Machiavelli: The Elements of Power

Niccolo Machiavelli wrote his famous dissertation on power, The Prince, in 1517. His
thoughts on the rules of power encompass the struggles for every level of power, from the
proletariat struggling in the corporate world to strategies performed by the world leader
in the sixteenth century to now. Adolfe A. Berle wrote that The Prince is "the greatest
single study of power on record."(Berle,19)
The philosophies set in The Prince, known as Machiavellianism, have been viewed as
evil throughout the centuries, but as most business leaders and politicians agree
Machiavelli has only defined the physics of power ("Great Books" t.v.).
In fact he wrote The Prince as a guide book for his own prince, Lorenzo De Medici, to
promote himself into the political arena of Italy. He analyzed power and the way Italy
could gain enough to become its own state and keep control. His extensive explanations
were driven by his own fascination with power and his desire for an independent Italy.
Just like a guide book, The Prince goes directly to the unarguable axioms of power for
the leader to follow like a strategy. Machiavelli was only interested in directly discussing
the elements of power.
"...since it is my intention to write something of use..., I deem it is best to stick to
practical truth of things rather than to fancies. Many men have imagined republics and
principalities that never existed at all. Yet the way men live is so far removed from the
way they ought to live that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his
downfall rather than his preservation."(Donno, 7)
When Machiavelli mentioned "fancies", he was referring to the theories set prior to his
own. Theories which recognized men as good, thus able to be controlled by good. But in
this quote Machiavelli points out that men do not live in such a fashion. Therefore, those
acts which are "other than good" are necessary for acquisition and preservation of power
in society.
Machiavelli set the precedent for the cold and calculated regardless of the century they
live in. He discusses frankly, the necessity of cruel actions to keep power. He was in the
business of power preservation not piety. Those who desire power in any situation may
look to his strategies for solid aid.
"...he (the leader of the state) must stick to the good so long as he can, but, being
compelled be necessity, he must be ready to take the way of the evil."(Machiavelli, 63)
Thus the term Machiavelliamism is defined: "The political doctrine of Machiavelli,
which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit
are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power." This definition implies that in
the arena of power the end justifies the means. This is essentially the core of
Machiavelianism. The priority for the power holder is to keep the security of the state
regardless of the morality of the means.
In Machiavelli's own words: "In the actions of men... when their is no court of appeal one
judges by the result."
For the reason that his doctrine separated power from morals his theories were rebuked
by the Catholics and the Protestants for two hundred years (Berle,30). His ways of
acquiring power were definitely not paralleled to those of the Bible. Machiavelli was not
interested in what one do according to the Bible, but rather what one must do given the

true nature of circumstances. He sought the truth of keeping power in the context of a real
and sinful society; not the way the church would view society.
However Machiavelli did not believe in pursuing evil for evil's sake, rather when the only
way to keep power is to act evilly, one must. Good and evil are equal in the contest for
power.
So what circumstances call for amoral actions in our modern society? Henry Kissinger
said:
"There are some situations in which the more the survival is threatened the narrower the
margin of choice becomes, unless you say you would rather have your society destroyed
than to pursue marginal means."
Are there such threatening situations in the modern world that it is necessary to resort to
marginal means?
Henry Kissinger has been called the greatest diplomat of our time. He recognized the
need for separation of morals from the power struggle; the irrelevance of morality in
politics. For his theories he also been called the Machiavelli of the 20th century. Like a
true Machiavellian he, as Secretary of State under the Nixon administration,
systematically analyzed the struggle between the democracy of the United States and the
threatening communism of China and the Soviet Union. What is our objective? Our
means? What is the worst that can happen? What is the best?
Henry Kissinger asked himself these questions when he designed the policy of detente
with China and the Soviet Union. His objective: to contain the threatening communism.
Record of the report to China is cited in Kissinger's book, Diplomacy, quoted from the
Second Annual Report of The Nixon Papers:
"We are prepared to establish a dialogue with Peking. We cannot accept its ideological
precepts, or notion that Communist China must exercise hegemony over Asia. But neither
do we wish to impose on China an international position that denies its legitimate
national interest."
The United States stood to gain much. These legitimate national interests were to increase
trade and halt of the nuclear arms race. These goals were further pursued when President
Nixon visited Moscow, with the same intentions, for the signing of the Strategic Arms
Limitations Talks, S.A.L.T. (McClenaghan, 498).
In both instances, Henry Kissinger identified the objective and perceived strategic gain.
He delicately avoided the worst that could of happened. With his policy of detente the
potential for nuclear war was reversed to a harmony of two vast powers working
cooperatively for their interests. The United States was no longer blinded by its precepts
that communism is evil, rather by the idea that these two countries great powers needed
to deal with each other in a mutually beneficial way.
If these steps to cooperate with these communist super powers the outcome could have
been war. In words of Machiavelli:
"By making provision is advance, princes may easily avoid such difficulties; but if they
wait until they are at hand, the medicine will not be in time, for by then the malady will
have grown incurable."
As in world politics, the theories of Niccolo Machiavelli have their place in the power
strategies of our own politicians. If Henry Kissinger was a modern Machiavelli, was

President Richard Nixon a modern Prince? Niccolo Machiavelli was the first to describe
the political actor. When President Nixon arranged the Watergate Scandal in 1973, as it
came to be called, did the public have an inclination that their leader as capable of such
unethical means? Nixon, under the illusion that his campaign was in danger, groped for
power in the only way he saw fit, cheating. In hindsight, historians agree that Nixon
would have won by a landslide anyway.
Nixon felt compelled to cheat because he had lost so many times. He felt that the
American people hated him. After he lost the Presidency to John F. Kennedy, he swore;
he developed an intoleration of losing and sore jealousy of JFK. The American people
always loved him he thought .
Nixon was right about Kennedy. Surely, the greatest political actor of the twentieth
century was President Kennedy. His handsome face and beautiful wife gave the illusion
of a modern day Camelot. As the movie "Naked Washington" suggested, Kennedy
"seduced the media" and thus American public with his perfect image. "For the mob is
always impressed by appearances and by results, and the world is composed of the mob."
He always appeared to have the "soul of clemency, faithfulness, frankness, humanity, and
religion." (Both quotations from the Chapter of The Prince: In what way Princes Should
Keep their Words)
Did Kennedy really have the qualities that the public thought he had, or unlike Nixon was
he just able to impress the mob with these qualities?
Looking back further in history, what caused President Harry Truman to drop the atomic
bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The casualties reached approximately 120,000 with
the extending effects of radiation. To quote the Machiavellian Henry Kissinger, was the
survival of the United States so threatened that the use of such marginal means was
necessary? How many American lives did they save because the war was ended by this
extreme means?
It has been stated that the strategies of Machiavelli show no prejudices for good or evil
means. They have disregard for the principles establishing the power structure. President
Truman used Machiavellian principles to support democracy but others have used his
tactics for other ideals.
Lenin used Machiavellian tactics for a communist revolution, for Machiavellian was not
only interested in the survival of a principality but the way the principality acquired its
power. The communist revolution led by Lenin is a modern example of the destruction of
an old principality to a new. Machiaviavelli outlines the unfailing process to be followed
for a modern revolution. As outlined in chapters VI-IX: VI-Concerning New
Principalities acquired by one's own arms and ability, VII-Conserning those who become
Princes by Evil Means, IX-Concerning Civil Principality, a leader guiding his fellow
citizens as a citizen must stamp out the old principality, establish new government,
appoint new officials, and instill respect and gradually fear for the principal leadership.
Were these not the blue prints for the Russian revolutionary followed by Lenin? After he
became leader of the Bolsheviks, he led them in a successful revolution. With his
communist ideals pushing them, the Bolsheviks threw out the Provisional Government at

the Winter Palace, a symbol of the old principality. Once the complete destruction of the
old principality was over, Lenin appointed a new hierarchic system. He established
himself as head of that system and developed a reputation of cruelty (Greenberg, 17).
Another of the many Machiavellian principals that Lenin followed was this:
"I (Machiavelli) conclude that since men love as they themselves determine but fear as
their ruler determines, a wise prince must rely upon what he and not others control."
Destroy old principals, appoint new officials, establish a respected leadership. . . Could
these be the same blue prints for other aspects of the human power struggle? Every four
years in the United States a version of this change of power takes place on a smaller
scale. With the change of presidents, an entirely new administration is established. If the
elections change the shift of power of president across party lines, an even more drastic
transformation takes place.
Moreover, this change of principalities happens almost daily in the corporate world. With
the leadership of new management, the entire policy system may change as well as the
product and the image.
Machiavelli is not restricted to politics. His physics of power cross over into all arenas.
As Adolfe A. Berle wrote:
"The head of a big manufacturing corporation . . ., within area of his capacity to make
decisions and give orders, is though less spectacularly, in the same position as a head of
government . . . [though the] . . .scope of power is tiny compared the same rules apply."
These rules are the consistency of The Prince used by politicians and businessman alike.
As a whole, the strategies of Machiavelli are even more applicable to the world of
business than to the present day world of politics. Like the prince, the business person
regards his own welfare more greedily than any of the present day politicians because the
politician's power is given to him by a vote and the business person's power are given to
him by the dollar.
The executive knows that the best way to self preservation is through power by the
people by manipulating their passions. A company's system of appealing to the customer's
trust and loyalty, in turn earning their money, puts an executive prince at the head of a
corporate kingdom.
For the executive Machiavelli has the ultimate advice:
"If he must harm a colony (take over a new company): harm the poor and dispersed."
"If he aquires a state (markets a product) he should absorb the surrounding(companies
marketing this same product) and identify the enemies.
"Injuries (raising the price) should be performed all at once: so resentment does not
develop, favors (deals, entertaining advertising, grants, charitable works) should be
bestowed little by little."
"Whoever desires to found a state (company) and gives it laws, must start with assuming
that all men (other executives, share holders etc.) are bad and ever ready to display their
vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it."
"A prince should have no objective but war." (to beat the competition)
" A prince (executive) who is not wise himself cannot take wise (financial)advice."
"Men will succeed as long as method and fortune are in harmony."

Throughout history there have been businessmen who have succeeded to becoming a
tycoon by these principals of The Prince. One such individual was Henry Ford. His
company "ranks as one of the giants of the American industry."(World Book, 382)
Starting from only ability Mr. Ford built himself an economic empire. To appeal to the
customers pocket book he invented the assembly line to make his "Model T" available to
families with all incomes. In addition to the savings by the assembly line, he employed
other pioneering techniques that made the price of Ford in 1913 at $550 to $290 in 1924.
This in turn meant the selling of more cars and more power for Henry Ford. His power is
proof that the possession of fortune is as effective as the possession of ability as described
in Chapter VI of The Prince. Not only did he have ability to build irresistible autos but
also to manage the company to total stability.
For not only was his goodness to his customers awarded with more power, so was he
goodness to his employees. The regulations for his employees invaded every avenue of
their lives to ensure to the utmost morality of his workers. Their compliance to his rules
resulted in his voluntary raise of the minimum wage for men over twenty. His need to
have control over is company resulted in is extreme distaste for unions. On several
occasions, he fought with the United Auto Workers Union. His voluntary concession of
the raising of the minimum wage inhibited the effectiveness of the U.A.W. following yet
another Machiavellian principle, one that later Nixon practiced: " By making provision in
advance, the princes easily avoid such difficulties: but if they wait until they are near at
hand, the medicine will not be in time, for by then the malady will have become
incurable."
As a man Henry Ford appeared, like Kennedy to have the soul of clemency and
goodness. He surely helped his public image with his Museum or his Ford Foundation.
The latter charity giving grants to several important causes, one of which was his human
rights and justice program. Upon study of Henry Ford, one might remark on the irony of
this program. Ford was an outspoken anti-Semitic, surprising to most because the
companies well-censored image.
In conclusion all human struggles boil down to the struggle for power. It is only the
basics of social Darwinism. Machiavellian principals are exploited on other levels than
those first intended by the author for their universal truth. His theories of power have
transcended the political arena and revealed the basic functions of the human struggle for
power. In the same way the modern governmental principalities understand this, the 20th
century corporate tycoon down to the struggling proletariat, understand Machiavellian
principles. For if they do not and hope to succeed, they will be compelled to learn : for
who can defy physics?
Machiavelli's greatest insight was this:
"For the manner in which men live is so far removed from the way in which men ought to
live, that he who leaves the common course for that which he ought to follow will find
that it leads him to ruin rather than to safety. For a man who, in all respects, will carry out

only his professions of good, will be apt to be ruined among so many that are evil. A
prince therefore who desires to maintain himself must learn not always to be good..."