the corrupt city

One of the main things that stood out to me in the reading for today was that Machiavelli seemed to have the lowest possible view of humanity. In his Discourses he seems to list almost every reason why a Republic is the most ideal form of government.. and also why it would never work because man is corrupt. The Republic is a good thing, but since men are corrupt a good institution can't be maintained by corrupt people. Therefore, Machiavelli turns to violence as the means of gaining power. "For to want to reorganize and reform the political life of a government presupposes a good man; but to seize power over a republic by violence presupposes a bad man. Therefore it will hardly ever happen that a good man will gain absolute power through violent means, even if his goal in doing do is truly to reform and improve the government...we can see how truly difficult it is to maintain a free form of government in a city where the people have become corrupted..." (p.6)

I was interested to hear in class today something that I didn't pick up just from reading it myself, that Machiavelli's end goal was not power, but the establishment of a republic for the good of the people. Perhaps he had a strange way of going about it, but his arguments in favor of his methods were quite plausible... if men are really as completely awful as he said. But, if he decides to get rid of those who are "bad" or otherwise not beneficial to the success of the republic, would he not be taking a Hitler-esque stance and presuming himself to be above everyone else? A truly good man could never resort to the violence necessary to overcome the tyranny of a bad man, but only a truly good man would be able to judge without bias who should be spared in the cleansing of the government. Only God is truly good, so only God can make the call who should live or die... and so the formation of the Republic through a revolution of good men would either be unsuccessful or eventually corrupt those who were leading it.

Perhaps this is why in The Prince, Machiavelli seems to be writing tongue-in-cheek about how a monarch should rule, partially through corruption and deceit. He has such a low view of humanity and all his dreams of a successful Republic went unrealized... while he watched his beloved Florence get torn apart by wars. Maybe he finally gave up on the Republic and is advising the monarch how to rule and keep the peace and happiness of the people? Since monarchy, according to Machiavelli, is the inevitable outcome of any political system given enough time, considering the corruption of humankind.

p.s. commented on Mallory's "Machiavelli"