Marx and Machiavelli: comparative political theory

Marx & Machiavelli

The issue addressed by Friedman relates to the relative economic freedom brought about by American liberalism. The tension apparent in the text is the distribution of economic power. Not all power can be distributed to individuals, as this leads to excesses of the free market. All economic power can however also not be imparted to the government, as this will lead to tyranny. Therefore there needs to be a balance within the distribution. This has direct bearing on the evolution of American liberalism.

New Deal liberalism for example trusted neither the aristocracy nor the free-market system. Instead, a more democratic mean close in nature to European social democracy has been created in terms of property rights. Liberalism was established on the basis of a majority vote, which was believed to be more effective than the judgment of a small minority of people.

From this systme, democracy increasingly became part of the liberalist ideal. After World War II for example, equalizing possible opportunities became the ideal. Here the balance of power is addressed. Expert economists were given the power to manipulate aggregate demand, while imposing a limited regimen of administrative control. Later, democratic principles were more broadly applied to include the poor, the elderly and African-Americans.

Later, with the Vietnam war, public trust in the government declined, and individual moral autonomy was seen to be threatened. This autonomy was seen not only in terms of the economy anymore, but also in terms of lifestyle. Here the majority rule was overthrown in order to defend minority rights in courtrooms. As part of this, the abolishment of school segregation brought a new era for American politics. Other rights that were defended included those of women, gays, Hispanics and the interests of institutions such as environmentalism. Liberalism was thus transformed into a paradigm that catered for the interests of minorities through the court system rather than the majority through voting.

Marx's theories of communism and economy are very reminiscent of the economic theories held by Friedman. Marx for example criticizes capitalism on the basis of the labor theory of value. According to Marx, exploited workers provide capitalist profit, and that this is why the breakdown of capitalism is inevitable. Communism would then serve to replace capitalism. Marx's argument is that this is part of a historical process rather than a moral ideal that was pre-determined. This appears to have happened with American liberalism. From a system that was essentially unfair developed a new paradigm, where all persons at least have the chance to be heard.

Marx I believe would react mostly in a positive way to the passage by Friedman, especially in terms of the distribution of economic power over more than one controlling party. I do however also believe that Marx would venture more closely towards the free-market individualistic direction, as this is more closely associated with communism, where the power of economy is equally distributed throughout.

Marx would therefore react negatively towards the idea that some economic power cannot be distributed in an absolutely equal sense. Communism entails the equal distribution not only of wealth, but also of economic power. Liberalism does therefore fit into this ideal to some degree, but not entirely.

Machiavelli had a number of beliefs related to his economic paradigm. According ot this philosopher, human beings, society and culture can all be improved by means of education, and that central to such education stood manly virtues. This paradigm is more or less proved by means of the evolution of liberalism in the United States. A system that began as yet another form of coercion has developed to become an altogether improved paradigm. Indeed, the variety of ideologies within society at any given time greatly influenced the evolution of the liberalist ideology. This can be seen above, with the historical movements from World War II, the Vietnam war, and the evolution of society to include minority groups in the "equal opportunity" paradigm.

In terms of Friedman's statement then, I believe Machiavelli would agree that it is the product of a process of evolution to find the best possible strategy. Rather than turning a blind eye to possible flaws in this system, Machiavelli I bleieve would consider all alternatives before exchanging the old for the new.

While believing in the possibility of evolution then, Machiavelli nonetheless does not presume the perfectibility of human beings. Instead there are steps of improvement that can always be improved upon. Thus it is possible to learn from the past mistakes not onlyof oneself, but also of others. In this way once again the paradigm of American liberalism has evolved according to Machiavelli's viewpoint.