The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli

For full disclosure, although I am not sure what it says about me, out of all of the books I have and will review, The Prince by Machiavelli is my favorite. It is difficult to explain how pivotal this book has been in developing the Western World. I have a brief explanation in my Primer on the Western World article, which you can read here. If you are looking for a modern equivalent to the impact of this book, the closest would be Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky. With that in mind, let’s continue.

Machiavelli explains early on that dynasties are always durable and not easily overthrown. Whenever there is a new Prince, who is not cut from the same cloth as the ruling elite, difficulties abound. Therefore, marriage into dynasties is most suited, and after a couple of generations, the sovereign power of the family will essentially be absolute.

Machiavelli introduced what I like to call the Conquering Trivium, which is the steps essential to a state's takeover. These steps include:

• Punish the delinquents

• Clear suspects

• Strengthen yourself in the weakest places

Machiavelli continues by elucidating that cultures similar to yours are more straightforward to conquer, and it is crucial to the Prince to destroy the established order, not the people’s graces. While conquering, Machiavelli explains how much punishment the Prince must cudgel against his enemies:

“The injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.”

Machiavelli also recommends that the Prince must champion the meek to gain renown, which, as Gibbon wrote of Caesar and Marius:

“By declaring themselves the protectors of the people, Marius and Caesar had subverted the Constitution of their country.”

Machiavelli warns about avoiding five pivotal errors one should avoid in their conquest:

• Destroying minor powers

• Increasing strength of a major power

• Bringing in a foreign power

• Not settling the country

• Not sending colonies

He continues by explaining the three ways to take over a free city:

• Destroy them

• Reside there

• Obtain tribute from an oligarchy loyal to you

In controlling a free city, however, Machiavelli warns that the only guaranteed method of controlling them is to destroy them.

Machiavelli ensures that rewarding supporters can buy initial good graces but warns that ruling through magistrates ensures division in the long term. He explains that the people must depend on their prince, who can only grant renown. The Prince must ensure that he has the people's good graces, and as long as he has this, a Prince need not worry about conspiracies to oust him.

When it concerns liberality, the Prince must be loyal to someone else’s resources to keep his strength while pulling resources from others. To go further, men typically have more concerns with private affairs than the country. As Machiavelli explains:

“When neither their property nor their honor is touched, the majority of men live content…”

Machiavelli continues by telling the Prince that conspiracy requires hatred. Therefore, the Prince must always give good news himself. In a bid to deception, Machiavelli continues by telling the reader:

“...a wise prince…ought with craft to foster some animosity against himself, so that, having crushed it, his renown may rise higher.”

Machiavelli explains that power increases through allies, so a wise ruler MUST take sides. The Prince must take sides. The following table properly explains his thoughts on how to win through a coalition.

Scenario 1: You - 20%, Enemy - 40%

Scenario 2: You + Allies - 60%, Enemy - 40%

In short, some hailed Machiavelli's The Prince as the first political scientist. Understanding Machiavelli will help a reader better understand the world's woes.

The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin

Those who withhold capital constantly reduce the output by restraining production.[1]

The rich limit the output of production to increase profits via inflation. Labor is wasted on vanity projects, and factories remain idle, with millions of people desiring work but finding none. These problems cannot be cured by legislation but through social revolution. Such thinking coincides with Marx and Engles; where they discuss that, for the first time in mankind's history, there is still poverty while overproduction exists.[2] Vladimir Lenin went one step further by declaring that the State was primarily founded to keep class struggle in check, which morphed into the State controlling and enslaving the lower classes of society. This state machine, ever-expanding, serves only its interests.[3]

Through this line of thinking, Kropotkin and Lenin conclude that anarchy leads to Communism and vice versa. Societies based on Individualism are compelled towards Communism because both attempts to fight against the State through capital. Commodities are evidence of Socialist ideals. The ideal Communism is Anarchist Communism – a society without a State. Kropotkin explains that:

In Europe, in 1871, the proletariat did not constitute the majority of the people in any country on the Continent. A "people's" revolution, one actually sweeping the majority into its steam, could be such only if it embraced both the proletariat and the peasants. These two classes then constituted the "people". These two classed are united by the fact that the "bureaucratic-military state machine" oppresses, crushes, exploits them. To smash this machine, to break it up, is truly in the interest of the "people", of their majority, of the workers and most of the peasants, is "the precondition" for a free alliance of the poor peasant and the proletarians, whereas without such an alliance democracy is unstable and socialist transformation is impossible.[4]

Here, Kropotkin lays out the true enemy of the people: the corrupt ruling class and their laws corrupting society. Kropotkin furthers his analysis of the evils of the State through the reduction of wages, equalizing the entirety of the country, and making organs devised for control unnecessary.[5]

However, Kropotkin seems to contradict himself. He proclaims that if one announces "Bread for all," the revolution will prosper. The only practical solution is a robust and centralized government or Anarchist Communism. Order must be maintained at all costs. His argument comes from the idea that it is man's right to have bread, and whoever establishes this as a human right will succeed.[6] To accomplish this feat, however, representatives of Collectivism must be appointed to ensure equality for all.[7]

Man is not satisfied with gleaning only what is needed to survive. He requires luxury, particularly those developed in a Collectivist environment. Kropotkin proclaims that leisure must become the supreme aim after the bread has been secured.[8] Such thinking was parodied in House Resolution 109, the infamous "Green New Deal" proposed by New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In the bill, Cortez requests to be placed into law guarantees on:

Ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies: and providing all people of the United States with –

i)             High-quality health care;

ii)            Affordable, safe, and adequate housing;

iii)           Economic security; and

iv)           Clean water, clean air healty and affordable food, and access to nature.[9]

The previous demonstrates that Kropotkin's thoughts on societal justice is still being theorized, and solutions are coming from his ideas to this day.

Kropotkin proclaims that agreeable work extends to the home. Women are not the brood-mares of the State. Kropotkin continues by saying that there is an ever-enlarging number of women who desire to go into the arts, politics, literature, and the workforce. While Kropotkin admits there are a few women willing to submit to what he dubs "apron-slavery," he proposes that machinery will one day take over women's work in the household. Therefore, it will be more suitable for women to work outside the house.[10]

Kropotkin explains that one's labor is not dependent of their profession. Poverty created Capitalism, and Capitalism created inequality. He goes against the idea of rent through explaining:

As long as labour-notes can be exchanged for Jewels or carriages, the owner of the house will willingly accept them for rent.[11]

Kropotkin concludes his book by stating that Capitalists undermine Collectivists by Colonialization and that trade encourages decentralization.

Overall, Kropotkin's book is an important one. A wiser man than either Marx or Engles, Kropotkin gets to the root of the issue for Collectivists: the system which causes inequality in the first place. Since trade is determined through funds and exchange of goods, those without anything valuable to trade will be caught into an interesting Catch-22. If the peasantry are without money, they cannot afford to live; if they cannot afford to live, that is due to peasants not being paid enough money to do so! However, Kropotkin assumes that robust and centralized governance will be impregnable to selfishness, that the rich only get richer by stealing and withholding wealth from the poor, and that the ultimate aim in life is leisure. It is here that Kropotkin no longer makes any sense. If all there is to life is leisure, then why would anyone do any work for anything ever? It would stand to reason that anything outside of pleasure would be a waste of time. Productivity, self-actualization, and art creation would serve no purpose without capital. Kropotkin's flaw in his perspective continues to be peddled by people today, primarily due to greed, which is ultimately the problem with Collectivism. No matter how much or little someone has, they will always want more. It is Liberality, not Capitalism, that breeds contempt.

[1] Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread (Columbia: Independent Press, 2021), 19.

[2] Karl Marx and Frederick Engles, The Communist Manifesto (New York: International Publishers, 1948), 30-31.

[3] Vladimir Lenin, State and Revolution (The Leftist Public Domain, 2019), 9-11.

[4] Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, 32.

[5] Ibid, 35.

[6] Ibid, 52.

[7] Ibid, 56.

[8] Ibid, 93.

[9] Congress.gov. "H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal." February 12, 2019. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109.

[10] Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, 108-109.

[11] Ibid, 142.

State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin

The means of production are no longer the private property of individuals. The means of production belong to the whole of society. - Lenin

Written in 1917, Lenin’s State and Revolution describes the role of the state, and the means to overthrow bourgeois rule. By Lenin’s observations, the ruling class maintained their power through the oppression of the proletariat. By this exploitation, individuals were utilized to produce excess, which would be sold to the global market, leaving the worker with barely enough resources to survive. By harrying workers with longer hours and less pay, the bourgeois maintained their dominance. Instead of allocating the wealth, the opulent kept all but the table scraps. Instead of allowing citizens to keep their grain, work in meaningful occupations for themselves, and make available a society which exists outside of Capitalist wealth, the bourgeois insisted upon ability to work being the most important concept within culture. By downplaying the magnitude of individual kith and kin’s needs, the collective wealthy remained in power. Lenin would agree with the perception that both demons and humans are willing to perpetrate atrocities for their own profit. Lenin ensured the people that, if they rose against the oppressive bourgeois, the proletariat could, one day, erect a utopia. Instead of division through ability, communal life would be the necessity.

Lenin’s thought on government was that the State was principally founded to keep class struggle in check, which morphed into the State domineering, and eventually, enslaving the lower-classes of society. Lenin further claimed that the State machine is ever-expanding, filled with corruption, only serving its own interests.[1] Sentiments of this kind were shared by Peter Kropotkin, who contended that the decadent rich limit the output of production to increase profits via inflation. Labor is wasted on vanity projects while factories remain idle, with millions of people desiring work, but finding none.[2] Both of these men agreed that such issues could not be solved through legislation, but rather through a social revolution, as the state operated utilizing only mala fide means.

            Lenin makes the argument that “true” Marxism is not about class struggle, but about the destruction of class entirely. Such a society, he claims, can only be erected through the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.[3] Marx defines this change as Feudal Socialism, where the proletariat retorts and assumes governance.[4] Both men agreed upon the concept of the destruction of class entirely, though Lenin differed with Marx in that he believed that such a revolution could only be achieved through the colossal usurpation of power.

            Communes as collectives seemed to prove that a Socialist platform was effective. The United States was not inoculated from Communalism. Hippies created the largest number of intentional communes in the history of the United States, forming alternative, egalitarian farms and homesteads in Northern California, Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Tennessee and other states.[5] The idea was, with all wages being equal and all privileges being the same, the leadership faded into the background and became true communism. Today, in order to spread this doctrine to others, the majority must push against bourgeois policies which enslave the proletariat.[6]

            National unity must be erected by the destruction of the bourgeois State. Marx does not specify the idea of federalism as opposed to centralism; rather, he speaks about smashing the bourgeois machine which exists in all bourgeois countries. The aim is to tear down the state power, which Marx sees as parasitic.[7]

            The proletariat only needs anarchy long enough to establish the state, and only needs the State temporarily. The revolution gains authority through force and dissolves by its own means.[8]

            To Lenin, freedom in the Capitalist model was freedom for the slave owners. It is democracy designed only for the rich. In addition, the oppressed are targeted by exclusions and exceptions for the rich’s expense. There is no freedom where there is suppression, law can never be higher than the economic structure of society, and once socialism converts private property into common property, bourgeois law disappears. However, it is difficult to say whether or not his utopia would ever come to pass, since Communism has never worked in any place which it has been tried.

[1] Vladimir Lenin, State and Revolution (The Leftist Public Domain Project, 2019), 9-11.

[2] Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread (Columbia: Independent Press, 2021), 18-27.

[3] Lenin, State and Revolution, 26-27.

[4] Karl Marx and Frederic Engles, The Communist Manifesto (New York: International Publishers, 1948), 32-42.

[5] Turner, Fred (2006), From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism, University Of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-81741-5

[6] Lenin, State and Revolution, 34-35.

[7] Lenin, State and Revolution, 41-44.

[8] Lenin, State and Revolution, 50-52.

Critical Race Theory by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic

I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege.[1]

By their admission, Critical Race Theory is a compound of critical legal studies and radical feminism.[2] Both Delgado and Stefancic claim that the movement draws from Gramsci, Foucault, and Derrida, the founders of post-Modernism. In addition, they include the legacy of Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, and Martin Luther King, Jr, placing their names in the same sentence as Cesar Chavez. In addition, the CRT movement built its insights from feminists' belief of the relationship between power and social roles, along with patterns of patriarchy's habits. The movement encouraged more spin-offs determined to undertake hierarchies, tracking, affirmative action, high-stakes testing, controversies over curriculum and history, bilingual and multicultural education, and alternative and charter schools.[3] Throughout each marginalized class, those within that minority are believed to be competent to speak about race and racism due to their lived experience.[4]

In Critical Race Theory, the authors speak of two groups within the CRT movement. The first is called the Idealists, who believe that racism and discrimination are matters of thinking, attitudes, and discourse. These scholars believe that society unmakes racism through changing images, words, and attitudes.[5] This school of CRT believes that race is merely a social construction, not a biological reality. These scholars believe that social teachings should be based on conveying that do not convey that a particular group of people are less intelligent, reliable, and ultimately, less American than others.[6]The second group is known as the Realists, and they believe that racism is how societies allocate privilege and status. For these scholars, racial hierarchies determine who receives tangible benefits. Such benefits include the best jobs, schools, and invitations to parties in people's homes.

Both groups believe that Civil Rights gains were given due to white self-interest. This was believed to be due to unity in the Cold War. Delgado and Stefancic write:

During that period, as well, the United States was locked in the Cold War, a titanic struggle with the forces of international communism for the loyalties of uncommitted emerging nations, most of which were black, brown, or Asian. It would ill serve the U.S. interest if the world press continued to carry stories of lynchings, Klan violence, and racist sheriffs. It was time for the United States to soften its stance toward domestic minorities. The interests of whites and blacks, for a brief moment, converged.[7]

Such interpretation is described as how recorded events can more accurately fit with the lived experiences of minorities.[8] CRT builds cases on narratives, and people of different races see different experiences. Bundles of perceived notions aid in the overall narratives.[9] This process, known as Revisionist history, serves to re-examine historical narratives, reasoning why the Supreme Court ruled Brown v. Board of Education at that time. The book continues by stating that rights can be alienating, creating a defensive and separative environment rather than encouraging communities to form close, respectful societies.[10] Delgado and Stefancic bluntly propose that "rights are almost always revoked when they inconvenience the powerful" before stating that modern conservatives oppose welfare and affirmative action, programs vital to the poor and minorities.[11] The examples utilized to disclaim First Amendment advocates' claim that the cure to bad speech is more speech with examples of non-retortable speech. There is no way hate speech can be retorted when delivered as one-on-one confrontation, graffiti, and blog posts.[12]

            According to the writers, the currently existing black-white binary dictates that other minorities must measure their experiences with Blacks.[13] Through this binary, non-black minority groups must compare their grievances with the prototypical minority; the unincluded minority groups include Asians, American Indians, and Latinos. The writers further this dilemma by acknowledging that when liberal television executives desire a minority show to be created, they refer to blacks. Delgado and Stefancic bring up that while history textbooks may devote time to slavery, they often overlook the intense persecution of the Chinese in California around the same time.[14] Such logic birthed what is known as Exceptionalism, which holds that a group's history is so distinctive that its analysis is warranted. This belief maintains that each disfavored group has been racialized in its way and according to the needs of the majority group at particular times in history.[15] Bizarrely, the writers proclaim that Whiteness is associated with goodness, while Blackness is considered flawed, culturally speaking. They do so by stating:

In the semantics of popular culture, Whiteness is often associated with innocence and goodness. Brides wear white on their wedding day to signify purity. "Snow White" is a universal fairy tale of virtue receiving its just reward. In talk of near-death experiences, many patients report a blinding white light, perhaps a projection of a hoped-for union with a positive and benign spiritual force. In contrast, darkness and Blackness often carry connotations of evil and menace. One need only read Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad to see how strongly imagery of darkness conveys evil and terror. We speak of a black gloom. Persons deemed unacceptable to a group are said to be blackballed or blacklisted. Villains are often depicted as swarthy or wearing black clothing.[16]

The duo later claims that Blacks who acted white were accepted and that no white is innocent due to their ancestor's actions creating the racist system.[17]

            Delgado and Stefancic propose a premise that is lacking at best. There are "citations" throughout the chapters, but not specific chapter and page numbers. In no portion of the book are facts, data, and irrefutable pieces of evidence given to bolster any claim. Throughout this book, trivialities like Peggy McIntosh's list of privileges (also with no citations to support her claim) prove their point that minorities are under-represented. Delgado and Stefancic attempt to point out disparities in representation, all without any data to back their claims. The duo brings up lived experience and cultural tradition and refers to those who "act white" as "tokens" of the system. The truth is that CRT is built upon the same soil as post-Modernism, and that is the disbelief of raw truth. Such flavors of academia prove that imagination is a good servant and a bad master. Race hustlers do not make money when everyone lives in a colorblind society, which is why those like Delgado, Stefancic, Sharpton, and Henry Rogers cannot allow such a society to be built. With that in mind, Critical Race Theory is an important book to read to understand what is being taught in schools today.

[1] Peggy McIntosh, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” Peace and Freedom (1989).

[2] Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (New York: New York University Press, 2017), 5.

[3] Delgado and Stefancic, Critical Race Theory, 7.

[4] Ibid, 11.

[5] Ibid, 21.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid, 23.

[8] Ibid, 25.

[9] Ibid, 48.

[10] Ibid, 29.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid, 33.

[13] Ibid, 77.

[14] Ibid, 78.

[15] Ibid, 79.

[16] Ibid, 86.

[17] Ibid, 87.

The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek

F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom is an excellent example of academia informing how Capitalism has lifted others out of poverty and how Socialism reduces the individual into the collective. Hayek explains that, despite being warned for centuries that Socialism leads to slavery, the world has become more Socialist. Further, Hayek argues that economic freedoms encouraged individual freedoms and posits that liberties increase inversely when barriers are removed. Finally, Hayek explains that the means used to advance one’s ends allow for the change to be implemented quickly. A “planned economy” is the macro-economic term for collectivism. As Hayek puts it:

This liberal plan, according to them, is no plan – and it is, indeed, not a plan designed to satisfy particular views about who should have what. What our planners demand is a central direction of all economic activity according to a single pan, laying down how the resources of society should be “consciously directed” to serve particular ends in a definite way.[1]

As such, the concept of a “planned economy” subverts every concept of individualism for collectivism. Just a year after The Road to Serfdom was published, Eric Roll wrote in The American Economic Review that Hayek’s thesis that “the system of free enterprise for profit has not failed but on the contrary has not yet even been tried”[2] is proven by the actions of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the increasingly nationalistic ideals occurring within Europe.[3] Thus, World War II was less of a battle between Freedom and Fascism but more of a war between Socialism and Classical Liberalism. Hayek makes this point clear by stating that:

The connection between Socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism – Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle – are at the same time acknowledged fathers of Socialism.[4]

To further back his accusation, Hayek concludes that Marx and Hegel’s notion of organizing a civilization is misguided, stating that:

Organization is to him, as to all socialists who derive their Socialism from a crude application of scientific ideals to the problems of society, the essence of Socialism. It was, as he rightly emphasizes, the root of the socialist movement at its inception in early nineteenth-century France. Marx and Marxism have betrayed this basic idea of Socialism by their fanatic but utopian adherence to the abstract idea of freedom.[5]

            As recently as 2013, academics have argued that society has reached the end of such talk of an organized society and placed restrictions only to benefit the public good. Martin Loughlin’s “The End of the Road to Serfdom?” suggests, in the last four pages of the book, that the

dilemma has been resolved and we are in danger of finding ourselves living in a society of chiefs and slaves.[6] In agreement with Hayek, Loughlin argues that planned economies attempt to resolve inequalities, yet they tend to make people feel worse off than they are. Thus, limitations keep people poor.

Other Books to Consider:

·         The Roots of National Socialism – R.D. Butler

·         New Liberties for Old – Carl L. Becker

·         The Twenty-Year Crisis – E.H. Carr

[1] F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, ed. Bruce Caldwell (Routledge: The University of Chicago Press, 1944), 85.

[2] Eric Roll. 1945. “The Road to Serfdom Friedrich A. Hayek.” The American Economic Review 35 (1): 176–80. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.1810127&site=eds-live&scope=site.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, 182.

[5] Ibid, 184.

[6]  Review of Martin Loughlin, Foundations of Public Law (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 2010).