have changed. The evolution of political thought took various forms and types. New theories were built and old ones that did not meet the existing norms of political law disappeared; the opinions and statements of thinkers were defended or denied and the ideas of political figures were put into practice, or remained forever in obscurity. Over the long period of existence of civilizations, the mechanisms of political power have gone through a multi-level system of trial and error, in practice showing all their bad and the good side, useful and absolutely unnecessary qualities.

At the origins of society were the rules of subordination to physical force, developed by nature rather than by planned human thought, and the organization of the vertical of power from the position of primitive but effective leadership. Social differentiation, stratification of society, the allocation of the nobility as the basis of individual power or the administrative apparatus - all this contributed to the gradual and natural formation, strengthening and development into a tradition (however, not always justified) of monarchical power. A leader, leader, despot, tyrant, tsar or king, possessing practically unlimited possibilities in his state, could pursue any policy and do things at his own discretion, without relying on numerous advisers, who were always enough at the court of those vested with power; nor on the people, who were in constant fear of the inevitable punishment for disobedience. By order of His Majesty, wars began and ended, cities were built and destroyed, people were born and died. From century to century, the science of management was passed on to the descendants of the greats, preserving traditions and adding something new.

But what is the science of governing a state? Many people have thought about this. IN ancient Greece, where the polis became the basis of society, the axis of statehood, Aristotle and Plato, preachers of democratic thought, considered democracy the best form of government, giving people the freedom to arrange their own lives. Rousseau developed this theory by expanding the definition of representative democracy, again placing executive power in the hands of the monarch or a limited number of individuals. Rule by the people, as the basis of the existence of the state, was recognized by all politicians and statesmen the past and, to some much milder extent, the present. An uncontrollable crowd is the main enemy of the state. Even an anarchist society is not able to appear and exist long enough without the formation of a leader and some kind of authority, which sooner or later will have to obey. But how can we direct the power in the right direction, because otherwise all the work will be in vain, and the power will lose stability. One of the first to consider this issue from a scientific point of view, applying his experience and practical knowledge of the entire history of the existence of states, was Niccolo Machiavelli.

His works were assessed differently by contemporaries and researchers of our time, but over five centuries they have by no means lost interest in themselves and have not lost their relevance. Should we govern the state from a position of strength or use more liberal approaches, how to behave in foreign policy, communicating with neighboring states, how to organize an army and treasury, how to prosper and achieve power in all spheres of activity - all these aspects were considered and indicated in great detail by Machiavelli in his works. IN modern world These issues, of course, have already been well worked out and look quite definite from the standpoint of established political norms. However, in order to understand what the state is now and what it was like, what evolutionary stages of the state apparatus left clear traces in the structure modern states, you need to know the works of Machiavelli.

The object of study of this work is not only Machiavelli’s legal views, but also his personality, character traits and biography, which directly influenced his ideas. The subject is the influence and use of his ideas in the historical process. In doing so, my goal was to consider Political Views Machiavelli both from the point of view of medieval ethics, morality, legal norms and values, and from the perspective of a modern observer. To achieve it, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

Identify sources on this topic;

Consider the biography of Niccolo Machiavelli;

Consider the political and legal views of Machiavelli and reveal the essence of Machiavellianism;

Conduct an analysis of the political situation in Italy and neighboring countries during the Renaissance;

Find confirmation or refutation of the use of Machiavelli's concepts of power in practical political activity.

Niccolo Machiavelli was a truly extraordinary and talented person and it is not surprising that the historiography of his works and biography occupies quite a large place in political culture. Among the voluminous number of books and articles, several areas can be distinguished:

Marxist (coincides with Soviet);

Bourgeois (countries Western Europe, mainly until the middle of the 20th century);

Post-Soviet ( modern Russia);

Modern (European and American countries).

Outdated bourgeois and Marxist trends are useful from the point of view of analyzing Machiavelli's views in the second half of the 19th and 20th centuries from the opposite poles of political life (capitalism and socialism). Modern and post-Soviet views practically coincide, and differ from the first two in a more independent and politically sober comparison of facts and definitions addressed in the works of Machiavelli. Marxist-Leninist propaganda usually extolled the ideas and works of the “great Florentine”, justifying totalitarianism and authoritarianism in the USSR. Modern historiography, considering Machiavellianism from the position of international law, still takes into account the peculiarities of the era of Machiavelli and his followers, giving the most complete assessment of this phenomenon.

I used various types of sources in my work. The basis was made up of modern, Marxist and post-Soviet. They included:

Dolgov K. N. “Humanism, revival and political philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli” (1982). The author of this book analyzes the works, ideas, thoughts, and views of Machiavelli in the political mainstream of time. Traces the relationship between the era and the work of Machiavelli and the results of his political activities for Italy.

K. Marx and F. Engels. Full composition of writings. Reflects the views of Marxist historiography on a given topic.

Article by Kravchenko I.A. “Machiavelli: the technology of effective leadership” (1993): reveals the main features of Machiavellianism, ideological approaches to politics and an analysis of the practical use of Machiavelli’s ideas. The incomplete disclosure of this issue in Marxist historiography is criticized.

- “Machiavelli. Favorites" edited by Bochkalo I. B. (1998): the book contains all the political works of Machiavelli, as well as a number of articles about his political and legal activities in the Florentine Republic at the turn of the XV-XVI centuries.

Article by I. S. Sharkova “Anti-Machiavelli” of Frederick II and his Russian translations” (1979). It outlines the views of the Prussian king on the ideas of the Italian thinker from the point of view of criticism and subsequent justification, as well as modern comments.

- “Sovereign.” Niccolo Machiavelli. Translation by G. Muravyova. This is the author's main work on political topics, expressing the main political views of Machiavelli after his public service. The work is addressed to Lorenzo Dei Medici - the new to the sovereign Florentine Republic. In detailed formulas, the author gives practical advice and recommendations “for the good of the homeland,” by adhering to which the new ruler will achieve recognition and prosperity of his state. This work is a reference piece in the work.

V.P. Pugachev and Soloviev “Introduction to Political Science” (1996).

V. P. Pugachev “Fundamentals of State and Law” (1998).

Great Russian Legal Encyclopedia.

This issue, undoubtedly very important and interesting from the point of view of political science, has been addressed by many thinkers at different times. Among them we can highlight such eminent philosophers as Hegel, Spinoza, Gramsci.

The main method used in the work is historical-comparative. With its help, the essence of the studied phenomenon, object and processes in time is revealed, and the work is given a finished look. Comparisons are synchronous and diachronic. These research methods are organically supplemented by the results of the historical-genetic method with its consistent determination of the functions of properties and changes in reality in the process of historical movement. The combination of all these research methods most fully reveals the picture of the work, reveals and solves all the tasks.

Introduction

1. short biography N. Machiavelli and general ideas

2. The doctrine of state power N. Machiavelli

3. Machiavellianism

Conclusion

Introduction

This essay is a detailed presentation of socio-political views Italian philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli.

The question of the state is of particular importance these days. And Machiavelli, like no one else, revealed the importance of the state and described the main ways of maintaining power. His work “The Sovereign” is a real guide for those eager for power.

Machiavelli's contribution to the history of social thought, to the theory and practice of management is enormous. He was one of the first to substantiate the concept civil society and used the term “state” as is customary now - to designate the political organization of society.

His ideas gave birth to the modern sociological theory of elites (V. Pareto, E. Jenning, G. Mosca, C.R. Mills), influenced the author of the theory of the “managerial revolution” J. Bernheim, who headed the so-called “Machiavellian trend”.

The authority of Machiavelli is referred to by theorists of bureaucracy (M. Weber, R. Michels), corruption (A. Bonadeo), political leadership and the prestige of power (S. Huntington), “post-industrial society” and political forecasting (D. Bell, G. Kahn, E. Wiener). Finally, long before O. Comte, Machiavelli put forward the idea of ​​“social consensus.” Undoubtedly, the figure of Machiavelli occupies important place in History of Sociology and Management.

Machiavelli's ideas had influential supporters (J.J. Rousseau, M. Bakunin, B. Croce, G. Mosca) and no less authoritative opponents (T. Campanella, J. Bodin, Voltaire). Even the term Machiavellianism appeared to denote extreme forms of political unscrupulousness and violence, and Machiavelli himself, based on some statements from “The Prince,” is considered the first preacher of the principle “the end justifies the means” in politics.

The figure of Machiavelli is significant in the history of the development of political science and in modern society in general.

1. Brief biography of N. Machiavelli and general ideas

Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1526) is one of the outstanding Italian philosophers. He was born in Florence in the second half of the 15th century - during the late Renaissance. Thanks to my experience in public services he learned a lot about the art of government and the nature of power. He amazingly combined a politician and a writer, a man of action and a thinker, a practitioner and a theorist. Not without pride, he considered himself one of those gifted with political wisdom.

Machiavelli outlined his political views in his works “The Prince” and “Discourse on the First Decade of Titus Livius.” These works are the only treatises of their kind on practical politics.

He was one of the first to develop the concept of civil society and was the first to use the word “state” to denote the political organization of society. Before him, thinkers relied on terms such as: city, empire, kingdom, republic, principality. The best form of government is a republic, but the state where the sovereign rules surrounded by servants who, by his grace and permission, are placed in the highest positions and help him govern the state The author's sympathies are also given. Machiavelli examines the ways in which princes can govern states and maintain power over them.

Subsequently, a policy based on the cult of brute force and disregard for moral standards in order to achieve political goals was called “Machiavellianism.” However, Machiavelli did not preach political immorality and violence; he takes into account the legitimacy of any goal (the expression “the end justifies the means” is not absolute). The only goal that justifies immoral means is the creation and preservation of the state.

Machiavelli's political concept was the complete opposite of the religious-Christian teaching on law and state. He based politics on will, strength, cunning and experience rather than on theological postulates. At the same time, the Florentine philosopher relied on historical necessity, historical patterns of social development.

Politics for Machiavelli is the result of the struggle of social forces, groups, and individuals. Human interest plays an active role in it. It should be noted that Machiavelli saw the basis of his political doctrine in the inner nature of man, its basic properties. And Machiavelli includes egoism, the desire for power, and the desire to acquire property as such. Hence the content of Machiavellianism - in politics one should rely not on morality, but on force.

2. The doctrine of state power N. Machiavelli

Machiavelli argues that power, whatever it is, must be firm and unshakable. Power should not be in limbo.

Machiavelli said that a ruler who wants to achieve success in his endeavors must conform his actions to the laws of necessity (fate) and to the behavior of his subordinates. Strength is on his side when he takes into account the psychology of people, knows the peculiarities of their way of thinking, moral habits, advantages and disadvantages. It is obvious that ambition rules people's actions, along with other qualities. But knowing just this is not enough. We need to find out who exactly is more ambitious and therefore more dangerous for the authorities: those who want to preserve what they have, or those who strive to acquire what they do not have. The wealthy are driven by the fear of losing what they have accumulated. The fear of loss gives rise to the same passions that possess those who strive for acquisition, Machiavelli believes. Both motives for power, behind which an ordinary passion for destruction is often hidden, are equally vicious. The poor crave acquisition in the same way as the rich, who always feel that their possessions are not sufficiently secured if they do not make new acquisitions.

To maintain power the ruler:

· must conform his actions with the laws of necessity (fate) and with the behavior of his subordinates;

· must not make minor mistakes. If we make mistakes, they will be big ones;

· to prevent the development of the will to power in “Rich Ambition”, which arouses in people who do not have power the desire to seize it and everything that is associated with power - wealth and honors, which in turn develops corruption and bureaucracy;

· never encroach on the property of the people (do not encroach on the property and personal rights of subjects);

· must be able to take advantage of the passions of the crowd, playing on them as a musician, because the crowd follows the appearance of success;

· must use two main motives - fear and love;

· should not be generous to such an extent that this generosity causes him harm.

· should not be afraid to be cruel if necessary.

· doesn't have to keep all of its promises.

· should follow the principle of “reward gradually, punish in one gulp”

· must combine the qualities of a lion (strength and honesty) and the qualities of a fox (mystification and skillful dissimulation)

· must play a certain role, wearing a social mask through which one cannot see the real face

· must conform the goal with the means, and the means with the circumstances and results.

· cannot be guided by moral standards, because politics is the sphere of the relative, and morality is the sphere of the absolute.

As a rule, minor offenses are punished, and major offenses are rewarded. When everyone suffers, few people will want to take revenge, because a general insult is easier to bear than a private one. When multiplying evil, do not be afraid of reproaches from your conscience for what you have done, because victory does not cause shame, no matter what the cost. The winners are not judged; Only treason and courage help you get out of slavery. When people begin to devour each other, the fate of the weak becomes worse every day. When circumstances are not favorable to a person, he can only rely on his own strength.

Orientation towards power, the desire to achieve it, is fraught with a potential danger for social order, the guarantor of which can only be the one who already has this power. The ruler, as the personal embodiment of privilege and power, becomes the target of countless aspiring subjects. The ability to strive to the top does not depend on personal strengths and weaknesses. It acts in people like an objective law, independent of their will and consciousness. “The will to power,” to use Nietzschean terminology, is above human feelings, it controls us despite ourselves.

Success in moving up depends not so much on the intensity of the orientation to power, but on available funds. Those who have many have more means at their disposal - money, connections, intrigues - to sow confusion in society and destabilize the existing order. Having a lot, they actually abuse what they already have, because through illegal actions they provoke the same greedy feelings in the poor.

Along with power, freedom has an undoubted value for people. It is the same imperative motive of human actions as power. If people often try to seize power, then they don’t want to lose freedom. In the Discourses on Titus Livy, Machiavelli asks who is better to entrust the custody of freedom - those who want to acquire what they do not have, or those who want to retain the advantages they have already acquired? Comparing historical facts, he concludes that it is more correct to entrust the freedom of the republic to ordinary people, and not to nobles. The latter are obsessed with the desire to dominate, while the former just want not to be oppressed. This means that they love free life more and, to a lesser extent than the latter, have the means to steal freedom. Confirming his conclusions, the Florentine philosopher repeatedly repeats the same idea: a person can come to terms with the loss of power or honor, even come to terms with the loss of political freedom, but he will never come to terms with the loss of property. The people remain silent when supporters of the republic are executed or the honor of its leaders is violated. But the people rebel when their property is encroached upon.

What governs human behavior - motives or results, true goals or false results? It is difficult to understand the secrets of the human soul. How often one encounters the insignificance of motives and the greatness of results, and even more often - the greatness of plans with the insignificance of results. Meet for real or take it on faith? This is the question that an expert from politics or management must decide for himself. Taking appearances for reality, believing that the success achieved justifies any, even the most dishonest, means, if they are in the hands of those in power, is characteristic only of profane people. The crowd consists of them - a mass of dark, uneducated people. They have little understanding of what a politician really is. They are only interested in what he appears to be. If a prince has achieved what is valued by all or the majority, namely the unity of the community, and has used dubious means, then these means will always be considered worthy of praise. After all, the crowd pays attention only to appearances; The opinion of a few carries weight when the majority has nothing to rely on. A crowd is always a majority, but not every majority is a crowd. A people obedient to the will of necessity or reason is not a crowd. The crowd is governed by passions that are more bad than good. You can put it another way: the crowd is a space of feelings, passions, emotions; solitude is a space of reason and concentration. All people are subject to passions, regardless of whether they consider themselves to be nobility or common people. People, says Machiavelli, are usually ungrateful, fickle, deceitful, fearful and greedy. A smart ruler must be able to use passions, playing on them like a musician. In order not to get into an uncomfortable position, it is better for him not to have any illusions and to assume in advance that all people are evil. It’s good if reality refutes his point of view, and he will meet goodness. Then success will only strengthen. But if we proceed from the opposite opinion, then reality, turning out to be different, will destroy his plans.

The ruler will not be mistaken, knowing that people's behavior is guided by two main motives - fear and love. Therefore, the one who is feared is able to rule as easily as the one who is loved, writes Machiavelli in his Discourses. Fear is stronger and firmer, but love is very subtle. It rests on an extremely shaky foundation - human gratitude. But gratitude is easily destroyed, and evil person ready to use any excuse to cheat on her for personal gain. But does the ruler know in advance who is evil and who is good? He needs to be a sober realist, counting on success even under the most unfavorable circumstances. Machiavelli social state power

The path of the sovereign is thorny; dangers await him where he does not expect them. Yesterday's experience, which led to success, today turns into failure; the good that he strives for, expecting that his subordinates will also consider him good, can turn into evil. The sovereign can show the best leadership skills, but they will not bring him any benefit. Therefore, a ruler should not be generous to such an extent that this generosity causes him harm. But he should also not be afraid of condemnation for those vices without which it is impossible to retain power. An intelligent leader is a ruler who always weighs all the circumstances and consequences of his actions, and the range of analyzed circumstances must be large enough to clearly understand a simple idea: there are virtues, the possession of which leads to death, and there are vices, having learned which, one can achieve security and well-being .

When the highest social good - order and stability - is put in the balance, the sovereign should not be afraid of being branded as cruel. It is worse if, wanting to earn the favor of his subjects, or from an excess of condescension, he allows riots, robberies and violence to develop. For the sake of caution, it is better to execute as many as necessary, because executions still concern individuals, and riots are a disaster for everyone.

And one more rule: a prudent ruler should not keep all his promises. He is obliged to do this only if failure to do so causes him harm. Such advice sounds immoral where all people are honest and conscientious. But we know that for the most part, subjects do not particularly care about fulfilling their promises and orders of the sovereign. This means that the sovereign may not be particularly scrupulous in fulfilling his promises. Seeking power, he lavishes promises left and right, trying to gain the love and devotion of his subordinates. But remaining kind for too long is an incredibly heavy burden. To be kind is to make another commitment. Even more - become dependent on subordinates. And where there is dependence, indecision, cowardice and frivolity arise, i.e. qualities unacceptable for a manager. People despise first of all the cowardly, not the cruel. A dependent sovereign is not capable of being firm and evil; he is inevitably kind. However, Machiavelli believes that it is just as easy to earn hatred for good deeds as for bad ones. Conclusion: to maintain power, you have to be vicious.

When managing people, you must either caress them or oppress them, acting very carefully. People, as a rule, take revenge only for slight insults and insults. Strong pressure deprives them of the opportunity to take revenge. And if the leader has chosen his path, then the oppression must be so powerful as to take away any hope of resistance. It is better to squander good deeds and blessings drop by drop, so that subordinates have enough time for grateful appreciation. Positive incentives must be appreciated, only then they fulfill their purpose. Rewards and promotions are valued when they are rare, when they are given out little by little. On the contrary, it is better to carry out negative incentives and punishment immediately and in large doses. One-time cruelty is endured with less irritation than spread out over time. Where there is irritation, it is impossible to control people's behavior. Sanctions do not require evaluation and reciprocal gratitude; they produce confusion of feelings. Strong oppression deprives subjects of the opportunity to take revenge, and this is a benefit for the leader. So, evil is immediate, and good is gradual; It is much safer to inspire fear than to be loved. And one more thing: evil hurts people, and goodness becomes boring, and both feelings lead to the same result.

What are the “qualities of a lion” and the “properties of a fox”?

A ruler does not possess all the virtues at the same time. Therefore, what is important is not what he is, but what kind of subject he seems to be. It is easier to catch them with such a trick. The crowd follows with pleasure the appearance of success. A wise leader combines the qualities of a lion (strength and honesty) and the qualities of a fox (mystification and skillful dissimulation), i.e. innate qualities and acquired qualities. Man is given very little by nature; he receives much more by living in society. He is straightforward, cunning or talented by birth, but ambition, greed, vanity, cowardice are formed in the process of socialization of the individual. Nature has created people in such a way that they can desire anything, writes Machiavelli, but they cannot always achieve it. Between the two poles - desired and actual - a dangerous tension arises that can break a person, make him envious, insidious or greedy. After all, the desire to acquire exceeds our strength, and opportunities are always in short supply. The result is dissatisfaction with the only thing a person already owns. Machiavelli calls this state dissatisfaction. Envy creates enemies, assertiveness creates supporters.

Dissatisfaction is a stimulus for movement; changes in our destinies flow from it. We are such that partly we want more than we have, partly we are afraid of losing what we have already acquired. Envying those who live better, we feel hatred towards them, turning those who don’t even know about it into enemies. Gradually, the incentive to move turns into a brake: we become our own enemies. Then the hour of werewolves comes; evil appears in the mask of good, and good is used for evil. Everything needs moderation. The desire to acquire is a completely natural property. When some strive for this to the best of their ability, others will not envy, but praise, not condemn, but approve. It’s bad when they can’t, but they achieve, they don’t deserve, but they get,

When a person lacks ardor or courage, he prefers to rely not on luck or luck, but on his own prudence. Perhaps fate really favors the young and reckless, but life teaches caution and gradualism. The honest and brave go straight, while the weak and unlucky go around. To take a detour means to pacify your appetites, to conform to the circumstances, where you need to retreat and always pretend: to say not what you think, not to trust the first person you meet, to act only to benefit yourself, to think differently from what you are told. In other words, to play a certain role, wearing a social mask through which one cannot see the real face. There are very few favorites of fate; the honest and noble are in the minority. They can be called individuals, but the majority are a faceless crowd, for pretense is the mask that non-persons are forced to wear in order to hide deception and deceit. Therefore, it can be said about people in general that they are pretenders. They flee from danger and are greedy for profit. When you do good to them, they are your friends forever: they are ready to sacrifice their lives, property and children for you, unless, of course, there is no need for this. But if you deprive them of what they especially need or value above all else, even when it is for the public good, they will betray you or hate you. For the majority - the numerical majority - does not have lasting moral virtues. Self-esteem is not an absolute imperative for them, but only passive form expressions of ambition and passion for acquisition.

All people, regardless of whether they are moral or not, strive for the same goal - fame and wealth. Although everyone chooses their own path to it: some act cautiously, others take it boldly; some resort to cunning, others to violence; some are patient, others are determined - all of them are capable of achieving success despite the fact that their mode of action is opposite. Why is this possible? They act differently, but achieve their goals equally. The reason lies in the fact that, despite the opposite, both courses of action correspond to specific circumstances and a given moment. What is good at one time may be bad at another. Some situations require cruelty, while others require leniency. Also, the choice of goal depends on the circumstances: one cannot strive to establish democracy in a corrupt society, or, on the contrary, monarchy in a freedom-loving one. The goal should be consistent with the means, and the means with the circumstances and results. If your goal is to introduce a republic, then you need to do it one way, and if it’s a monarchy, then another way.

So, Machiavelli’s principle of relativity of management says: the choice of means is relative to the situation, the assessment of the result is relative to the means, and finally, all together: the goal, the means, the situation must be related to each other. A politician cannot be guided by moral standards, because politics is the sphere of the relative, and morality is the sphere of the absolute. Multiple executions cannot be justified in terms of higher principles, but must be done in terms of objectives or the specific situation. Therefore, the principle of differentiation between politics and morality is closely related to the principle of relativity: politics cannot be judged from a moral position. Machiavelli's idea of ​​separation of powers (political and religious) formed the basis of the classical doctrine of bourgeois liberalism.

3. Machiavellianism

The political teaching of Machiavelli is the teaching that for the first time separated the consideration of political problems from religion and morality, with the goal of promoting the formation of national states of the absolutist type. It was later used by the ideologists of absolutism and aroused fierce hatred from the defenders of feudal foundations and the feudal order. And subsequently, those politicians who attacked Machiavelli most vehemently were those who covered up self-interested class politics with religious and moral arguments, namely those who based their activities on practical “Machiavellianism” - an unprincipled policy that in fact violates all and every moral norm in the name of achieving selfish goals. goals.

The relationship between the actual teachings of Machiavelli and “Machiavellianism” is quite complex. Having formulated the principle of justifying the means used by a politician by the goals that he sets for himself, he made it possible for a rather arbitrary interpretation of the relationship between the goals and means of political action. In general terms, we can say that the wider the social base of politics, the wider the politics responds to, the less room there may remain for “Machiavellianism” as a secret and insidious political activity in its methods. And on the contrary, the narrower the social base on which the government rests, the more the policies it implements contradict the interests of the people, the more it tends to resort to “Machiavellian” tactics of political struggle. This fully applies to class struggle in an antagonistic society. “Machiavelli’s thinking contained in its germ the elements of an intellectual and moral revolution,” noted the founder of the Italian Communist Party, Antonio Gramsci. “Machiavelli the revolutionary” is how a modern Marxist researcher of the work of the Florentine secretary G. Procacci called his article about him. He sees Machiavelli's revolutionary spirit in the anti-feudal orientation of his political theory and practice, in his desire to rely on the people, on the most progressive strata of the society of that time. Its “sovereign” is a reformer, the creator of a “new state”, a legislator, and acts as a spokesman for national interests. The revolutionary nature of Machiavelli's political idea lies in overcoming feudal fragmentation, personified not only by the feudal nobility, but also by the particularism of city-states.

We must not forget, however, that for all its progressiveness, the national absolutist state was created on the bones of the dispossessed masses of working people, usually not taken into account by the apologists of bourgeois progress. Therefore, it is so important to emphasize the social nature of Niccolo Machiavelli’s political teaching and its historical, class limitations. There was also humanistic criticism “from the left”: this is the meaning of the open sharp polemic against Machiavellianism and the preaching of “state interest” in the writings of T. Campanella, who proceeded in his criticism of the political teaching of the author of “The Prince” from the interests of the broad masses of working people who found themselves victims of primitive accumulation and social oppression within the framework of an absolutist state.

Machiavelli is a pragmatist, not a moralist; he tries to explain the political world based on this world itself. His logic is realistic and therefore painted in dark tones. He is convinced that there are historical moments when it is necessary to use all available means for the sake of a good goal, incl. immoral and illegal. But evil must be used only in order to avoid even greater evil. What is unacceptable under normal conditions of civilized life and a stable social order becomes acceptable in a critical situation of national disaster.

Tense and painful thoughts lead Machiavelli to the following solution to the problem. If human nature is incorrigible, this does not mean that the aggressive energy of people should only destroy. It should be directed in a positive direction, used to create and establish a solid social order. And an example of such a redistribution of human aggressiveness should be the personality of a major political leader who would lead the process of laying reliable foundations for a civilized state. The leader himself, who, like everyone else, has a tendency towards vices and crimes, is nevertheless ready to use evil for good for the sake of a great goal. If he does not have equally good means at his disposal to achieve good goals (or these good means are too weak and ineffective), then he is forced to use any, not disdaining deception, betrayal, violence, crime.

In the name of what goals does Machiavelli forgive the political leader for his atheism, immoralism and legal nihilism? Sometimes the question posed is answered: in the name of power. But this is far from true. For the Florentine thinker, power is not the value itself and not the main goal, but also just a means. The main goal for a true patriotic politician, according to Machiavelli, is social order, public good, the creation of a single centralized state with sufficient power to overcome centrifugal tendencies and external dangers. Not for the selfish benefits of autocracy, but in the name of saving a society dying in the abyss of strife, Machiavelli is ready to forgive all sins against religion, morality and law to those who can defeat anarchy and chaos.

Machiavelli is a realist, the owner of a sober political mind. He clearly sees the vices of people, clearly realizes that their ability to freely express their will and ebullient energy are very often used for evil. But if people are incorrigible, and their freedom, which does not recognize any religious, moral, or legal restrictions, everywhere turns into self-will and increases the mass of evil, troubles and suffering.

List of used literature

1. Degtyareva M.I., Reflections on the “people's perspective” // Polis. - 2002. - No. 7. -WITH. 99-110.

2. Ilyin M.V., Power // Polis. - 1997. - No. 13. -WITH. 6-13.

Kravchenko A.I., Machiavelli: technology of effective leadership // Sociological heritage. - 1993. -№2. - pp. 135-142.

4. Machiavelli N., The Prince. - St. Petersburg: Azbuka, 2002.

5. Machiavelli N., Discourses on the first decade of Titus Livius. - St. Petersburg: Crystal 1998.

Similar works to - Socio-political views of the Italian philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli

Niccolò Machiavelli (1469 – 1527) – Italian political thinker and writer.

The main work is “The Sovereign”.

Machiavelli is called the first political scientist. In reality, he carried out the secularization of political science from church ideology. The point of his statement was that what is sinful from the point of view of the church is not always sinful from the point of view of politics. He was the first to prove that the state is the work of human hands, and not at all the creation of God. Machiavelli tried in every possible way to identify the internal pattern historical events by establishing a cause-and-effect relationship. Machiavelli considered political struggle to be the main force in world history, absolutizing the subjective factor. The author understood this political struggle in a broad sense as a war of all those dissatisfied with the existing regimes against the ruling elite.

Best form Machiavelli considered a republic in the modern sense of the word. But at the same time, in the conditions of a fragmented and torn Italy, he gave preference to a despotic monarchy, which alone could unite the country at that time. For this, the thinker was ready to do anything. Therefore, Machiavelli created an ethical concept in the spirit of political pragmatism. Machiavelli is credited with the principle “the end justifies the means.” But still, the philosopher argued that a politician can resort to a more negative means only when a less negative means for the same purpose has completely confirmed its ineffectiveness. Thus, in Machiavelli’s understanding, a certain hierarchy of means must be built, which every politician must use in a strictly sequential order - from the most inhumane to the most immoral, and not otherwise. So, for example, it is first necessary to use persuasion, and coercion only when all softer means in comparison have shown their complete uselessness, etc. In addition, Machiavelli argued that the goal of any politician should only be good, and, in any case, every politician should strive not for individual good (for certain individuals), but only for the common good of all subjects. Only in this case, according to the philosopher, immoral means in politics will be justified. He said that the best ruler of the state should “if possible not move away from good, but if necessary, not shy away from evil.”

Guided by Machiavellianism, Ignatius of Loyola created a deeply secret order of Jesuits to fight the Reformation in 1534. The strictest discipline was established in this order, to the point that if a superior Jesuit told a subordinate that white is black, then the subordinate had to believe it, and Ignatius of Loyola said that if in order to achieve the goals of the order it is necessary even before anyone - then humiliate yourself, then such an opportunity should not be missed under any circumstances.

Literature:

Niccola Machiavelli. Sovereign. Minsk, 1999.

Utopianism (T. More and T. Campanella).

Thomas More (1478 - 1535) English humanist, founder of utopian socialism, Chancellor of England in 1529 - 1532. Being a convinced Catholic until his death, he opposed the Protestant reforms of Henry VIII, for which he was beheaded. Canonized in 1935 Catholic Church. He owns the words: “Human life cannot be balanced by its value with all the blessings of the world.” In his main work entitled “ golden book, as useful as it is amusing, on the best constitution of a state, and on the new island of Utopia,” written in 1516, More described an ideal state and society located on one fantastic island, Utopia. More considered private property to be the source of all the evils of the world, declaring it also a serious obstacle to every government controlled. He said: “Where there is private property, the correct and successful course of public affairs is hardly possible.” More called any society that allows private property a vile conspiracy of the rich, and any state of such a society is their tool. Unlike them, in Utopia there is no private property at all. The production and life of all residents are completely socialized, and all material and spiritual benefits are distributed exclusively according to need. Each family is engaged in a certain craft, and all agricultural work is performed on the basis of universal labor service. But there are also slaves in Utopia to carry out shameful work, such as slaughtering livestock, removing sewage, etc. The mass of slaves is replenished only by prisoners of war, criminals and those who are sentenced to death outside of Utopia, but were redeemed by the Utopians, since in Utopias the death penalty prohibited. Slavery is not hereditary - the children of any slave are always free and full citizens. State structure Utopias are simple. Every 30 families elect one phylarch, and every 10 phylarchs - one portofilarch. By secret ballot, all phylarchs elect one princeps for life from four candidates named by the people. This princeps can always be removed on suspicion of tyranny. Together with him, all matters are decided by the Senate and national assembly. The legal norms of the island are so few and simple that, according to More, among the Utopians, “everyone is a lawyer.” They are all unanimously against violence and war, but they constantly practice military affairs, have stocks of weapons and generally are always on alert in case of defending the island from invaders. They themselves invade foreign borders with troops only out of pity for the people oppressed by the tyrant and for the sake of liberating the unfortunate foreigners from him.

A similar ideal state was depicted by the Italian Dominican monk Tommaso Campanella (1568 - 1639), who, for his incredible erudition, was accused by the priests of heresy, which he never confessed to under severe torture, thanks to which he only survived (the inquisitors did not know any other proof, except for the accused’s own confession, sooner or later extracted by all kinds of torture). In total, Campanella spent 27 years in prison. The philosopher’s main work, in the form of a navigator’s story about an unknown land, is “The City of the Sun.” This is what he called the ideal state, inhabited by solariums that do not know private property. The living conditions of solariums replicate Utopian ones, only solariums do not know families in the same way - all children are raised by the state. The working day at all solariums is four hours, so that everyone can always read and study. Thanks to this, education and science in the City of the Sun are highly developed. The state is headed by a theocratic scientific-priestly caste. There are three branches of government in the state - one is in charge of science, the other is in charge of military affairs, and the third is in charge of everything else. Each of the three branches of government is headed by one ruler, whose names are, respectively, Power, Wisdom and Love. At the head of the entire state, along with them, stands one metaphysician - the greatest erudite in the country and remains in his position until an even greater erudite appears, who replaces him. All four cannot be removed by the will of the people, and all other positions in the state are exclusively elective. In addition, unlike Utopia, there are quite a few laws in the City of the Sun and all of them are carried out not out of fear, but out of conscience. Even literary activity is subject to detailed regulation down to the smallest detail.

Literature:

Malakhov V.P. History of political and legal doctrines. Tutorial for higher education. M., 2003.

Thomas More. Utopia. M., 1978.

Nersesyants V. S. History of ideas of legal statehood. M., 1993.

Nersesyants V. S. History of political and legal doctrines. M., 2009.