The ideal state according to Karl Marx would begin when the workers (proletariat) liberate themselves from the bourgeoisie and form a communist society. For Marx, there are basically these 2 social classes, the criterion being “Ownership or non-ownership of the means of production” (“Marx” Fontana, 1984 p.44). Class struggle is the agent for change. The Communist Manifesto provides an alternative to the existing society, which the working class are ruled over by the powerful industrialists and capitalism is expanding fast. Straight away there is a difference between Marx’s views on the citizens and Plato’s. For the state described in “The Republic” to exist, the citizens need to be content with their place in society and class discontent would of course result in an unjust state. Marx’s citizens would appear to be less docile than Plato’s, and less likely to believe propaganda. What would be most noticeable about this communist state are the lack of private property and the breakdown of industrial cities, the population would be more evenly distributed and services would all be nationalised. Each citizen would be equal and work only for the good of the state.
Machiavelli’s ideal state is established and ruled with military ruthlessness. He believes that people respond best to the use of fear and that it should be employed as a means of control. In “The Prince” he asserts that “it is far better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both” (p.96). This statement seems to be supported by recent events in Iraq. The ruling Ba’ath party used instruments of terror to keep effective control of the people and now the regime has fallen, it appears that it was not love for Saddam that the majority of the citizens felt, but fear. They gave the impression that he was their hero, but it was only because they were living in terror of the regime’s coercive measures.
Machiavelli’s ideal state relies on the co-operation of it’s people in maintaining it. It takes priority over everything else, mankind’s highest endeavour. What is striking about “The Prince” is that the citizens seem to be used as a means to an end, the end being the ruler of the state keeping their hold on power. Machiavelli believes in taking any action necessary, moral or not, to maintain order in the state. Here there is a difference between Machiavelli’s and Plato’s idea of rulers of the ideal state. Plato’s philosopher rulers would find the use of cruelty morally unacceptable. Plato would condemn such a society as unjust, and cruelty as being part of an unjust soul. Machiavelli’s views on the citizens of the state differ from the views of Karl Marx. Machiavelli essentially distrusts the citizens and has a general low opinion of human nature and loyalty, whereas Marx is relying on the loyalty of the citizens and believes that they will unite as a matter of progress, in fact the citizen’s loyalty and initiative are exactly what is needed to bring the communist state into existence. Also, Machiavelli believes that the new ruler of the state should live nearby the citizens, in the land he has conquered (p.36). This is to make the state more secure and to have a better contact with the citizens, which will increase their respect and awe of him. A Marxist communist state would not need this type of direct control, the population being deliberately spread over the land. This is mainly because Machiavelli’s citizens might be reluctant subjects to their new ruler and more likely to revolt, therefore it would be necessary to keep a close check on them, keep your enemies closer. The citizens in the communist state would in theory be content, and should not need to be watched so closely. Despite these differences, James Joll believes that Gramsci was highly influenced by Machiavelli’s writings when extending Marx’s ideas and was prevented by illness from writing a “Modern Prince” which would apply Machiavelli’s ideas to the 20th century (“Gramsci” Fontana, 1977, p.95-97).
It appears to be much easier to find differences in the opinions of these three writers as to what are the characteristics of a good state. But what they do have in common is that the preservation of the state takes precedence over any individual or group of people. The harmony of the state is paramount. The Collins English Dictionary gives the definition of communism as “The belief that all private ownership should be abolished and all work and property should be shared by the community”. The abolition of private property is a key point in The Communist Manifesto and also Plato wrote about the same ideas over 2000 years earlier. As the Guardians of the state are being trained, “they shall have no private property beyond the barest essentials” (p.184, The Republic) and also “have no need of mortal and material gold and silver”, which is “a common source of wickedness” (p.184). This is based on the idea that the acquisition of personal property results in competition between individual people and the neglect of the state and also a division between rich and poor and therefore the danger of discontent and internal revolt. These are precisely the views that Karl Marx has about the existing capitalist society. Plato’s Guardians are living in a true communist society, living and eating together like soldiers, no money or personal possessions and the rest of the community providing their food.
Another main similarity between the views of these political thinkers is that the best type of state is an autocracy, with no possibility of political opposition. This is a safe way to maintain power and also political differences of opinion would interfere with the running of affairs. The leaders of the state can behave with impunity. It is not surprising that these writers have no time for democracy, because if you had what you thought was the best possible idea for a state, why would you want people around with other ideas? And if the citizens are living in the best state possible, why would they want to vote for something else?
Each of these political thinkers has their own ideas of a good state, some of which clash with each other. I have listed the finer details of each, and found some fundamental similarities between all of them, which apply from the ancient world to the industrial revolution.
Bibliography
Plato : “The Republic” Penguin, 1955
Machiavelli : “The Prince” Penguin, 1961
Joll, James : “Gramsci” Fontana, 1977
White, Nicholas : “A Companion to Plato’s Republic” Hackett publishing, 1979
Marx and Engels : “The Manifesto of the Communist Party” Progress, no date
McLellan, David : “Marx” Fontana, 1984
