Customer Reviews

The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

It is scandalous that this book should be out of print, for it is without a doubt the best primer on political science ever written. If you are going to read only one book on politics, this should be it. Burnham is no ideologue with an axe to grind. He merely seeks to describe how politics works in the real world of fact. In pursuit of this aim, he discusses five of the most scientifically rigorous of all political thinkers: Machiavelli, Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, Robert Michels, and Georges Sorel. Together, these thinkers represent, according to Burnham, the Machiavellian tradition in political thought. Machiavellians, Burnham tells us, regard politics as a science devoted to describing facts as they really are, not as one may wish them to be.

In a certain sense, I can understand why this book is out of print. Realism in politics is hardly popular. What most people seek for in political theory is not reality but a rationalization for their own wishful thinking.

... Georges Sorel would be rather surprised to hear himself called a "conservative," as he was actually a radical left-wing syndicalist who advocated the use of violence to bring down capitalism, a fact to which Burnham alludes. Moreover, far from agreeing with Dante, Burnham makes mincemeat out of him.

The "Machiavellian" writers Burnham discusses span a rather diverse spectrum of views (with Machiavelli and Pareto the only ones who could be called "conservative" in any real sense). What they have in common is an objective, scientific approach to politics that avoids allowing wishful thinking, or ideas about what ought to be, to impede their discernment of what is.

I disagreed with Burnham's tendency to dismiss religious ideas as inherently irrationalist. Also, his clarification in response to Machiavelli's reputation ignores the fact that Machiavelli did, after all, offer some amoral advice, not just non-moral analysis. While some of Burnhams predictions proved correct only in the short run, his method contains within itself the the capacity for self-correction, which is part of the whole point of the book.

This book remains a must-read for all who seek to develop a scientific understanding of politics, regardless of their philosophical persuasion.

One reviewer stated the fact that James Burnham's book titled THE MACHIAVELLIANS: DEFENDERS went out of print was a shame. Indeed, the fact that this book did go out of print is sad, and this reveals that shallowness of contemporary tastes. This book should be required reading for any serious student of history and political thought.

Burnham began his study with Dante (1265-1321) who was supposedly a "modern" man when in fact he was a foolish reactionary. Dante sided with feudal Germans against his fellow Italians were emerging as tradesmen, merchants, and perhaps the first capitalists. The point of this chapter reveals the futility of attempting to maintain a political and economic system that simply cannot be maintained.

Burnham's section on Machiavelli (1469-1527) is very instructive regarding Machiavelli's thinking and "moderns" who have condemned him. Machiavelli wrote THE PRINCE as a warning of how political power actually works as opposed to idealistic nonsensicle glosses of how many hopes the system works. Burnham reveals that Machiavelli warned readers that liberty does not exist because of paper constitutions or pious political platitudes. Freedom exists that there is power vs power, and the resulting compromises help liberty to emerge as a fringe benefit. Burnham warns that calls for political unity or often calls for political oppression and tyranny. Machiavelli has be a political disapproval work among the British. The reason is that Machiavelli exposed hyporcrisy platitudes for what they are, and one of Britain's major exports has been hyprocrisy.

Burnham's treatment of Mosca (1858-1941) and Parato (1841-1923) is instructive in diagnosing the political approval work "democracy." Burnham assesses Mosca's disdain of democracy and agrees that this political approval word means nothing and is a convenient disguise to conceal desires for power and possible criminality. Mosca implied that "elites" hold or take political power in spite of "democracy." Parato bluntly states that elites are in charge of every revolution including Communist revolutions in the name of the proletariat. One commentary wrote that, in effect, Parato's views caused political conseternation especially on part of Lenin.

While Mosca and Parato dealt with elites and power, Sorel (1847-1922)dealt with political violence. Sorel did not so much preach violence as he argued that violence was a part of political reality. Burnham mentions that Sorel argued that working classes were kept in their place by appeals to peace and and end to labor strife. Yet, if the working classes did not cooperate, they were subjected to violence, and the working classes could "turn the table" by their acts of strikes and violence.

Burnham's examination of Michels (1876-1936) is well worth reading. Burnham mentions that the days of liberalism and democracy may be numbered. During and after World War I, there pious calls for "democracy." Michels' response was in effect Democracy for what? In other words if the old political labels and systems were no longer workable, there was no need to hold onto a political system that did not solve serious problems. One could ask to what purpose should democracy be upheld when there was no benefit to a bad, deceptive system.

This reviewer considers THE MACHIAVELLIANS: THE DEFENDERS OF FREEDOM Burnham's best book. Burnham later books were not as thoughtful particularly when he drifted in flights of anti-communism. In order to appreciate Burnham's better writing, one should read this book. Anyone who suffers from political naivete would be cured after a careful reading THE MACHIAVELLIANS: THE DEFENDERS OF FREEDOM.

Burnham's "The Machiavellians" is really one of those little books that punches well above it's weight. It summarises some broad themes in political philosophy and history and provides a thoughtful synthesis. It is both a 'reference book' of sorts and a narrative.

Some comments have been raised that maybe Burnham downplayed his intellectual debt to the Polish leftist Jan Waclaw Machajski and the American 'fascist' Lawrence Dennis. Both made thoroughly 'machiavellian' critics of communist and other movements of the early 20th century, before Burnham, and Burnham would have been familiar with their work. This debate may seem a little arcane but it does reflect the intellectual forment of 1930s America.

Burnham sees his collection of "machiavellian thinkers" as forerunners of his own "managerial revolution" ideas. Before his later decades as one of the editorial team of William F Buckley's "National Review", James Burnham, was at one time America's leading Trotskyite theoretician. He even rushed to Trotsky's death bed in Mexico following the Soviets' assasination of their former military leader.

Burnham de-marxified (or more exactly de-marxist-leninist-ised) the Trotskyite critique of the Stalinist Soviet Union and broadened it into a genuine revision and amendment of marxism. In Burnham's analysis, the bourgeoisie would be replaced, not by the proletariat, but by the Managerial class of managers, bureaucrats, experts etc. Penned in the late 1930s, Burnham saw this class as already having come to power in Germany, (Soviet) Russia and (New Deal) America.

Burnham's "Managerial Revolution" in it's day was probably considered his most important, much debated and influential book. Today it's thesis has been so thoroughly absorbed that his analysis, once seen as radical and non-conformist, is now seen as such a commonplace and mundane observation that "everyone knows it". But the obvious was not always obvious. "Managerial Revolution" is thus delegated today to gather dust. "The Machiavellians" in contrast is perhaps a timeless book and, who knows, may ultimatelty be considered Burnham's genuine classic.

"The Machiavellians" is not just a readable survey and synopsis of the ideas of several great political philosophers, it also describes the lessons Burnham believed needed to be assimilated if liberty and human dignity are to survive in an era of great central power.

Like others here, I feel it's a crime that this book is out of print. (Although it's readily available on Audio.) It is perhaps the best and most cogent analysis of the politics of power yet written, and it's from a man who was an ardent Trotskyite who converted.

This book defines political science. Not political philosophy. But political science, as the observations of what men do, not what we wish they would do.

It's a must-read.

This book is an important historical document which marked the initial stage of adoption by the Republican Party of Trotskyites political methods, the stage at which the party of Abraham Lincoln slided into a strange mixture of neo-Trotskyism and "social Darwinism". The latter absolutize "struggle for existence" as a zero sum game. Social Darwinism is being used to justify social policies which make life of the common folk miserable and dramatically increases the inequality in the society, indirectly affecting its stability (cuckoo egg approach).

The author demonstrates an unshakable belief in the rule of oligarchy as a substitute of his former Trotskyite believe in the revolutionary mission of proletariat. (Former) Comrade Burnham also rejects Christianity and the Christian ethics, replacing it with a mixture of Marxist ethics (which puts forward loyalty to the class and its ideology first) with the variation of Nitschean's "ubermensch" ethics.

The most interesting are the first two chapters, especially the second. In the latter the author injects his Trotskyite views and ideas into the framework of Machiavelli thought to such an extent that I am not sure Niccolò Machiavelli would recognize his teaching. Masked by obvious talent of Burnham as a writer, the chapter looks more as an attempt to purge himself of the misunderstood Marxism of his earlier years, then the real analysis of the Machiavelli as a social philosopher.

The Machiavellians "the end justifies the means" approach is more acceptable if the "end" is some noble goal, not a petty goal of preservation of the status of the current elite. In Burnham book it is unclear why the replacement of (unrealistic) Marxist goal of the social transformation of capitalism to communism and the idea that "proletariat" as a rising social class that is predestined to became a dominant in a new communist society to the defence of status quo and the current elite is worth the effort. What is so good in belief that the oligarchic rule is the natural, inescapable human condition, French, Russian and other revolutions be damned. It's pretty funny how well slightly modified Trotskyism with the "liberation of markets" instead of "liberation of proletariat" fits as an ideology the ruling elite and how Trotskyite mentality actually pretty aptly describes current republican policy in the USA with the "export of democracy" instead of "export of revolution".

Like all Trotskyites Burnham accepts the notion of a class war. The minor difference that after his conversion he considers that it should be handled with subtlety and deceit and instead of a fight against oppression it became a fight to maintain existing inequalities or, better, restore lost ones for the current elite.

Myh impression is that Burnham projects national socialist interpretation of Nitschean's views into Machiavelli's teaching. Simplifying we can state that humanity is forever divided into the elite (Nordic folks, ubermensch) and under-humans. The latter are only worth minimal subsistence and if and when adequately brainwashed are also useful as a cannon fodder. They just should be prevented from uprising that can shake the existing order. The elite like National Socialist Party stands "above the herd" and members of the elite should be discouraged from following "the herd" or accepting the values of society unquestionably. Amorality and betrayals are the natural way the elite operates and should be accepted as such. He accepts the possibility (and desirability) of moving gifted psychopaths from lower classes into the elite.

Are you impressed with this perspective or social-economic doctrine? I am not. As for a political textbook, the book is grossly overrated. This divorce of politics and ethics that Burnham recommends is a double edge sword. What Burnham never managed to understand is that trust is like air or sex. You don't realize how much you need it until you don't have it. And trust is precisely what can destroy openly Machiavellian politicians or businessmen rather quickly. The recent examples of Machiavellian media mogul Rupert Murdoch's empire troubles in Great Britain and decline of neocons after engaging the USA in Iraq war are pretty illustrative. Where are those heroes of pre-Iraq days like Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Condoiliza Rice, Richard Perle, Scooter Libby and others, who lies the country into the war?

The key element of politics is the sense of measure and the author is badly lacking this understanding. Talleyrand gave apt recommendation to diplomats which is equally applicable to the aspiring politicians: first and foremost, not too much zeal. And that is applicable to dirty/covert dealings and betrayals. They can and are used successfully, probably more successfully on national level then on lower political and business levels, but such success comes with a price, the price of loyalty. In ancient world loss of loyalty actually meant grave and direct threat for the life of the ruler. Modern world is more forgiving but ostracism works sometimes pretty effectively too. Like unforgettable George W Bush quipped "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

This overvaluation of dirty political tricks including betrayals as a way of political life might partially explained why the author lived such a miserable life: he first moved from a typical establishment guy to Trotskyites, then from enthusiastic Trotskyite (who corresponded directly with Leon Trotsky) to admirer of national socialism, then he became an obsessive anti-communist who served as a lap dog of Senator Joseph McCarthy. That's not a political career to admire or emulate. In a way minimization of betrayals is what distinguishes a gifted politician from a mediocre one (just look at the most recent adventures of Mayberry Machiavellis such as Bush II, Karl Rove, and Obama ;-)

This is a hateful, intellectually feeble book, that now reads like it's a thousand years old. Its thrust is this: "to challenge egalitarian political theory and show the persistence and inevitability of elite rule, even in an age of equality." In short, it has a fascistic outlook. Tellingly, it was widely distributed by the CIA, and Burnham became a key ideological proponent of the overthrow of the democratically-elected regime of Mohammed Mosaddegh in Iran in favor of a brutal US-installed dictatorship led by the Shah. Burnham was a criminal as this shameful book is a clear expression of his putrid world view.

I think it's interesting that the above reviewer feels that Burnham has no axe to grind. A quick review of most of Burnham's other works will quickly reveal his personal philosophy. This book is a very good review of several politically-conservative writers (Dante, Machiavelli, Mosca, Sorel, Michels, and Pareto), and yes, several of them are political scientists. Most of the recent writers do attempt to be objective, but there are several prominent liberal political scientists who can back their work with numbers, as well.

This is a good review of the beforementioned writers' works. It can be dry and dull at times, but it is a work of philosophy and occasionally statistical science, so this is to be expected. Where the book begins to break down is in the last section, where Burnham's views begin to be expressed in his own words. He begins a tirade against anyone who doesn't agree with his opinions, and declares the triumph of Machiavellism (one gets the feeling that he considers himself a Machiavellian, and has grouped in with himself any writer whose views he happens to agree with; there is not necessarily much cohesion between the various writers included) much the way a schoolboy would declare himself "king of the mountain". His "science" is rarely backed up, and his "philosophy" is poorly thought out. That said, I happen to agree with the worldview that most of these writers share, and they are vigorous scholars. This book is definitely worth reading if you are interested in conservative political philosophy, or are interested in the writing of one of more of the writers mentioned.