Machiavelli in the Making

If one were to sum up the tone of Machiavelli’s philosophy, it would probably come out as “practical.” The great Italian philosopher wasn’t much of an idealist by today’s standards; he promoted a philosophy of “whoever makes it work will be in charge,” and that’s often how things turn out, for better or for worse.

The author of this book, Claude Lefort, cites Machiavelli’s praise of the Borgia regime. While the Borgias were indeed corrupt and dishonest, there was no other leader stepping in to replace them. The family’s money brought them to power, but they stayed in power by being shrewd. He says the same thing about Machiavelli’s work with regard to the empires of history-Roman, Ottoman, British-that lasted for so long but eventually split. Whatever it was that kept them in power for so long eventually wore out.

In another chapter, Lefort uses Machiavelli’s discussion of Marcus Aurelius as an example of how moderation can only work “in moderation.” The emperor Aurelius was one of the “barrack emperors” who started out as generals, and was more of a moderate than his successors. But according to Machiavelli, that moderation could only be done because the army wasn’t entirely corrupt yet. As the empire got bigger, it became impossible to manage, and the emperors would be at the mercy of the military governors of the provinces. This is an early example of a philosopher promoting an “anti-expansion” philosophy.

However, Machiavelli predated the peak of the British Empire by nearly 300 years. He did not know that by 1880, Suez Canal and the advent of steamships and telegraph lines would make travel and communication easier. Thanks to these modern inventions, central powers could keep an eye on their colonies. For the British Empire, expansion was profitable for decades. I guess that’s “real politic” for you!