Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Copy of KARL MARX Vs NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI

No description
by

Flor Romero

on 1 November 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Copy of KARL MARX Vs NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI

Are we living in Democracy?
KARL MARX Vs NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI
KARL MARX


Marx's theories about society, economics and politics – collectively known as Marxism – hold that human societies progress through class struggle: a conflict between an ownership class that controls production and a dispossessed labouring class that provides the labour for production. He called capitalism the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie," believing it to be run by the wealthy classes for their own benefit; and he predicted that, like previous socioeconomic systems, capitalism produced internal tensions which would lead to its self-destruction and replacement by a new system: socialism. He argued that class antagonisms under capitalism between the bourgeoisie and proletariat would eventuate in the working class' conquest of political power in the form of a dictatorship of the proletariat and eventually establish a classless society, socialism or communism, a society governed by a free association of producers.[8][9] Along with believing in the inevitability of socialism and communism, Marx actively fought for their implementation, arguing that social theorists and underprivileged people
8/
GOVERNMENT BY DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA
COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

The preamble to the main text of the Manifesto states that the continent of Europe fears the "spectre of communism", and the powers of old Europe are uniting in "a holy alliance [intended to] exorcise this spectre". Marx refers here to not only the houses of power and landed gentry of old Europe—the bourgeoisie—but diverse factions such as the papacy and the emerging corporate world as well. Marx declares that "It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of communism with a manifesto of the party itself

COMMUNIST MANIFESTO
COMMUNIST MANIFESTO
KARL MARX
Democracy in America Summary
by Alexis de Tocqueville
Moschella, Melissa. *Democracy in America Summary*. GradeSaver, 03 March 2000 Web. 26
October 2012.
The project Tocqueville undertook in writing Democracy in America was a highly ambitious
one. Having seen the failed attempts at democratic government in his native France, he wanted to
study a stable and prosperous democracy to gain insights into how it worked. His studies had led
him to conclude that the movement toward democracy and equality of conditions while it had
progressed the farthest in America was a universal phenomenon and a permanent historical
tendency that could not be stopped. Since this democratic trend was inevitable, Tocqueville
wanted to analyze it in order to determine its strengths and dangers so that governments could be
formed to reinforce democracy's strengths while counteracting its weaknesses. Therefore, while
Democracy in America may at times seem to be a rather disorganized collection of observations
and thoughts on American democracy, it is possible to gain a coherent sense of the work as a
whole by looking at all of Tocqueville's various and sundry remarks through the lens of one
paramount theme: the preservation of liberty in the midst of a growing equality of conditions.
Volume One, the more optimistic half of the book, focuses mostly on the structure of
government and the institutions that help to maintain freedom in American society. Volume Two
focuses much more on individuals and the effects of the democratic mentality on the thoughts
and mores prevalent in society. Taking the work as a whole, one finds that main problems of a
democracy are the following: a disproportionately high portion of power in the legislative
branch, an abuse of or lack of love for freedom, an excessive drive for equality, individualism,
and materialism. The elements that Tocqueville believes can most successfully combat these
dangerous democratic tendencies are: an independent and influential judiciary, a strong executive
branch, local self-government, administrative de-centralization, religion, well-educated women,
freedom of association, and freedom of the press.
First, let us examine the dangers that Tocqueville sees facing American democracy. Most of the
problems lie in societal attitudes and tendencies, but there are a few institutional difficulties as
well. The first of these is the preponderance of legislative power. Because the legislature is most
directly representative of the will of the people, democracies tend to give it the most power of all
the governmental branches. Yet if there are not sufficient checks on this power, it can easily
become tyrannical. A related constitutional issue that weakens the independence of the executive
and therefore indirectly increases the power of the legislature is the ability of the president to be
re-elected. At first glance it is not obvious why this feature of American government weakens the
president's power. It would seem, in fact, to increase his influence by allowing him to remain in
office longer. The problem is that if the President has hopes of being re-elected, he will lose
much of his ability to make independent decisions based on his judgments. Instead, he will have
to bow to the whims of the people, constantly trying to make them happy although they may not
have the knowledge to judge what the best action for the country as a whole might be. Indirectly,
therefore, allowing the President to run for re-election increases the danger of the tyranny of the
majority. Another problem with the constitutional organization of American democracy is the
direct election of representatives and the short duration of their time in office. These provisions result in the selection of a mediocre body of representatives as well as in the inability of
representatives to act according to their best judgment, since they must constantly be worrying
about public opinion. By contrast, the Senate, whose members are elected indirectly and serve
longer terms in office, is composed of intelligent and well-educated citizens. Perhaps it will be
necessary to switch to a system of indirect election for representatives as well. Otherwise, the
laws will continue to be mediocre and often contradictory. If the state of affairs continues, people
may tire of the ineptitude of the system and abandon democracy all together.
The overriding but more intangible danger facing democracies is simply their excessive love for
equality. In fact, even the institutional problems are really only symptoms of this deeper mindset
which all democratic peoples tend to have. The doctrine of the sovereignty of the people and the
power of public opinion are corollaries to the idea of equality. If all are equal, then no one person
has any basis to claim the right to rule over another. The only just way to run a society, therefore,
is to base decisions on the will of the majority. Yet the problem with this idea is that it can quite
easily lead to despotism. Despotism can come at the hands of a single person or a multitude. In
the case of a democracy, there is a grave danger that the majority will become despotic. If there
are no checks on the power of the majority to influence the government, then it will have
absolute power and those in the minority will be helpless to resist. Perhaps even more insidious
themselves toward freedom, knowledge and prosperit
is the sheer moral force that that the opinion of the majority has on society. As it has already
been noted, if all are equal then no one opinion has greater weight than another. The logical
conclusion is that the opinion held by the majority must be the best one. As a result, there is a
tendency to abandon freedom of thought in democratic societies. Going against the opinion of
the majority is seen as an indirect claim to the superiority of one's own opinion, which is directly
contradictory to the principle of equality. This form of tyranny, therefore, can be seen as even
worse than past tyrannies which involved great physical coercion and brutality. In a powerful
passage in Chapter 7, Tocqueville states, "Formerly tyranny used the clumsy weapons of chains
and hangmen; nowadays even despotism, though it seemed to have nothing to learn, has been
perfected by civilization. . . . Under the absolute government of a single man, despotism, to reach
the soul, clumsily struck at the body, and the soul, escaping from such glows, rose gloriously
above it; but in democratic republics that is not at all how tyranny behaves; it leaves the body
alone and goes straight for the soul."
Two other side-effects of equality both of which also increase the likelihood of despotism are
individualism and materialism. As Tocqueville points out, "individualism is of democratic
origin, and threatens to grow as conditions get more equal." The reason for this phenomenon is
that equality tends to make people's interests focus in on themselves. There are no societal bonds
or duties as there are in an aristocracy which link people together and force them to realize their
dependence on one another. Individualism can contribute to the growth of despotism because if
citizens become too individualistic they will not bother to fulfill their civic duties or exercise
their freedom. Materialism results from a passion for equality because people think that they
ought to be able to have as much wealth as everyone else. Indirectly, materialism also comes
from the philosophical tendency fostered by democracies to disdain lofty ideas or thoughts of
eternity. The effect of materialism is that people may be so absorbed in their personal pursuit of
wealth that they neglect to use their political freedom. Further, people may actually willingly
abandon their freedom in order to have a benevolent despotism which can provide an orderly
society and ensure material prosperity.
Fortunately, however, Tocqueville does recognize the existence of institutions which can help to
preserve liberty even in the midst of these despotic tendencies. Constitutionally, the independent
judiciary, with the power of judicial review, is extremely important. Because it can proclaim
certain laws unconstitutional, the Supreme Court provides practically the only check on the
tyranny of the majority. Judges are appointed, not elected, and they serve life terms, giving them
a great deal of independence to make the decisions that they think best without needing to worry
excessively about public opinion. A related beneficial institution in the American system is the
jury. While juries may not always be the best means of attaining justice, they serve a very
positive political function of forcing the citizens to think about other people's affairs and
educating them in the use of their freedom. For these reasons, Tocqueville believes that the jury
system is "one of the most effective means of popular education" (Chapter 8). Much like the jury
system, the administrative decentralization which allows for local self-government is absolutely
crucial as a means to keep liberty alive by allowing the citizens to exercise it frequently. The
existence of local liberties is one of the most significant differences between America and
France. Tocqueville attributes the failure of the French Revolution mainly to the overwhelming
administrative centralization which took away the citizens' ability to exercise their freedom,
making them lose a taste for it and forget how to exercise it.
Non-institutional factors which help to maintain freedom in the United States are the right of
association, the freedom of the press, and most importantly religion. Associations are an
excellent tool to combat individualism and to allow people to exercise their freedom by taking a
part in politics. The press is intimately connected to associations in that associations need a
means of communicating with their members and also a means of spreading their message to the
public as a whole. In America, religion is much more than another type of association and is
highly beneficial both politically and societally. Religion teaches people how to use their
freedom well. Since the government provides no absolute standards, it is necessary that religion
provide some moral boundaries. As Tocqueville remarks, "Despotism may be able to do without
faith, but freedom cannot. . . . How could a society escape destruction if, when political ties are
relaxed, moral ties are not tightened? And what can be done with a people master of itself if it is
not subject to God?" (Chapter 9). By bringing people together in a community of common belief,
religion also combats individualism. Furthermore, religion is practically the only means of
counteracting the materialistic tendencies of democratic peoples. Religion turns peoples minds
beyond the physical, material aspects of life to the immortal and eternal. So strongly does
Tocqueville see the necessity for such a force in democratic society that he warns society's
leaders not to try to disturb the people's faith, for fear that "the soul may for a moment be found
empty of faith and love of physical pleasures come and spread and fill all."
One can clearly see that most, if not all, of the divergent strands of Democracy in America come
together when examining the relationship between freedom and equality in society. Above all,
Tocqueville has a passionate love for liberty and is concerned to point out the dangerous trends
that threaten to destroy it as well as the means by which it can be preserved. In the last few lines
of the book, Tocqueville writes, "The nations of our day cannot prevent conditions of equality
from spreading in their midst. But it depends upon themselves whether equality is to lead to
servitude or freedom, knowledge or barbarism, prosperity or wretchedness." Tocqueville's hope is that through the insights he has communicated in this work, humanity will be better able direct
Democracy in America Summary
by Alexis de Tocqueville
Moschella, Melissa. *Democracy in America Summary*. GradeSaver, 03 March 2000 Web. 26
October 2012.
The project Tocqueville undertook in writing Democracy in America was a highly ambitious
one. Having seen the failed attempts at democratic government in his native France, he wanted to
study a stable and prosperous democracy to gain insights into how it worked. His studies had led
him to conclude that the movement toward democracy and equality of conditions while it had
progressed the farthest in America was a universal phenomenon and a permanent historical
tendency that could not be stopped. Since this democratic trend was inevitable, Tocqueville
wanted to analyze it in order to determine its strengths and dangers so that governments could be
formed to reinforce democracy's strengths while counteracting its weaknesses. Therefore, while
Democracy in America may at times seem to be a rather disorganized collection of observations
and thoughts on American democracy, it is possible to gain a coherent sense of the work as a
whole by looking at all of Tocqueville's various and sundry remarks through the lens of one
paramount theme: the preservation of liberty in the midst of a growing equality of conditions.
Volume One, the more optimistic half of the book, focuses mostly on the structure of
government and the institutions that help to maintain freedom in American society. Volume Two
focuses much more on individuals and the effects of the democratic mentality on the thoughts
and mores prevalent in society. Taking the work as a whole, one finds that main problems of a
democracy are the following: a disproportionately high portion of power in the legislative
branch, an abuse of or lack of love for freedom, an excessive drive for equality, individualism,
and materialism. The elements that Tocqueville believes can most successfully combat these
dangerous democratic tendencies are: an independent and influential judiciary, a strong executive
branch, local self-government, administrative de-centralization, religion, well-educated women,
freedom of association, and freedom of the press.
First, let us examine the dangers that Tocqueville sees facing American democracy. Most of the
problems lie in societal attitudes and tendencies, but there are a few institutional difficulties as
well. The first of these is the preponderance of legislative power. Because the legislature is most
directly representative of the will of the people, democracies tend to give it the most power of all
the governmental branches. Yet if there are not sufficient checks on this power, it can easily
become tyrannical. A related constitutional issue that weakens the independence of the executive
and therefore indirectly increases the power of the legislature is the ability of the president to be
re-elected. At first glance it is not obvious why this feature of American government weakens the
president's power. It would seem, in fact, to increase his influence by allowing him to remain in
office longer. The problem is that if the President has hopes of being re-elected, he will lose
much of his ability to make independent decisions based on his judgments. Instead, he will have
to bow to the whims of the people, constantly trying to make them happy although they may not
have the knowledge to judge what the best action for the country as a whole might be. Indirectly,
therefore, allowing the President to run for re-election increases the danger of the tyranny of the
majority. Another problem with the constitutional organization of American democracy is the
direct election of representatives and the short duration of their time in office. These provisions result in the selection of a mediocre body of representatives as well as in the inability of
representatives to act according to their best judgment, since they must constantly be worrying
about public opinion. By contrast, the Senate, whose members are elected indirectly and serve
longer terms in office, is composed of intelligent and well-educated citizens. Perhaps it will be
necessary to switch to a system of indirect election for representatives as well. Otherwise, the
laws will continue to be mediocre and often contradictory. If the state of affairs continues, people
may tire of the ineptitude of the system and abandon democracy all together.
The overriding but more intangible danger facing democracies is simply their excessive love for
equality. In fact, even the institutional problems are really only symptoms of this deeper mindset
which all democratic peoples tend to have. The doctrine of the sovereignty of the people and the
power of public opinion are corollaries to the idea of equality. If all are equal, then no one person
has any basis to claim the right to rule over another. The only just way to run a society, therefore,
is to base decisions on the will of the majority. Yet the problem with this idea is that it can quite
easily lead to despotism. Despotism can come at the hands of a single person or a multitude. In
the case of a democracy, there is a grave danger that the majority will become despotic. If there
are no checks on the power of the majority to influence the government, then it will have
absolute power and those in the minority will be helpless to resist. Perhaps even more insidious
is the sheer moral force that that the opinion of the majority has on society. As it has already
been noted, if all are equal then no one opinion has greater weight than another. The logical
conclusion is that the opinion held by the majority must be the best one. As a result, there is a
tendency to abandon freedom of thought in democratic societies. Going against the opinion of
the majority is seen as an indirect claim to the superiority of one's own opinion, which is directly
contradictory to the principle of equality. This form of tyranny, therefore, can be seen as even
worse than past tyrannies which involved great physical coercion and brutality. In a powerful
passage in Chapter 7, Tocqueville states, "Formerly tyranny used the clumsy weapons of chains
and hangmen; nowadays even despotism, though it seemed to have nothing to learn, has been
perfected by civilization. . . . Under the absolute government of a single man, despotism, to reach
the soul, clumsily struck at the body, and the soul, escaping from such glows, rose gloriously
above it; but in democratic republics that is not at all how tyranny behaves; it leaves the body
alone and goes straight for the soul."
Two other side-effects of equality both of which also increase the likelihood of despotism are
individualism and materialism. As Tocqueville points out, "individualism is of democratic
origin, and threatens to grow as conditions get more equal." The reason for this phenomenon is
that equality tends to make people's interests focus in on themselves. There are no societal bonds
or duties as there are in an aristocracy which link people together and force them to realize their
dependence on one another. Individualism can contribute to the growth of despotism because if
citizens become too individualistic they will not bother to fulfill their civic duties or exercise
their freedom. Materialism results from a passion for equality because people think that they
ought to be able to have as much wealth as everyone else. Indirectly, materialism also comes
from the philosophical tendency fostered by democracies to disdain lofty ideas or thoughts of
eternity. The effect of materialism is that people may be so absorbed in their personal pursuit of
wealth that they neglect to use their political freedom. Further, people may actually willingly
abandon their freedom in order to have a benevolent despotism which can provide an orderly
society and ensure material prosperity.
Fortunately, however, Tocqueville does recognize the existence of institutions which can help to
preserve liberty even in the midst of these despotic tendencies. Constitutionally, the independent
judiciary, with the power of judicial review, is extremely important. Because it can proclaim
certain laws unconstitutional, the Supreme Court provides practically the only check on the
tyranny of the majority. Judges are appointed, not elected, and they serve life terms, giving them
a great deal of independence to make the decisions that they think best without needing to worry
excessively about public opinion. A related beneficial institution in the American system is the
jury. While juries may not always be the best means of attaining justice, they serve a very
positive political function of forcing the citizens to think about other people's affairs and
educating them in the use of their freedom. For these reasons, Tocqueville believes that the jury
system is "one of the most effective means of popular education" (Chapter 8). Much like the jury
system, the administrative decentralization which allows for local self-government is absolutely
crucial as a means to keep liberty alive by allowing the citizens to exercise it frequently. The
existence of local liberties is one of the most significant differences between America and
France. Tocqueville attributes the failure of the French Revolution mainly to the overwhelming
administrative centralization which took away the citizens' ability to exercise their freedom,
making them lose a taste for it and forget how to exercise it.
Non-institutional factors which help to maintain freedom in the United States are the right of
association, the freedom of the press, and most importantly religion. Associations are an
excellent tool to combat individualism and to allow people to exercise their freedom by taking a
part in politics. The press is intimately connected to associations in that associations need a
means of communicating with their members and also a means of spreading their message to the
public as a whole. In America, religion is much more than another type of association and is
highly beneficial both politically and societally. Religion teaches people how to use their
freedom well. Since the government provides no absolute standards, it is necessary that religion
provide some moral boundaries. As Tocqueville remarks, "Despotism may be able to do without
faith, but freedom cannot. . . . How could a society escape destruction if, when political ties are
relaxed, moral ties are not tightened? And what can be done with a people master of itself if it is
not subject to God?" (Chapter 9). By bringing people together in a community of common belief,
religion also combats individualism. Furthermore, religion is practically the only means of
counteracting the materialistic tendencies of democratic peoples. Religion turns peoples minds
beyond the physical, material aspects of life to the immortal and eternal. So strongly does
Tocqueville see the necessity for such a force in democratic society that he warns society's
leaders not to try to disturb the people's faith, for fear that "the soul may for a moment be found
empty of faith and love of physical pleasures come and spread and fill all."
One can clearly see that most, if not all, of the divergent strands of Democracy in America come
together when examining the relationship between freedom and equality in society. Above all,
Tocqueville has a passionate love for liberty and is concerned to point out the dangerous trends
that threaten to destroy it as well as the means by which it can be preserved. In the last few lines
of the book, Tocqueville writes, "The nations of our day cannot prevent conditions of equality
from spreading in their midst. But it depends upon themselves whether equality is to lead to
servitude or freedom, knowledge or barbarism, prosperity or wretchedness." Tocqueville's hope is that through the insights he has communicated in this work, humanity will be better able direct
themselves toward freedom, knowledge and prosperit
DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA
Democracy in America Summary
by Alexis de Tocqueville
Moschella, Melissa. *Democracy in America Summary*. GradeSaver, 03 March 2000 Web. 26
October 2012.
The project Tocqueville undertook in writing Democracy in America was a highly ambitious
one. Having seen the failed attempts at democratic government in his native France, he wanted to
study a stable and prosperous democracy to gain insights into how it worked. His studies had led
him to conclude that the movement toward democracy and equality of conditions while it had
progressed the farthest in America was a universal phenomenon and a permanent historical
tendency that could not be stopped. Since this democratic trend was inevitable, Tocqueville
wanted to analyze it in order to determine its strengths and dangers so that governments could be
formed to reinforce democracy's strengths while counteracting its weaknesses. Therefore, while
Democracy in America may at times seem to be a rather disorganized collection of observations
and thoughts on American democracy, it is possible to gain a coherent sense of the work as a
whole by looking at all of Tocqueville's various and sundry remarks through the lens of one
paramount theme: the preservation of liberty in the midst of a growing equality of conditions.
Volume One, the more optimistic half of the book, focuses mostly on the structure of
government and the institutions that help to maintain freedom in American society. Volume Two
focuses much more on individuals and the effects of the democratic mentality on the thoughts
and mores prevalent in society. Taking the work as a whole, one finds that main problems of a
democracy are the following: a disproportionately high portion of power in the legislative
branch, an abuse of or lack of love for freedom, an excessive drive for equality, individualism,
and materialism. The elements that Tocqueville believes can most successfully combat these
dangerous democratic tendencies are: an independent and influential judiciary, a strong executive
branch, local self-government, administrative de-centralization, religion, well-educated women,
freedom of association, and freedom of the press.

KARL MARX
Niccoló Machiavelli
Niccolo Machiavelli’s method to govern was very dubious when he approaches to any situation. His intention to keep the power by all means, guides him to uncertain results
One of the Machiavelli’s Rhetoric expression was the aphorism; for example” A Penny saved is a Penney earned or “There is no fool like an old fool. His characterization, as Italian statesman, political philosopher, and author demonstrate about him a unique quality as a prince. He always had in mind the meaning of war as profession and institution with a great discipline. For him a prince should be thoughtful and his word and living with integrity should be exemplary. Niccoló Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 1513, but it wasn't published until 1532, five years after his death

Niccolo Machiavelli
Niccolo Machiavelli's Political life
Full transcript