Mkhitar Gosha and Frik

A significant phenomenon in the history of political thought in Transcaucasia is the work of the Armenian thinker, public and literary figure, theologian Mkhitar Gosh (1120 or 1130–1213), author of “Fables”, “Code of Mkhitar Gosh”, which included civil and church law and was applied in different countries, inhabited by Armenians until the 19th century.

In the introduction to the Code of Laws, Mkhitar Gosha puts forward the ideas of natural law, giving theological form to his doctrine of law. Ghosh says that natural laws are given by God to human nature and exist forever, regardless of the will and consciousness of people. These laws are revealed in customs.

By nature, man is a free being, but since land and water are assigned to the king and princes, feudal dependence inevitably arises for everyone who needs land and water. Ghosh has no doubts about the legality of this order of things, the legality of feudal exploitation. The current feudal law does not violate, therefore, according to Ghosh, eternal, unchanging “natural” laws. However, he was not at all inclined to see the justification of all feudal violence in religious ideas about divine law, as reactionary medieval jurists did in Western Europe. In Gosh’s Code of Law there is a call not to go beyond what is established by custom when collecting the duties imposed on serfs, to avoid injustice towards serfs, to be moderate, and to determine exactly the extent of duties.

Increased exploitation, the growth of crafts and trade in the cities led to an aggravation of contradictions in the Armenian feudal society. The misfortunes of the working people were aggravated by the Mongol conquest, to which Armenia was subjected in the first half of the 13th century. The plight of the peasantry and urban poor is reflected in the poems of the Armenian poet Frik (1234–1315). The poet compares princes to wolves, whom God appointed to rule over people. Expressing the sentiments of his people, he questions the justice of the order established by God on earth and calls for the creation of a better life for the poor.

Niccolo Machiavelli(1469-1527). Born into a lawyer's family, he received a good education and knew Latin and Greek. As a resident of Florence, he also experienced its fate: first the power of the Medici merchant family, then their expulsion and the proclamation of a republican constitution led by the Dominican monk Savonarola, then the period of an enlightened secular republic. In 1498-1512 Machiavelli served as secretary of the Council of Ten and carried out diplomatic assignments. In 1512, after the restoration of the tyranny of the Medici family in Florence, he was imprisoned as an employee of the previous regime, then released and sent to the village, where he died in 1527. The last period of Machiavelli’s life was engaged in literary activities. He wrote his most famous work, The Prince, around 1514.

Main works:“Discourses on the first decade of Titus Livy”, “The Prince”, “History of Florence”, “On the art of war”. He also wrote sonnets, short stories, carnival songs, and the comedy “Mandrake.”

State. Machiavelli distinguishes between the concepts of “state” and “society”. The state is a political state of society, expressing the relationship between rulers and subjects, based on the love and fear of the latter. At the same time, fear should not develop into hatred. The purpose of the state and the basis of its strength is the security of the individual and the inviolability of property.

Origin of the state. Reproduces the ideas of ancient authors about the emergence of the state. People lived, multiplied, then united, chose the bravest and began to obey him. Living together, they realized what was good and bad, in accordance with this, laws were established, justice appeared, i.e. we can talk about the emergence of contract theory.

Forms of government. The thinker identifies six forms of state, traditionally dividing them into correct (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) and incorrect (tyranny, oligarchy and ochlocracy). According to N. Machiavelli, having reached the limit of perfection, the form of the state tends to decline, turning into its opposite. Monarchy is replaced by tyranny, tyranny by aristocracy, aristocracy gives way to oligarchy, and is replaced by democracy, which develops into ochlocracy. He considers the best form to be a mixed one, a moderate republic - a combination of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy.

The relationship between politics and morality. N. Machiavelli is considered the founder of political science. It was he who determined the subject, method and laws of politics. He saw the task of politics as identifying: patterns of development of various forms of state; factors of their sustainability; their connection with the balance of political forces; conditionality of policy by economic, military, geographical, psychological factors. Machiavelli separates politics and law from morality on the basis that if morality operates with such concepts as good and evil, then politics is benefit and harm, morality is the sphere of the eternal, and politics and law are the sphere of everyday interests. Policy should not be based on moral principles, but should be based on expediency and a specific situation. It is subordinated to the achievement of certain goals, the choice of which depends on circumstances, and not on morality. Therefore, the actions of rulers must be assessed not from a moral point of view, but only by their results, in relation to the good of the state. Later, the policy based on the cult of violence and immorality was called « Machiavellianism» .

Right. N. Machiavelli attached great importance to law and legislation, repeatedly emphasizing that thanks to the laws created by Lycurgus, Sparta existed for 800 years. He linked the inviolability of laws with ensuring public safety. Law is force, it is a way and means of domination of one group of people over another, it is an instrument of power, which is served by “good laws and a good army.”

Religion. Considers religion as one of the means of controlling people, considering it an important means of politics. That is why, N. Machiavelli believed, all the founders of states and wise legislators referred to the will of the gods. However, he did not approve of contemporary Christianity, condemned the Catholic Church and the clergy, and considered it necessary to return to ancient religion, which was entirely subordinate to political goals. Note that the Roman Catholic Church in 1559 introduced the works of Machiavelli into « Banned Books Index» .

The works of N. Machiavelli had a huge influence not only on the subsequent development of political and legal theory (his provisions were adopted by Spinoza and Rousseau), but also on the real policies of a number of statesmen (Napoleon, Mussolini, Stalin).

J. Bodin's doctrine of the state

Protestantism appeared in France in the first half of the 16th century. But this movement became widespread only in the 50s. French Protestants were Calvinists and were called Huguenots. The peculiarity of the French reform movement was that it covered mainly the nobility and townspeople. The religious struggle here acquired the character of resistance to royal absolutism. At the end of the 16th century. In France, there was already a fierce religious confrontation between Calvinists (Huguenots) and Catholics, which eventually took the form of a civil war. A threat to the existence of the state arose. In this situation, the idea that peace could only be ensured by strong royal power became increasingly stronger in the public consciousness. The theoretical justification for this idea was made by Jean Bodin.

Jean Bodin(1530–1596) was born in Angers into a wealthy family. A lawyer by training, from 1559 he was a professor at the university in Toulouse, from 1561 he held judicial positions in Paris, and in 1571 he entered the service of the king's brother, the Duke of Alençon. He was a deputy to the provincial ones, then in 1576-77 - to the deputies of the Estates General. From 1584 - Prosecutor General of Lana (a city in northeastern France). Bodin took a compromise position between Catholics and Huguenots, for which he almost paid with his life on St. Bartholomew’s Night. Died of the plague in Lana.

Main works:“The Method of Easy Knowledge of History”, a manual for the Inquisition “Demonomania of Sorcerers”, which replaced the outdated “Moloch of the Witches”, “Six Books on the Republic” - the main work in which he outlined his views on the origin of the state, its functions, and forms of government.

Introduction

1. Brief biography of N. Machiavelli and general ideas

2. The doctrine of state power N. Machiavelli

3. Machiavellianism

Conclusion

Introduction

This essay is a detailed presentation of the socio-political views of the 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 to maintain 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 of civil society and use the term “state” as is customary now - to denote 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 an important place in the 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. Through his experience in public service, he learned a great deal 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 teaching 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 an evil person is ready to use any excuse to change it 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 qualities, 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 a passive form of expression 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 must act in one way, and if you have a monarchy, then in 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 the 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

Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation

Udmurt State University

Department: New and Contemporary 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 history of the existence of civilizations, the mechanisms of political power have gone through a multi-level system of trial and error, in practice showing all their good and bad sides, 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 of the past and, to some, much milder extent, of 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. Whether to 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 the army and treasury, how to prosper and achieve power in all spheres of activity - all these aspects were considered in great detail and indicated in his works of Machiavelli. In the modern world, these issues, of course, have already been well worked out and have a well-defined form 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 have left clear traces in the structure of 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 Machiavelli’s political views 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 (Western European countries, mainly until the mid-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 15th-16th 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.

Referrer T for the course on the history of legal and political doctrines Topic: “N. Machiavelli’s teaching on state and politics”1. Introduction Nicollo Machiavelli (1469-1527) is one of the first theorists of the new era. Machiavelli is a public figure, historian, and outstanding political thinker. He was born in Florence during the era of the formation of nationally united and politically independent states. His writings laid the foundation for the political and legal ideology of the New Age.

Machiavelli outlined his views on the state and politics in such works as “The Prince,” “Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livy,” and “On the Art of War.”

Machiavelli's main object of study is the state. It was he who first introduced the term “state”. Before him, thinkers relied on terms such as: city, empire, kingdom, republic, principality, etc.

This topic has been studied by a variety of scientists. For example, Dolgov K.N. He studied the political philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli. In the work of Pugachev V.P. N. Machiavelli's views on politics and the state are considered.

The purpose of this essay is to consider N. Machiavelli’s views on the state, politics, military affairs, religion, and the relationship between the sovereign and his subjects.

1. Main part

1.1 About state and politics

Machiavelli viewed the state as a kind of relationship between the government and its subjects, based on the fear or love of the latter. The state is unshakable if the government does not give rise to conspiracies and disturbances, if the fear of its subjects does not develop into hatred, and love into contempt. Machiavelli divides all states into the following types: “All states, all powers that have had or have power over people were and are either republics or states governed by sole authority” Goncharov I. A. Sovereign. Discussions about the first decade of Titus Livy / Ed. G. Muravyova, R. Khodovsky. St. Petersburg, 2002. The best form of government, Machiavelli believes, 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, help him govern the state,” the author’s sympathies are also given. Machiavelli’s mixed republic considered the result and means of coordinating the aspirations and interests of struggling social groups. In every republic there are always two opposite trends: one - the people's, the other - the upper classes; From this division flow all laws issued in the interests of freedom. States governed by individuals are divided into inherited and new ones. It is much easier for a hereditary sovereign to retain power than for a new one, because to do this it is enough not to violate the customs of his ancestors and to adapt to new circumstances without haste. “It is much easier for a hereditary sovereign, whose subjects have managed to get used to the ruling house, to retain power than for a new one, because for this it is enough for him not to violate the customs of his ancestors and subsequently to apply himself to new circumstances without haste. With this course of action, even a mediocre ruler will not lose power, unless he is overthrown by a particularly powerful and formidable force, but even in this case he will regain power at the first failure of the conqueror... It is difficult for a new sovereign to retain power.” Both conquered and inherited possessions can belong to either to one country and have one language, or to different countries and have different languages. “In the first case, it is not difficult to retain what has been won, especially if the new subjects did not know freedom before.” To do this, it is enough just to eradicate the family of the former sovereign, for with the community of customs and the preservation of the old orders, nothing else can cause disturbance. The former laws and taxes should be preserved. Then the conquered lands will “in the shortest possible time merge into one with the original state of the conqueror.” In the second case, maintaining power requires both great luck and great skill. One of the surest means, according to Machiavelli, is to move there to live, “for only by living in the country can you notice the beginning of unrest and stop it in a timely manner... Otherwise, you will find out about it when it has gone so far that it will be too late to take action.”More one way is to establish colonies in one or two places, connecting new lands with the state of the conqueror. Colonies do not require large expenses and they ruin only that handful of people whose fields and homes are given to new settlers. Colonies are cheap for the sovereign and serve him faithfully. If, instead of colonies, an army is stationed in the country, then its maintenance will cost much more and will absorb all the income from the new state, as a result of which the acquisition will result in a loss. Another drawback in this is the stationing of troops, which burden the entire population, which is why everyone, experiencing hardships, becomes an enemy of the sovereign. In a country that is foreign in customs and language, the conqueror should also become the head and protector of weaker neighbors and try to weaken the strong. In addition, the new sovereign must ensure that a foreign ruler as strong as himself does not enter the country. “These are always called upon by dissatisfied people within the country out of excess ambition or out of fear” Goncharov I. A. Sovereign. Discussions about the first decade of Titus Livy / Ed. G. Muravyova, R. Khodovsky. St. Petersburg, 2002. . Because when a powerful sovereign enters a country, less powerful states immediately join him. This usually occurs due to envy of those who are superior to them in strength. A strong sovereign does not need to persuade residents in his favor; they themselves will willingly join the state he created. So if the sovereign does not take care of all this, he will soon lose what he has conquered. Machiavelli also singled out church states, about which we can say that it is difficult to conquer them, because this requires valor or the grace of fate, but it is easy to maintain, because this does not require either one or the other. These states rely on foundations sanctified by religion, so powerful that they support the rulers in power, regardless of how they live and act. Only there the sovereigns have power, but do not defend it; they have subjects, but do not govern them. And yet, no one encroaches on their power, and their subjects are not burdened by their position and do not want, and cannot, fall away from them. So only these sovereigns invariably remain in prosperity and happiness.

Machiavelli considered religion to be an important means of politics. Religion, Machiavelli reasoned, is a powerful means of influencing the minds and morals of people. Where there is a good religion, it is easy to create an army. The state must use religion to guide its subjects.

Machiavelli assessed the role of the church both in the history of Italy and in the history of Europe very negatively by K. N. Dolgov. Humanism, revival and political philosophy of Nicolo Machiavelli. M., 1982, p. 121. Machiavelli well saw, felt and was aware of the power of religion, its social function, its conservatism and power over the minds and hearts of believers, and therefore called for the full use of this power for the common good, especially for the unification and strengthening of the state.

Based on this, Machiavelli strongly recommended that the heads of republics or kingdoms preserve the foundations of the religion that supported them. If they encourage and multiply everything that arises for the benefit of religion, even if they themselves consider it all deception and lies, then it will be easy for them to keep their state religious, and therefore good and united.

He saw the main misfortune of his homeland in the fact that the church did not have sufficient strength to unite the country, but was strong enough to prevent its unification not under its leadership. In “The Prince,” Machiavelli gives many examples of the erroneous policies of the popes, and he explained these mistakes by the fact that the Vatican always put its interests above the national interests of Italy.

However, Machiavelli recognized precisely the practical benefits of religion. His slightly disdainful attitude toward the Roman Catholic Church is understandable.

As a de jure Christian, he was obliged to know the basic tenets of the Christian faith, as an educated man of his time, he had to read the works of the church fathers, but what he saw around him did not at all resemble the world of the Gospel commandments. Dissolute and corrupt priests, the blood-stained hands of St. Peter's governors, cardinals fighting for power like a pack of wild dogs - this is what was quite common for that time.

Those who tried to fight the current state of affairs most often parted with freedom, and even with life itself. As an example, we can cite Machiavelli's contemporary and fellow countryman, Savonarola. But this fighter for the purity of the Church was hardly a person capable of attracting the sympathy of such a person as Niccolo Machiavelli to the Christian religion: narrow-minded fanaticism, exorbitant pride, poorly combined with the Christian humility he preached - a person endowed with such qualities was not very suitable for the role the ideal shepherd.

Machiavelli separated politics from morality. Politics (the establishment, organization and activities of the state) was considered as a special sphere of human activity, which has its own laws that must be studied and comprehended, and not derived from St. The scriptures are either constructed speculatively. This approach to the study of the state was a huge step forward in the development of political and legal theory.

Machiavelli rightly believes that princes become great when they overcome difficulties and resistance. Sometimes fate sends enemies to give the sovereign a chance to defeat them and rise to the occasion. “However, many believe that a wise sovereign himself should, when circumstances permit, skillfully create enemies for himself, so that, having gained the upper hand over them, he will appear in even greater greatness.” Goncharov I. A. Sovereign. Discussions about the first decade of Titus Livy / Ed. G. Muravyova, R. Khodovsky. St. Petersburg, 2002.

Machiavelli builds an impressive program, by implementing which a prince can achieve respect.

Nothing can inspire such respect in a sovereign as military enterprises and extraordinary deeds.

Machiavelli distinguishes the following types of troops:

· own;

· allied;

· hired;

· mixed.

Mercenary and allied troops are useless and dangerous. The power that rests on a mercenary army will never be strong or durable, for mercenaries are ambitious, dissolute, prone to discord, quarrelsome with friends and cowardly with the enemy, treacherous and wicked; their defeat is delayed only to the extent that the decisive attack is delayed; in peacetime they will ruin you no worse than in wartime. This is explained by the fact that it is not passion or any other motivation that keeps them in battle, but only a meager salary, which, of course, is not enough for them to want to sacrifice their lives for you. They are very happy to serve you in times of peace, but as soon as war breaks out, they show their rear and flee.

Allied troops are another type of useless troops - these are the troops of a strong sovereign, which are called upon for help and protection. An allied army is certain death for those who call upon it: it acts as one man and completely obeys its sovereign; after a victory, a hired army needs more time and more convenient circumstances to harm you; there is less unity in it, it is collected and paid for by you, and the one whom you put at its head cannot immediately gain such strength as to become a dangerous rival for you. In a mercenary army, negligence is more dangerous, in an allied army - valor.

Wise rulers always preferred to deal with their own army, notes Machiavelli. It was better, they believed, to lose with one’s own than to win with another’s, for the victory achieved by someone else’s weapons is not true.

Thus, the sovereign should have no other thoughts, no other concerns, no other business than war, military institutions and military science, since war is the only duty that a ruler cannot assign to another. The art of war is endowed with such power that it allows not only the one who is born a sovereign to retain power, but also the one who is born a mere mortal to achieve power. And vice versa, when rulers thought more about pleasures than about military exercises, they lost the power that they had. Neglect of this art is the main reason for the loss of power, just as its possession is the main reason for gaining power.

At the same time, the sovereign must read historical works, especially study the actions of outstanding commanders, analyze in what ways they fought the war, what determined their victories and defeats, in order to win the former and avoid the latter. The most important thing is to take as a model one of the famous and revered people of antiquity and constantly keep in memory his exploits and deeds.

Thus, for success in the field of foreign policy, the sovereign must be smart, cunning, resourceful, he must be able to foresee the consequences of every step he takes, must throw aside all principles of honor and concepts of morality and be guided solely by considerations of practical benefit. As a politician, the ideal sovereign is obliged to combine courage and determination with caution and forethought Pugachev V.P. Introduction to political science. M., 1996, p. 123..

2.2 People and state

Machiavelli gives a realistic picture of the human qualities of existing and existing sovereigns, as well as reasoned advice on what a new sovereign should be like in real life.

“If we talk not about fictitious, but about the true properties of sovereigns, then it must be said that in all people, and especially in sovereigns who stand above other people, they notice certain qualities that deserve praise or blame” Goncharov I. A. Sovereign . Discussions about the first decade of Titus Livy / Ed. G. Muravyova, R. Khodovsky. St. Petersburg, 2002. .

Machiavelli considers the “virtues” and “vices” of people in unity, as they exist in life. He understands perfectly well that it is difficult to find a person, and especially a sovereign, who would have all the positive qualities and not a single negative one. But it is even more difficult, even if there were such an ideal person or sovereign, to demonstrate all these good qualities, since living conditions do not and do not allow this.

His realism has a class character. It expresses the consistency of the demands of the rising class, the revolutionary aspirations of the bourgeoisie.

Machiavelli's new sovereign is not just a person possessing certain objective or subjective qualities and properties, not just an ideal image or prototype with which real-life sovereigns should be correlated. This is, first of all, the most uncompromising, most decisive alternative of the new bourgeois system to social and state feudalism.

It is good to have the reputation of a generous sovereign. However, the one who shows generosity in order to be considered generous harms himself.

In order not to rob his subjects, not to become poor, not to arouse contempt and not to become involuntarily greedy, the sovereign must neglect the glory of a stingy ruler, for stinginess is one of those vices that allow him to rule. However, you can spend either your own or someone else’s. In the first case, frugality is useful, in the second, as much generosity as possible.

The sovereign, if he wants to keep his subjects in obedience, should not reckon with accusations of cruelty. Having carried out several massacres, he will show more mercy than those who, out of excess, indulge in disorder. For the entire population suffers from the disorder that gives rise to robberies and murders, while only individuals suffer from the punishments imposed by the sovereign.

Machiavelli immediately warns against showing this mercy inappropriately. Cesare Borgia was known as merciless, but his cruelty restored the Romagna, united it, returned it to peace and fidelity, and the Florentine people, in order to avoid criticism of cruelty, allowed the destruction of Pistoia.

Machiavelli saw perfectly well that once sublime human relationships - love, friendship, devotion, greatness, nobility of soul and so on, now began to be bought and sold like any other things. Therefore, the new sovereign must be aware of this, and if there is something people respect, it is strength, strength that inspires fear in them.

However, the sovereign must instill fear in such a way that, if not to gain love, then at least to avoid hatred, for it is quite possible to instill fear without hatred. To avoid hatred, the sovereign must refrain from encroaching on the property of citizens and subjects and on their women.

Thus, Machiavelli advises the use of harsh measures only where necessary. Only a force that evokes respect and fear from both external and internal enemies will save the sovereign and his country from destruction. But this power must be used wisely, with wisdom and humanity, on time, without hesitation, with sufficient justification and clear reason.

At the same time, as a true ideologist of the bourgeoisie, Machiavelli openly declares the inviolability of private property, home and family of citizens. Everything else depends on the sovereign himself, whom Machiavelli advises to rely only on what depends on himself, and not on what depends on others.

Machiavelli does not preach immoralism at all, he rather states the immorality of the existing society, especially those in power: they met his political doctrine with hostility, declaring his teaching immoral only because he revealed and exposed the immoral nature of their way of thinking and way of action Dolgov K.N. Humanism, Renaissance and Political Philosophy of Nicolo Machiavelli. M., 1982, p. 159.

As in other cases, Machiavelli is not afraid that his opinions will differ sharply from generally accepted ones. Consistently adhering to his position of political realism, Machiavelli discards the fabrications that existed in history and in his time regarding republics, principalities and sovereigns and strives to explore what actually exists, in reality, and not in the imagination of this or that person.

Here is what Spinoza writes about Machiavelli’s ideas: “As for the means that a prince (Princeps), guided solely by a passion for domination, should use in order to strengthen and maintain power, the most insightful Machiavelli dwells on them in detail; for what purpose, however, he did this does not seem entirely clear. But if this purpose was good, as should be expected from a wise man, it consisted, apparently, in showing how unwisely many act in trying to eliminate the tyrant, while the reasons due to which the prince turns into a tyrant, but, on the contrary, it intensifies the more, the greater the cause of fear is presented to the prince” Spinoza B. Selected works, volume 2. M., 1957, p. 562.

Machiavelli warned that the new sovereign should avoid such matters that would arouse hatred and contempt towards him. Princes arouse contempt through inconstancy, frivolity, effeminacy, cowardice and indecisiveness. One must beware of these qualities; on the contrary, one must show generosity, fearlessness, thoroughness and firmness in every action.

The sovereign is afraid of two dangers: one - from within, from his subjects, the other - from without, from foreign sovereigns. They protect themselves against danger from outside with good weapons and good alliances, and affairs within the country will always be stable if everything is going well on the outside, as long as conspiracies don’t start and there won’t be turmoil because of it.

Machiavelli clearly identified the difference in class interests: the people valued tranquility, and therefore loved peaceful rulers, and the soldiers, naturally, loved the warlike and cruel sovereign. Those emperors who were unable to keep the people and soldiers in check always died. Others sided with the soldiers. Whether this was beneficial or not depended on how much the emperor forced the soldiers to respect him.

Machiavelli considers achieving a certain balance of class forces one of the most important tasks.

Machiavelli notes that the Roman emperors not only had to fight the ambition of the nobles and the insolence of the people, as was the case in other states, but they also had to endure the bloodthirstiness and greed of the soldiers. He sees this as one of the reasons for the death of many Roman emperors.

“You can incur hatred with good deeds just as well as with bad ones, therefore the sovereign, as I have already said, is often forced to deviate from good in order to preserve the state, for if that part of the pallets whose favor the sovereign seeks, be it the people, the nobles or the army are corrupted, then the sovereign, in order to please her, has to act accordingly, and in this case, good deeds can harm him” Goncharov I. A. Sovereign. Discussions about the first decade of Titus Livy / Ed. G. Muravyova, R. Khodovsky. St. Petersburg, 2002. In any case, Machiavelli advises the new sovereign to follow the policy of “the fiercest lion and the most insidious fox.” However, modern sovereigns must please the people more, since there are no standing troops integrated with the government and with the administration of the provinces. It is more important to satisfy the people than the soldiers, because the people are stronger than the soldiers.

Machiavelli clearly strives to take care of the welfare of the people, and he even finds a very practical explanation for this for sovereigns - for a dissatisfied people who despise their leader is a more terrible threat for any ruler than the most powerful external enemy.

Machiavelli persistently convinces that a strong state can only be achieved by tirelessly caring for the welfare of the people. It is in this sense that Machiavelli understands the idea of ​​democracy; for him, the ideal government system is one that ensures the benefit of the majority.

Machiavelli persistently calls for seeking the active consent of the masses to the only type of democracy possible at that time - an absolute monarchy that destroys feudal and seigneurial anarchy.

For Machiavelli, an important social value was freedom in the broad sense of the word. Freedom is also important for the state as a whole. The country must be able to maintain its independence. Freedom is necessary for any social class. The poorest sections of the population have the inalienable right to defend themselves against attacks by the privileged classes on their rights, freedoms and property.

Freedom is also important for the individual citizen - freedom of conscience, freedom to choose one’s destiny, freedom from fear for one’s life, honor and fortune. But these two concepts themselves - freedom and absolute monarchy - combine rather poorly. Unable to find a way out of this contradiction, Machiavelli concluded that the best theoretically possible form of government is “mixed,” that is, one where different layers and classes of the population “monitor” each other, the observance of laws and the preservation of freedoms.

“It was the mixing of the rule of kings, optimates and people that made the state structure of the Roman Republic perfect until the time of the Gracchi” Goncharov I. A. Sovereign. Discussions about the first decade of Titus Livy / Ed. G. Muravyova, R. Khodovsky. St. Petersburg, 2002. .

The perfect ideal is that form of government in which one person can obtain unlimited power only when decisive and immediate action is urgently required, for example in the event of war. The rest of the time, decisions about government should be made collectively, with the participation of as many interested parties as possible.

Essentially, Machiavelli sets out a unique code of conduct and actions for the new sovereign, his strategy and tactics, so to speak, in domestic and foreign policy.

2. Conclusion

So, we examined the views of Niccolo Machiavelli on the state, politics, military affairs, religion, as well as on the relationship between the sovereign and his subjects, the people.

It should be noted that Machiavelli, for the first time in history, separated politics from morality and religion and made it an autonomous, independent discipline, with inherent laws and principles that differ from the laws of morality and religion.

Politics, according to Machiavelli, is a symbol of human faith, and therefore occupies a dominant position in the worldview. Machiavelli's political ideology is aimed at achieving a specific political goal - the formation of a collective will, with the help of which a powerful, unified state can be created.

The works of Machiavelli had a tremendous influence on the subsequent development of political and legal ideology. They formulated and justified the main program demands of the bourgeoisie: the inviolability of private property, the security of person and property, the republic as the best means of ensuring the “benefits of freedom”, the condemnation of the feudal nobility, the subordination of religion to politics and a number of others.

Bibliography:

1. Great Russian Legal Encyclopedia. M., 2000, p. 810.

2. Introduction to philosophy: Textbook for universities / Ed. I. T. Frolova. M., 2002, p. 623.

3. Goncharov I. A. Sovereign. Discussions about the first decade of Titus Livy / Ed. G. Muravyova, R. Khodovsky. SPb., 2002, p. 288.

4. Dolgov K.N. Humanism, revival and political philosophy of Nicolo Machiavelli. M., 1982, p. 598.

5. History of political and legal doctrines. Textbook / Ed. O. E. Leista. M., 2002, p. 688.

6. History of political and legal doctrines. Textbook / Ed. V. S. Nersesyants. M., 1996, p. 816.

7. Brief philosophical encyclopedia. M., 1994, p. 576.

8. Machiavelli. Favorites / Ed. I. B. Bochkalo. M., 1998, p. 520.

9. Maltsev V. A. Fundamentals of Political Science. Textbook for universities. M., 1997, p. 480.

10. Pugachev V. P. Introduction to political science. M., 1996, p. 612.

11. Pugachev V.P. Fundamentals of State and Law. M, 1998, p. 625.

12. Spinoza B. Selected works, volume 2. M., 1957, p. 710.

Despite the fact that Niccolò Machiavelli created his philosophical works in the 16th century, the concepts of the Great Florentine are still used in political practice, management and some social sciences. His works were criticized many times, but still remained classics in the field of political science and political history. Machiavelli's ideas are, first of all, practical recommendations based on the vast experience of the Florentine writer and politician.

Florence in the time of Machiavelli

Machiavelli's political and philosophical views are directly related to the events he experienced and the social processes that he had to face. The political structure of Florence during Machiavelli's life was very peculiar. During the wars between the Guelphs and the Ghibellines, a commune system was formed here, which allowed residents to independently govern their city. 25 years before the birth of Niccolo Machiavelli, power in the city was seized by the powerful Medici dynasty. At the same time, members of the Medici family did not hold any government positions; their power was based on authority and wealth. Formally, Florence remained a democratic commune, but in fact it was an oligarchy - all the most important issues of the city were decided by the Medici. The Medici were patrons of science and the arts, and under them the humanistic movement began to flourish in Florence.

In 1492, the unofficial head of the city, Lorenzo Medici, died and the struggle for control over Florence began with the abbot of the local monastery, Girolamo Savonarola. Savonarola managed to achieve the expulsion of the Medici family from Florence, and after that he began to introduce new orders, aimed, in his opinion, at reviving the morality of the townspeople. Songs, dances, fun and luxurious outfits were prohibited in the city. The persecution of many humanists began, and works of art were destroyed. The city plunged into asceticism and despondency. Savonarola's dictatorship lasted 5 years and ended with the execution of the power-hungry abbot in 1498.

Even during Savonarola's lifetime, chaos began in the city. Italy of the 16th century was not a single state, but a collection of strong cities and principalities pursuing independent policies. Many foreign rulers and representatives of Italian noble families were tempted to unite Italy under their leadership. Of course, the rich and majestic Florence attracted conquerors. Therefore, at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries, Florence found itself at the very epicenter of the Italian wars that flared up on the Apennine Peninsula. The city-commune was simultaneously claimed by:

• France,
• Spain,
• Holy Roman Empire.

Biography of Niccolo Machiavelli

The future writer was born on May 3, 1469 in the village of San Casciano, near Florence. His family was very noble, but not rich. The head of the family, Bernardo Machiavelli, served as a notary. He was a man who was skeptical about religion and deeply interested in ancient literature. Subsequently, his views would have a great influence on Nicollo's philosophy.

Machiavelli received his education at the city school of Florence and from private teachers. So he learned to count, write, Latin and became acquainted with the works of ancient classics - Titus Livy, Cicero, Suetonius, Caesar. However, the young man was interested not only in ancient authors. He read the books of Dante and Petrarch and concluded that these authors managed to masterfully describe the characteristics of the mentality and the main vices of the Italians. At that time, Florence was one of the main cultural centers of Italy, so Niccolo was able to get acquainted with the best achievements of art and science of that time.

Due to lack of money, Niccolo was unable to enter university, but under the guidance of his father he learned a little about law. These skills allowed Machiavelli to take up government work. He took his first steps in the political field under Savonarola, serving as secretary and ambassador. Despite the fact that after the execution of Savonarola, Machiavelli was disgraced for some time, in the same 1498, he took the important post of secretary of the second chancellery of the republic and became secretary of the Council of Ten. The young politician had to balance between supporters of the Medici and the party of the late Savonarola, without joining any of the coalitions.

However, Machiavelli's work was very effective, and he soon began to enjoy the respect of representatives of both factions. For 14 years, Machiavelli was regularly re-elected. Over the years, he gave thousands of orders, commanded several military companies, more than once represented Florence in other city-republics and outside the borders of Italy, and also resolved many complex diplomatic disputes. At the same time, Machiavelli continued to read ancient authors and study political theory.

In 1502, the position of lifelong gonfalonier appeared in Florence (before this, gonfaloniers were replaced every month). Gonfaloniere could convene councils, initiate the development of laws and, in fact, was the most important person in the republic. Piero Soderini, who later became a close friend of Machiavelli, was appointed to this position. Soderini lacked a little insight and organizational skills, so in all matters he began to rely on Machiavelli, who quickly became a real Florentine “gray eminence.” Machiavelli's advice was very useful; they made it possible to strengthen Florence and increase its wealth.

However, in 1512 Florence suffered a serious blow. The troops of Giovanni Medici entered the city, restoring his family's power over the republic. Soderini fled Florence, and Machiavelli was captured, accused of plotting against the Medici and thrown into prison. He was soon released, but Machiavelli was no longer able to regain his former power. He was exiled to his small estate in San Casciano.

Machiavelli was very upset by his forced inaction and wanted to serve Florence and Italy again. But the Medici considered him unreliable and suppressed all his attempts to again occupy any government post. Therefore, the period from 1513 to 1520 became for Machiavelli a time to take stock of his vigorous activity and active literary creativity. During these years the following works were created:

• "The Sovereign" (1513);
• "The Art of War" (1519-20);
• theatrical play “Mandrake”;
• fairy tale "Belphagor" and much more.

In 1520, the disgraced philosopher and politician began to be treated more gently. He was able to often come to Florence and carry out small government assignments. At the same time, Machiavelli took the position of state historiographer of Florence and, by order of the Pope, wrote the work “History of Florence.”

At the very end of his life, Machiavelli had to endure new shocks. In 1527, Italy was ravaged by Spain. Rome fell and the Pope was under siege. Another coup took place in Florence, ending with the expulsion of the Medici. The townspeople began to restore the democratic system and Machiavelli hoped to return to work as an official in the revived republic. However, the new government simply ignored him. The shocks associated with the defeat of Italy and the inability to do what he loved had a negative impact on the philosopher’s health. On June 21, 1527, Machiavelli died.

Machiavelli's ideas

Machiavelli's literary heritage is very extensive. It includes many of his reports on the implementation of diplomatic missions and memos on the foreign policy situation. In these documents, Machiavelli outlined his views on certain events and the behavior of heads of state. However, the most important and famous work of the Florentine philosopher is the work “The Prince”. It is believed that the prototype of the sovereign described in the work of Machiavelli was Cesare Borgia, Duke of Romagna and Valentinois. This man became famous for his immorality and cruelty. But at the same time, Cesare Borgia was distinguished by his insight and careful approach to solving important state issues. Also, Machiavelli's work was based on his own experience and analysis of the political life of contemporary countries and ancient powers.

In The Prince, Machiavelli expressed the following ideas:

• The optimal form of government is an absolute monarchy, although in some cases a republic can also be effective;
• History is cyclical. All states go through the same phases endlessly. First - one-man rule; then - the power of the highest aristocracy; then a republic. However, republican rule cannot last forever; sooner or later it will again be replaced by an absolute monarchy;
• The change in the phases described above is associated with a clash of interests of many social groups. Machiavelli was one of the first to note the dialectic of the historical process;
• The three main pillars of any sovereign: legislation, army and allies;
• The most important state tasks can be solved by any means, even not the most humane ones. The latter can be resorted to in cases where the question of creating or maintaining a state arises;
• A good sovereign must be able to combine honesty and deceit, kindness and cruelty. By skillfully using one or the other, a ruler can achieve absolutely any goals. The sovereign should not avoid hypocrisy; cunning is the main weapon in the political field;
• The sovereign must instill fear in his subjects, but not hatred. In order to avoid the latter, the ruler should not abuse cruelty and be able to soberly assess the current situation in the country. Machiavelli was a categorical opponent of tyranny. In his opinion, tyrants are weak people who destroy themselves and their good name;
• The sovereign should not be a spendthrift;
• The most dangerous people for the state are flatterers. The sovereign must bring closer to himself those people who always tell the truth, no matter how bitter it may be.

Also in his work, Machiavelli discussed how best to keep conquered states in his power, how to subjugate the population of other countries and how best to fight with the most powerful neighbors.

Machiavelli's ideas were not limited to government administration alone. The writer laid the foundations for a completely new way of thinking, different from medieval scholasticism. Machiavelli believed that philosophy should not be reduced to empty contemplation, but be practical in nature and serve for the benefit of society. In fact, Machiavelli became the founder of a new field of knowledge - political science. He began developing its subject, object of study and methodology.

To a modern person, the philosophy expounded on the pages of Machiavelli’s book may seem inhumane and anti-democratic. Moreover, Machiavelli's ideas were also criticized by his contemporaries. The philosopher directly asserted that all processes occurring in the state are not a manifestation of divine will, but are generated by a person who is not always distinguished by high moral principles. In fact, this idea made a real revolution in political teaching, making this scientific field purely secular. At the same time, Machiavelli rethought the concept of “morality”, also rejecting its religious interpretation. Morality and morality for the Florentine writer, first of all, concerned the relationship between man and society. Because of these ideas, the Catholic Church included all of Machiavelli's works in the "Index of Prohibited Books."