Daring as it is to investigate the unknown, even more so it is to question the known It's often said that to understand the present, we must understand the past For history is our greatest teacher and one thing it teaches us is that mankind is a fallible species. Our past is as much defined by the truths we have discovered as by the errors we have lived by, but while it can be easy to recognize the mistakes of generations past, it is much more difficult to see the errors in our on ways and for this reason we must be willing to continually question the known. In this video we are going to apply this skeptical approach to the field of politics by exploring the ideias of the contrarium italian philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli. Machiavelli was born in 1469 and he served as a diplomat politician and a commander of the florentine militia but is political life was cut short by a conspiracy charge against him in 1513. After being tortured but never confessing Machiavelli was relesead and he retired from politics and spent the remider of is life foucused on is writings. As an astute observer of the political side of man Machiavelli belived that most people are utterly mistaken about the true nature of politics and these confusions remain entrenched to this day These Machiavellian ideas we are about to discuss may seem like heresy to some but they are ideas worthy of our consideration because if there is truth to them then it could radically change the way we approach the political world, and the way we pursue freedom. Or as James Burnham writes in is book: "The Machiavellians". If the political truths stated or approximated by Machiavelli were widely known by men, the success of tyranny and all the other forms of oppressive political rule would becme much less likely. A deeper freedom would be possible in society than Machiavelli himself belived attainable. The first step to a more accurate view of the nature of politics is to recognize how often we fail to separate the real from the ideal in our formulations of all things political, instead of looking to the abstract theories of philosophers, or to the idealistic notions that spill from the mouths of politicians. We need to look at: how people act in the political realm? We need to, in other words, separate the wishes we may have about how politics should work, from the reality of how it does work. This was one of Machiacelli's foremost goals in the writtings of is most famous work the prince. Or as he explains: The essence of politics according to Machiavelli it's not the pursuit of the good society, the realization of the general wellfare nor is it fundamentally a mechanism for the maximization of social wellfare or social cooperation. Some forms of political organization may be conducive to these ends, while others are completly antithetical to them, but what defines politics in all ages and in all it's manifestations , is that it's the realm where man and women compete in open and concealed ways for power and control over others. The primary objective of the politician or any member of a ruling elite is always the same to cement to augment and to increase their power. The struggle for social power is not a game in which all of us participate, and this leads to another of the Machiavellian pricinples about the nature of politics and its impact on a society. A society according to Machiavelli is always divided into two classes. The rulers and the ruled, or as Burnham writes If the primary motivation of those in the class of the rulers is not to improve society although this may be a by-product of some of their actions but to increase their own power, why do does in the class of the ruled, always far greater in number, accept this state of affairs? Machiavelli identifies a number of tools used by rulling classes to grown their power, and these include force, fraud, deception and a tactical redestribution of the wealth they expropriate, none of these things however would be effective at cimenting their rule and allowing them to spread their tentacles into ever more areas of a society, without the existence of a justifying myth, ideology, religion or political formula. Rulers in other words always rely for their legitimazation on the spread of ideas that are favourable to their aims in which somehow convince the masses of the necessity of their rule. Or as David Hume wrote: For much of history, the political formula or justification for the rule of an elite, was tied to a religion. The reason that Kings sat on a throne and the masses ???? at his feet was because God wished it to be so in the west God no longer was the power to legitimize our rulers, but in place of God a new ideia as emerged and this is the nebulous ideia of the will of the people democracy is the formula that legitimizes the political structure of our day by teaching us that we're the true rulers and our politicians mearly our loyal servants and representatives. Some may wonder if our ability to vote as made Machiavelli's insights into the nature of politics antiquated. The answer to this question by those who have followed in the tradition of Machievelli is an emphatic No! The ability to check a box next to a name every few years Does not rid the world of power hungry individuals, nor does it rid the world of the power games that Machiavelli identified as the essence of politics. For even in democracies many positions of social power are not open to the voting process, Being attained through means such as the accumulation of great wealth, nepotism or political appointment, and in terms of the polititians we do vote for to believe that we are their rulers, and not vice-versa Is wishfull thinking, or as Mikhail Bakunin explains Whether power is attained through a vote, through force or through fraud. The results are largely the same, Power over other people begets the desire for more power and even in a demoracy a stark division exists between the class of rulers and the class of the ruled. But what are we to do, with these Machiavellian revelations Should we just accept our status as mere pawns In a game played by man and woman Whose fundamental motive is to accumulate more power and to use this power to control us, or can we make use of this knowledge in a constructive manner. One of the purpouse of Machiavellis writtings was to open people's eyes to the way politics works so that more effective strategies could be divised to counter the machinations of a rulling elite. Or as he wrote in a letter to a friend Machiavelli belived that a better knowledge of our rulers would help us avoid one of the traps that have led many nations into the hands of a tyrant, these are the causes we hear so often for political unity. For unity when preached by a member of a rulling class, or one of its apologists, is not a path that will lead to increased freedom, but instead is the path to a despotic hell or as Burnham explains Freedom is not born through political unity rather freedom as history lays witnesses born in the cracks that emerge when a rulling class is divided against itself. Even more ideal for freedom is the existence of independent institutions of social power which counter balance each other by dividing those who wish to rule into seperate and competing fashions. A prime exemple of this occured in the early history of the west. Or has Gerard Casey writes in "Freedoms progress?": Machiavelli's view of the political world sugests that far from lamenting the divisions that seem to be emerging in the rulling elits of our day. We should instead see this as a positive development, for this in fighting will weaken them, and expose their true colors to ever more people. But we should not rest content on the hope that a rulling class will divide against itself and that we mearly sit back and enjoy the show. Such a passive aproach will only leave us at the mercy of which ever rulling fashion gains the upper hand. Rather as a rulling elite weakens the thirst for liberty among the class of the ruled must intensify. For liberty will only be gained by man and women who actually desire it and who are willing to take actions in the further and ??? end. Or as Frederick Douglas a nineteen century american who escaped slavery wrote
“The lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must, therefore, be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves.”