TROUBLES WITH MACHIAVELLI THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEANS AND GOALS IN POLITICS— DEVIL’S TEACHER OR CORYPHEUS OF FREEDOM?

Abstract

This paper examines the political thought of Niccolò Machiavelli, often regarded as the foundation of modern political theory, in contrast to classical antiquity and Christianity. What is the novum of Machiavelli’s teaching? Politics as an area of human affairs in which rules are different now from the ancient identity of politics, as ethics and the Christian view of God’s state, are now framed as independent of everything external, superior. Machiavelli views politics from the perspective of realism in the field of political practice. In the context of the experience of dealing with politics in the Florentine Republic, and by introducing into the theory the terms: power, authority, force, violence, virtu, and fortuna, which he determines differently from tradition, politics is directed along new paths. The goal of our research is to analyze two opposing interpretations of Machiavelli’s works within the history of political thought. One tradition explains his theory as a technique in terms of successfully achieving goals in practice, framing politics as the art of winning and retaining power regardless of means, which formed the term Machiavellianism. In contrast, some authors interpret Machiavelli as a thinker who observes politics from the perspective of the conflicting interests of citizens. What stands out as a breakthrough in political theory, by which Machiavelli transcends his time, is the identification of class conflicts as generators of state and community maintenance. For Machiavelli, the republic is the framework that most successfully ensures the freedom of action of actors. Our thesis posits that Machiavelli is not a Machiavellian. In the last chapter, we explore Jesuitism as the birthplace of Machiavellianism.