The definition of success varies. Success could mean more power or money for you, if you are an upperclassman or a worker. If you are just poor or don’t have everything you want in life, it means trying to convince yourself that everything is all right and that you are contented with the way things are because in the end you believe that you will be triumphant over your problems or just because you feel that it is the will of God. For leaders, it could be taking what you want without appearing to do harm to anyone around you. In other words success is a one way answer. It is only meant to depict one side of the struggle (there would not be success if there was not a fight or a struggle whatsoever).

This is what Machiavelli writes about, the success of a Prince in ruling his Princedom. Although he takes into consideration general human behavior (of the people around the prince a.k.a. his subjects) and gives a warning of how it may be detrimental to the Prince’s power, he also justifies any wrongdoing/fraud that a Prince could possibly make. The reason is because he visualizes people as merely elements of the State. In the literary piece, there is no such thing as individuality or ethics mentioned. Unless there is a threat of a certain human being around the Prince that may affect his rule in some way, then there is no need for paying attention to anyone else’s individual needs, only the State as a whole. He also suggests things like cruelty enables subjects to be united and obedient and it is better to be feared than loved but since it is impossible to have both, a Prince must avoid hatred.

Machiavelli’s political concepts/beliefs are, based from the World and country’s experience, effective, but only for a matter of time. It is unrealistic to find a power that would not be subject to rebellion or question after a matter of time. Even the purest of all leaders are somewhat hated by, if not minority, majority. Hatred leads to betrayal and revolution – which in history is constant. And the only difference between the status quo and history is that more people are given the leeway (or at least appearance of such liberty) to speak up or doubt the ones in power (controversial ones mostly, like Marcos, Nixon, even the Catholic Church or God himself).

Marx, on the other hand, notices the real root of the problem of the world (class struggle) and acknowledges the more common situations of the common man. He mentions that rebellion happens but does not last for long. He defines the extravagant lifestyle if the bourgeois as unjust. He has confirmed this by giving instances of how the “religious fervor, chivalrous enthusiasm, and philistine sentimentalism” corrupted by “egotistical calculation”, or in one word, money. He even states that capitalism destroys families, which is very true in society today (OFW’s and wealthy families).

As he presents these awful effects of capitalization (not to mention causes through implication as well), he also makes readers aware of the current issues that serve as an example of oppression today.

He proposes to abolish eternal truths such as Justice and Freedom, may be because of the reality that these can never be attained (even after all the years of the Earth). Since, evidently, there is nothing in the world that is not flawed except the utopia that communism implies (which is also subject to revolution and oppression if a greedy leader takes over).

Both writers have solutions that require the empowering of firmness to, if not equalize, overshoot others. Machiavelli (in the Prince) advises (obviously bourgeois in Marxist terms) leaders how to maintain power by presenting possible predicaments and solutions for them. Marx, though, suggests a more violent solution to the difficulty he presented (even if there is the possibility of the “oppressed” being the “oppressor” after they have murdered the bourgeois and taken all their possessions).

This only goes to show that in both parties, Machiavelli’s Princes and Marx’s proletarians, there will always be partitions in society, whether you are ruling it or not. The fact that it is up to the reader - who, of course, read at least one of the works, on which one to patronize/side with (Marx or Machiavelli, since they have solutions for the two opposing classes). This shows the gap between humans exists, for there will always be a favored side (sympathy if not over-sympathy for Marx or Machiavelli). And even worse, sides like ignorance/innocence and neutrality all the more divides us.

Even literature itself acquaints us with these margins and at the same time provokes us to justify these divisions by taking a side.

With Machiavelli’s the Prince, he only talks about the success of a leader of the State as a leader of the State. And Marx only focuses on the success of a proletariat as merely a proletariat. If both were attempted to be applied, then it would only lead to chaos. Both works show that there are problems in both classes in society. The prince and the proletariat are faced with it. After having addressed it, we see that there is no concrete and absolute solution to human nature.

And human nature is our enemy. It is the reason why not everyone can get what they want. With the Marxist/Machiavellian solution, it is also safe to say that both can lead to more destruction.

An applied Machiavellian concept was when Ferdinand Marcos came to rule the Philippines. After decades of rule, he went to his fall. Do the ends really justify the means? The question is loaded with so many views to answer with. And my personal view is that there is no end for us to clearly say that it was justified. Marcos’ regime may have fallen but the tragedy he left us with is tattooed in our lives forever. Because of him, majority of Filipinos are too cautious of dictators. And with that, we revolt and revolt not knowing the after effects (economically, morally, and socially) of which. EDSA revolution maybe a “victory” for the anti-Marcos, but this has actually sunk us deeper into devastation. For when we have a ruler like Gloria Arroyo or Joseph Ejercito, we just form a revolution. We have become so confident that there is a possibility to get what we, the people, want so we do not submit to such power, weak or strong it may be. Which leaves us as a country that fears no authority, for it can be bribed or stripped off of power. And we know we have that edge.

Even the greatest ruler cannot satisfy his people. The Legend of King Arthur shows us that. Jesus Christ, as well. Both are applying the concept of communism in a way. Both employ equality (the round table for King Arthur and communion for Jesus). And both their lives had ended through unmerited means. Even if today, they are being looked up to (by some people), their principles are not fully applied.

Thus, equality was never functional, and maybe it never will be.

So, how can the question be answered? How can we see if the end has really justified means if we haven’t even concluded anything so far? If human nature’s desires can never be met, then how can we say there is even an end?

And with this it is problematical to determine what success really stands for. If either Marx or Machiavelli’s theories are to be applied, would it be not impossible to describe or call it as such? How can we really define anything as successful without only just looking at one aspect/angle? It is impossible.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

need to post this here because i'm using my mom's computer and her 3 1/2 floppy is broken so i'll just copy paste this when i get to the other computer.