A comment on Machiavelli's Florence

"Wars abroad and peace within the city had caused the Guelph and Ghibelline factions to become almost extinct; and the only party feeling which seemed occasionally to glow, was that which naturally exists in all cities between the higher classes and the people; for the latter, wishing to live in conformity with the laws, and the former to be themselves the rulers of the people, it was not possible for them to abide in perfect amity together" (Machiavelli: History of Florence: II: ch.3)

The enlightening thing about reading Machiavelli is the depth and complexity of content we find commonly in so small fragments. By the end of the 13th century AC, Florence had experience a series of revolutions and counterrevolutions that sprang by the division between Guelph and Ghibelline, the main political line of cleavage in Italian Middle Ages. Nobility was divided between the parties of the Pope and the Emperor, a contradiction that caused war, revenge and hostility within almost all Italian Cities (with the extraordinary exception of Venice). Such an ideological antitheses prevented any kind of patriotic feeling from emerging between Italians, as Imperial armies and the Church's excommunication decrees spread all around the peninsula. The critical vision of Machiavelli regarding the Italy of his time is the reason many consider him one of the fathers of European nationalism, starting the 16th century AC.

But once this line of cleavage started to blur, as Emperors couldn't control the Popes' capacity to incite division, the difference among the nobility also lost meaning. Machiavelli shows an early understanding of class division in society that closely resembles later historic materialism. The natural struggle in any society, our Florentine author is well aware of, consists of social class division, and consecutive party allegiances and revolutions will bear this powerful mark. The materialistic division of society is today difficult to deny, as continually it repeats itself in every case,and somehow Marxism doesn't seem so novel after all.

But what is even more interesting is Machiavelli's final statement. The people is interested in the rule of the law, whilst nobility is interested in power. The class struggles assumes a particularly political nature. It is not about welfare or liberty from the world of needs, but we are in the realm of political freedom. The assumption is that democratic forces in society are inclined toward what the Greeks called isonomia, and we translate as equality before the law. As Marxism, Liberalism doesn't seem that extraordinary. The party of the people sees in the rule of self-imposed law the only guard for freedom, whereas nobility is only concerned with imposing its regime of privileges. The aim is not possessing the means of production, which are only but means to become influential. Controlling political power which is what gives food for pride and glory is the real aim of ambitious domination.

This is a general review of a single fragment in one of Machiavelli's most important works, however not so widely famous. My share with you is just part of our entire reflection of politics and the nature of liberty in the republic.