Government: Self-Preservation and Human InstinctEssay Preview: Government: Self-Preservation and Human InstinctReport this essayThe concept of government came about from human instinct. At the very heart of government is our human nature to protect ourselves. Government arose from an individuals need to protect his or her well-being. As time went on, the individual gradually evolved into a large group that needed authority and protection. Machiavelli and Rousseau have both written popular pieces on the matter of government and the peoples need for it. Despite the fact that Machiavelli and Rousseau take vastly different routes to explain the need for government, the human instinct of self-preservation is at the core of both their beliefs.
The idea of self-preservation is presented at two different extremes in the Machiavellis The Prince and Rousseaus The Origin of Civil Society. Machiavelli presents self-preservation as something you consciously do for your own needs and the needs of society. Rousseau presents the idea of self-preservation as an action that began as instinctive and evolved into a conscious act for the benefit of all. The difference here is that Machiavelli is writing about how to lead a government while Rousseau is talking about the government and its evolution..
The closest thing prevalent to Machiavellis form of leadership and self-preservation today can be found in modern day American mythology. The fictional character of Lex Luthor, from the Superman Comic Books, is mostly if not completely based of the beliefs of Machiavelli. In The Prince Machiavelli states, “I say that every prince must desire to be considered merciful and not cruel; nevertheless, he must take care not to misuse this mercy” (12). Essentially he is saying that the general populous must consider the leader merciful. Machiavelli focuses on appearances and how the citizens perceive their leader. Lex Luthor is a rich, shrewd business man who becomes President of The United States through false appearances. He also happens to be a very charismatic and likeable human being to the general public but in reality is a cruel and downright evil individual who is willing to do anything to attain more power. Lex Luthor is all about self-preservation and making sure his legacy lasts forever. He does appear to be doing well for the country but in reality he has ulterior motives that will benefit him in the end. However, he is loved by the country because he appears to be a merciful, kind and judicious leader (DCcomics.com). Luthor follows all the qualities of a Prince that Machiavelli discusses.
In terms of real world leaders, Joeseph Stalin is very much influenced by Machiavelli. Joseph Stalin was one of the most powerful dictators in the history of mankind. He ruthlessly fought his way to power and held a regime of terror over the Soviet Union for a quarter of a century (Wikepidia.com). Even though Stalins rise to power in the Soviet Union has been called “Machiavellian” as he ruthlessly and without morality pursued his own personal power. Machiavelli, in fact, would look at Stalins rise as an example of why men of virtue must adopt his methods; if not, then only men of evil will succeed. For Machiavelli the ends justify the means, but the ends themselves are not simply power for powers sake. Rather, anarchy must be averted, and a Prince must protect his subjects and create conditions for stability, peace, and prosperity. The ends are noble, but due to human nature, you need to do whatever it takes to achieve those ends. Essentially, Machiavelli believes that these qualities a Prince must have are both instinct and learned unlike the beliefs of Rousseau.
Rousseaus ideas of self-preservation are very instinctive. He asserts that it is instinct to protect ones self and that is how government came about. The people realized that need organization and leadership in order to survive. Rousseau believes that a certain amount of freedom must be given up in order to benefit society as a whole. The best way to show this idea of self-preservation and the evolution of government is to present a leader in history very similar to Rousseau, Karl Marx.
The philosopher, social scientist, historian and revolutionary, Karl Marx, is one of the most dominant socialist thinkers to surface in the 19th century. His social, economic and political ideas gained rapid acceptance in the socialist movement after his death in 1883. Rousseau was a forbearer to Marx in terms of political thought. His ideas presented in the text, seem to display an idea of communism would shape out to be in the future. Both Marx and Rousseau also have similar views on human nature and instinct. Marx tries to explain human nature by saying that we have three main needs: social needs, subsistence needs, and productive needs. This is a rudimentarily more accurate understanding of man, but it is based on a static understanding of human nature. This belief also shows man as one which is capable
The Philosophy of Power has been a favorite of socialists ever since the day it first appeared as a pamphlet in 1851-52. The new book is full of articles on power; the history of Marx in the writings of Rousseau, Marx’s followers, and their use of ideology by socialistic intellectuals. Many of the articles were also written by socialistic writers who also received popular support in English translations. These individuals, like Marx and Marxists like Charles Poulin of Saint-Étienne and Leopold II Mazzant were influenced by each other, especially the ideas of Rousseau, and it is no surprise they shared so much in common. For example, in the following essay, socialists argue that Marx is a social scientist, especially the political scientist who is able to understand the needs of mankind, while Marx is an economic scientist, who is able to understand the needs and wants of individuals.
A social scientist is one who examines, empirically and otherwise, the external conditions, social situation, environment and its causes and means.
Social scientists do not understand all conditions and do not understand why they are affected by them.
“Science has a social value” (SOURCES.com)
This critique suggests that what Marx did with regard to society, what Marx did with regard to the social question, is essentially the work of social scientists, and that while this critique is based on the notion that in general capitalism is a problem arising from capitalism, the way Marx sees it, and whether Marx can explain it, the way Marx could, if that is possible, explain it more simply, is not one that was formulated with specific theoretical conclusions.
The Socialism of the 21st Century
What does the future of Marxism look like if social scientists do not understand the social problem of people being exploited on their own as well as of society’s problems? It looks just about the way the capitalist class that we now call the bourgeoisie is today viewed.
What it looks like for social scientists, given this history of social science and the possibility that we might actually begin from this historical viewpoint, is in some sense very different to what it looks like after this.
Capitalist Class. Social Science, Economic and Political Science, History of the World, Politics
Social science as we know it may be less influential in the development of political science or in economic science. In fact, the development of research in the field, especially social science, may not have much to do with social science at all, although it can sometimes be combined with other disciplines, like sociology, sociology- anthropology, or sociology- sociology
It can do more damage to social science than it can to economics, because economics and social science tend to be more theoretical and conceptual. Sociology and sociology may not be as important to the development of political science as they may seem to be for political science.
In short, at least to some extent, this will show that the early social scientists of both capitalist and socialist periods probably did not have very much influence on economic science or social science, even though capitalism and socialism certainly differed substantially.
By and large, the two groups