The Science of Politics

The fundamental innovation introduced by Marxism into the science of politics and history is the proof that there does not exist an abstract, fixed and immutable "human nature" (a concept which certainly derives from religious thought and transcendentalism); but that human nature is the totality of historically determined social relations, that is, an historical fact, ascertainable, within certain limits, by the methods of philology and criticism. Therefore, political science must be conceived in its concrete content (and also in its logical formulation) as an organism in development. It should be observed, however, that the direction given by Machiavelli to the question of politics (that is, the assertion implicit in his writings that politics is an independent activity, with its own principles and laws distinct from those of morality and religion, a proposition of great philosophical importance, since it implicitly originates a conception of morality and religion, i.e. it began a whole conception of the world) is still discussed and contradicted today, and has not succeeded in becoming "common sense". What does this mean? Does it only mean that the intellectual and moral revolution whose elements are contained in nuce in Machiavelli's thought has not yet come about, has not yet become a public and manifest form of the national culture? Or is it merely of present-day political significance, serving to show the gap that exists between rulers and ruled, that two cultures exist—one of the rulers and one of the ruled—and that the ruling class, like the Church, has its own attitude towards the simple folk dictated by the necessity on the one hand of not separating itself from them, and, on the other, of keeping them convinced that Machiavelli is nothing but a diabolical apparition?

In this way the problem is posed of the significance Machiavelli had in his own times and of the ends which he set himself in his books, and especially in The Prince. Machiavelli's doctrine was not in his own time purely "bookish", a monopoly of isolated thinkers, a secret book which circulated among the initiated. Machiavelli's style is not that of a systematic writer of tracts, as was usual in both the Middle Ages and Humanism. On the contrary, it is the style of a man of action, a man who wants to encourage action, it is the style of a party "manifesto". The "moralistic" interpretation given by Foscolo is certainly wrong; still, is it true that Machiavelli has unveiled something and not only theorised reality: but to what end? A moralistic or a political end? It is usually said that Machiavelli's standards for political behaviour "are applied but not spoken about"; the great politicians—it is said—begin by cursing Machiavelli, declaring themselves anti-Machiavellians, just in order to apply his standards "sanctimoniously". Would not Machiavelli in this case have been un-Machiavellian, one of those who "know the tricks of the game" and stupidly teach them to others, whereas popular Machiavellianism teaches the opposite? Croce's assertion that, as Machiavellianism is a science, it can serve reactionaries as well as democrats, as the art of fencing helps both gentlemen and brigands, to defend themselves and to murder, and that Foscolo's judgment should be understood in this sense, is true abstractly. Machiavelli himself notes that the things he is writing are applied, and have always been applied by the greatest men in history; it does not seem, therefore, that he wants to advise those who already know; his style is not that of disinterested scientific activity, nor can he be thought to have arrived at this theses of political science along the path of philosophical speculation, which in this particular subject would have been something of a miracle in his time, if even today it finds so much contradiction and opposition.

We can therefore suppose that Machiavelli had in view “those who do not know”, that he intended to give political education to “those who do not know”, not a negative political education of hatred for tyrants, as Foscolo seems to mean, but a positive education of those who must recognise certain necessary means, even if those of tyrants, because they want certain ends. The man who is born into the tradition of government through the whole complex of his education which he absorbs from his family environment, in which dynastic and patrimonial interests predominate, acquires almost automatically the characteristics of the realistic politician. Who then “does not know”? The revolutionary class of the time, the Italian “people” and “nation”, the citizen democracy which gave birth to Savonarola and Piero Soderini and not Castruccio and Valentino. It can be considered that Machiavelli wanted to persuade these forces of the necessity for a “leader”, who would know what he wanted and how to obtain it and to accept him with enthusiasm even if his actions might be or appear to be contrary to the widely held ideology of the time, religion. This position of Machiavelli is repeated for Marxism. The necessity is repeated of being “anti-Machiavellian”, of developing a theory and technique of politics which can help both sides in the struggle, but which it is thought will end by helping especially the side “which did not know”, because in this side is held to exist the progressive force of history. In fact one result is achieved immediately: that of breaking up the unity based on traditional ideology, without which the new force would be unable to gain awareness of its own independent personality. Machiavellianism has helped to improve the traditional political technique of the conservative ruling groups, just as has Marxism; but this must not conceal its essentially revolutionary character, which is felt even today and which explains the whole of anti-Machiavellianism from that of the Jesuits to that of the pietistic Pasquale Villari.