# [[📚The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham]] #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 77](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=76) Machiavelli lived during a time when the world was changing a lot. Old ways of living were being replaced by new ones. This was happening because of big events like the discovery of America, new ways of doing business, and changes in religion. Machiavelli wrote about how to succeed in this changing world, and his ideas are called the Machiavellian tradition. We are also living in a time of big changes. The way we do business and run countries is changing again. Because our time is similar to Machiavelli's, people are interested in his ideas again. Some really smart writers have added new thoughts to Machiavelli's original ideas. The problems with the old way of doing things became really clear during World War I. A lot of the modern Machiavellian ideas were developed right before that war. One writer, Gaetano Mosca, even started sharing his ideas way back in 1883. But his most complete thoughts came out in a book in 1923, after he had seen what happened in the war. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 78](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=77) When big changes happen in a society, like revolutions, people start thinking more openly about power and control. This is what Machiavellism talks about. Machiavelli was one of the first to think this way, but he lived a long time ago when science was just starting. He was good at figuring things out, but he didn't always know why. Modern thinkers like Mosca, Michels, and Pareto have a better understanding because they have more science and history to learn from. They know exactly what they're studying and why, unlike Machiavelli who was sometimes just going with his gut feeling. So, in today's world, people who study power have a lot more information and tools to understand how it works. #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 79](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=78) Gaetano Mosca didn't believe that just one thing could explain everything that happens in history. Some people have said that the will of God, or the weather, or people's race, or the way things are made and sold could explain everything. Mosca thinks all of these ideas are wrong. He says they don't match what really happened in history. Mosca knew a lot about the history of different countries all around the world. He could easily show that the weather, for example, didn't always affect what happened to people in the way some people thought. Big empires and different kinds of governments have existed in hot and cold places, dry and wet places. It's also hard to use race as an explanation because the idea of "race" isn't clear-cut. These kinds of ideas were popular when Mosca first started writing, but not many people believe them now. Some still think that the way things are made and sold can explain everything, but Mosca disagrees. Big things have happened in history without any big changes in the way things are made and sold. So, he doesn't think that can be the only explanation either. Mosca doesn't want to replace these ideas with a new one of his own. He also doesn't want to say that things like weather, race, or how things are made and sold don't matter at all. He just thinks they can't explain everything by themselves. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 80](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=79) Different things can change history. The weather, for example, can make a place hard to live in and make people move. New tools and ways to work can also make big changes in how society is organized. Sometimes even how people fight in wars or what they believe can make a difference. Mosca thinks that many things work together to change history. He doesn't think one thing alone can explain everything that happens. He says we should look closely at the facts for each problem, instead of trying to make everything fit into one big idea. In politics, Mosca believes we can study facts from history to better understand how things work. He's not saying we can solve every problem right now, but he thinks studying politics can be like studying farming or engineering. By understanding how things work, we can use that knowledge to make things better. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 81](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=80) Machiavellians want to find out the truth, so they don't feel the need to brag about what they've done. They know that studying people and societies is really hard. It's easier to study things like physics, chemistry, or plants than to understand our own feelings and actions. Even if some people do find out scientific truths about society, it's still a big question whether those truths can actually change the way big groups of people behave. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 82](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=81) Machiavellians don't just take people's words at face value when they study politics. They look at speeches, books, and even laws as just one part of a bigger picture. Sometimes the words match what's really happening, but often they don't. This way of thinking helps Mosca see that in every society, there are two main groups: the rulers and the ruled. The rulers are always fewer in number but they have all the power. They make the decisions and enjoy the benefits that come with being in charge. The larger group, the ruled, follows what the rulers say. Sometimes this is done in a fair way, sometimes not. The ruled also provide the rulers with what they need to live, like food and money. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 83](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=82) Machiavellians like Mosca believe that in every society, a small group of influential people are the ones really in charge. This happens no matter what kind of government or society it is. They think this has always been true and will always be true. Mosca says this happens because it's what we see in history, and it makes sense. He argues against two wrong ideas people often have. The first is that one person alone can rule a society. Mosca says that's not possible. Even a powerful leader needs a group of people to help enforce rules and carry out orders. Without that support group, the leader couldn't really govern. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 84](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=83) Mosca points out two mistakes people often make when thinking about who really has the power. One mistake is thinking that a single ruler, like a king or a president, holds all the power. Even if he seems very powerful, he can't go against his ruling class and still keep his power. If he tried to get rid of them, he would need to make a new ruling class to support him. The other mistake is thinking that the majority of people can rule themselves. In reality, a small, organized group always has more power than a big, disorganized group. For example, 100 people who work together can easily defeat 1,000 people who don't. This is because it's easier for a smaller number of people to work together and agree on things. Even when it looks like people are voting for their leaders in a fair system, it's not really the majority who are in charge. What really happens is that the leader gets himself chosen by the voters. So, the idea that voters 'choose' their leaders isn't quite right. The leader actually gets himself elected, and the majority is still ruled by a smaller group. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 85](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=84) In elections, people might think they have a lot of choices, but really, they usually only get to pick from a few people. These few people are backed by groups or committees that have a lot of influence. So, in the end, it's these organized groups that decide who has a chance of winning. Mosca thinks this happens in the United States too. Within the group of people who have a lot of influence, or the "ruling class," there are usually two kinds of people. First, there are a few "top leaders" who hold the most important positions. Second, there's a bigger group of people who might not be as famous but are still really important in making day-to-day decisions. Mosca thinks that this second group is actually more important in the long run than the top leaders. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 86](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=85) Mosca argues that below the top leaders of a society, there's another group that's really important. This group is bigger and includes all the people who have the skills to be leaders. Without this group, a society couldn't function well. So, the health of a society depends a lot on how smart and good this second group is. If this group isn't doing well, it's a big problem for the whole society. According to Mosca, to really understand a society, you need to look at its ruling class. This means looking at how the ruling class started, how it's organized, and how it changes over time. Basically, the story of a society is mostly the story of its ruling class. Even historians who don't agree with this idea end up writing history this way. This is because regular people don't often leave records of their lives. We mostly hear about the people who stand out. So, when you learn about history or study politics, you're mostly learning about these ruling classes and the people who stand out. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 87](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=86) Mosca talks about a "ruling class," but the meaning of that term can be a little confusing. Sometimes he's talking about a "governing class," which means people directly involved in making laws and running the government. Other times, he means a "social elite," which includes people who have power or special privileges, even if they're not part of the government. The term changes because Mosca started by studying politics but then realized that you can't really understand politics without looking at society as a whole. In later works by thinkers like Pareto, they mostly use the term "elite" to include everyone with some kind of power, not just politicians. It's important to note that when Mosca talks about a ruling class, he's not saying it's good or bad that society is divided this way. He's just describing how things are. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 88](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=87) Mosca thinks that every society has a group of rulers and a group of people who are ruled. He says this is just how things are, and it's not about being good or bad. It's like saying the sky is blue; it's just a fact. Even though this is how things are, we can still talk about what's fair or unfair within this setup. Some groups of rulers might be better or fairer than others. The important thing is not whether we like the idea of having rulers and ruled, but whether it's true. And according to Mosca, it is. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 89](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=88) Mosca doesn't agree with the idea that Darwin's theory of evolution, which is about the survival of the fittest in nature, can be directly applied to society. But he does think there's something similar happening in society. He calls it the "struggle for pre-eminence," or the fight to be on top. In this struggle, people are competing for better positions, more money, and more power. But unlike in nature, the losers in this social competition aren't killed off or stopped from having families. Instead, they just end up with fewer nice things and less freedom. This struggle helps decide who gets to be part of the ruling class, the group of people who have the most power and control in society. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 90](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=89) Mosca says that if you want to be part of the group that rules, you need certain traits. Being really wise or super kind isn't going to help you get there. What you really need is the drive to work hard and a strong desire to be better than others. These traits often don't go well with being "good," because to get ahead you might have to push other people back. Other useful traits for ruling include being smart about understanding people and situations, having a strong will, and believing in yourself. Mosca points out that the easiest way to become a ruler is to be born into a family that already has power. But just being born into it isn't enough to keep your family in power forever. You also need skill and sometimes a little bit of luck. Things that happen by chance can either help you a lot or hurt you. So, hard work is important, but so is knowing how to get people to notice and appreciate your work. And of course, a little bit of luck never hurts. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 91](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=90) Mosca says that there are certain traits that help people become part of the ruling class, no matter what time or place they are in. These traits include hard work, ambition, not being too sensitive about things, and sometimes, just being lucky enough to be born into the right family. But besides these constant traits, there are other qualities that can help you become part of the ruling class, and these depend on what is valued in your society at that time. For example, if you're in a society where fishing is really important, then being a great fisherman might give you a leg up. If you're in a society that values fighting skills, then being a strong warrior can make you important. These qualities can change over time. For instance, if a society moves from fishing to farming, then being a great fisherman isn't as important anymore. This means that what society values can shape who gets to be in the ruling class. Mosca also talks about "social forces," which are things like war, religion, money, education, and science that have a big impact on society. Different parts of the ruling class may control or lead these social forces, depending on what's important at that time. So, the ruling class isn't just randomly in charge; they have a connection to what is valued and important in their society. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 92](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=91) Mosca talks about how a ruling class stays in power by being in charge of the main things that matter in society. If something that used to be important, like religion, becomes less important, then the part of the ruling class that controlled religion becomes less powerful too. If the whole ruling class was based on religion, they would have to change or get replaced by a new ruling class. When something new becomes important in society, like technology or business, the current ruling class has two choices. They can adapt and bring in people who are experts in that new thing. Or, if they don't adapt, a new group will grow that can challenge them for power. The ruling class also has what Mosca calls a "political formula." This is like a story or reason they give for why they should be in charge. Sometimes they say it's because they're the best race, like what happened in Nazi Germany. Other times, they say they have a special connection to God, like kings and queens used to say. In modern times, like in the United States, the story is often about "the will of the people," saying that leaders are chosen because that's what most people want. Different formulas work for different levels of society, depending on how advanced or traditional the society is. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 93](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=92) Mosca talks about the idea of "political formulas," which are the stories or beliefs that help explain why a certain group of people should be in charge. These aren't always based on facts or science, but they serve a real need in society. People like to think that they're being ruled for a good reason, not just because someone is stronger or smarter than them. These political formulas can be part of bigger ideas that many countries might share. For example, big religions like Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam have influenced the political beliefs of many different countries. Other times, ideas about how people are naturally good or what the "will of the people" means can become part of the political formula. It's really important for a society to believe in its political formula. If people start questioning it too much, the society can start to fall apart. Changes to the formula should happen slowly, or else they could cause a lot of problems. So, these formulas are more than just ways to trick people; they meet a real need and help keep society stable. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 94](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=93) Mosca thinks that a society's political formula, or the story that explains why the ruling class should be in charge, has to be strong and believable. If people start doubting the story, the whole society can start to fall apart. This might be why many strong societies hold onto their "traditions" even when they're not really true or make sense anymore. Places like Rome, Japan, and Venice have lasted a long time partly because they stick to their old stories and ways of doing things. They don't like people who question or make fun of those traditions. In fact, the city of Athens killed Socrates because he questioned the accepted beliefs. From a survival standpoint, Athens might have been right to do that. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 95](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=94) Mosca talks about two main ways that leaders in a ruling class can be chosen. One way is the "autocratic" principle, where people higher up pick who gets to be in charge. The other way is the "liberal" principle, where leaders are chosen from the bottom up, often through voting or some other form of public choice. Both ways still fit the general idea that there's a smaller group of people in charge and a bigger group that follows them. The liberal principle doesn't mean that everyone gets a say in everything; it just changes how leaders are picked. Usually, a society uses a mix of both methods. For example, in some places with a king or queen, almost all the leaders are chosen from the top down. In other places, like some ancient cities, almost all leaders were chosen by the people, although usually only a small group got to vote. In the United States, it's a mix. Some people in government jobs are picked by other leaders, which is the autocratic way. But people also vote for leaders like the President and members of Congress, which is the liberal way. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 96](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=95) Mosca thinks that autocracy, or rule by one person or a small group, has its good and bad sides. It has been around for a long time in different places, so it must fit well with how people naturally act in groups. Autocracy is simple and easy to understand. It gives a clear reason for why some people are in charge and others are not. This makes it easier for those at the top to stay in power and for those at the bottom to accept it. Autocracy can make a society stable and help it last a long time. When it works well, it can pick the best leaders from all parts of society. But it also has downsides. Autocracies usually don't let culture and ideas grow freely. The leaders can play favorites and pick people they like instead of people who are actually good at leading. This can make others act fake just to get ahead. On the other hand, the liberal principle, where more people have a say, helps culture and ideas to grow. It also has its own problems. Even in liberal systems, small groups at the top can still form and have lots of power. The way these groups form is different from autocracies, but they still exist. To get to the top in an autocracy, you might only need to make one or a few people like you. But in a liberal system, you have to win over a lot of people, which has its own challenges. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 97](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=96) Mosca talks about how leaders are chosen in a "liberal" system, where lots of people can vote. In this system, people who want to be leaders usually try to get the crowd on their side. They might talk about how unfair things are and how the rich and powerful are not good people. They make big promises they might not keep, just to get more votes. But the groups these leaders are talking against often do the same thing. They also make big promises and try to get people to like them, even if they don't plan to keep those promises. This is what Mosca calls "demagogic propaganda," and it's a way for people to try to get power. Then, Mosca talks about two trends or "tendencies" in how the ruling class changes over time. One is "aristocratic," and the other is "democratic." These don't have to do with how leaders are chosen, but rather where the new leaders come from. In the "democratic" trend, new leaders come from the lower classes. People from all parts of society have a chance to become part of the ruling class. In the "aristocratic" trend, the opposite happens. The ruling class tries to keep itself closed off, usually picking new leaders from families or groups that are already powerful. Both of these trends are always there, but one might be stronger than the other at different times. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 98](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=97) Mosca points out that whether a society is autocratic or liberal, it will always have some elements of both democracy and aristocracy. For example, the Catholic Church is autocratic in how it's structured, but it's democratic in that it picks its leaders from all levels of society. Hitler in Mein Kampf says the Church's rule of no marriage for priests helps it stay democratic in picking leaders. This is why the Church is strong and lasts a long time. On the other hand, England was liberal but still kept power in the hands of a few rich families. Some old cities did the same. They let everyone vote, but only a few could actually be leaders. In the United States, we learn a lot about the good parts of democracy, but we don't talk much about its downsides, or why aristocracy might have some good points. One thing Mosca mentions is that families will always exist, and people naturally want to help their family more than others. That's why aristocracy, or rule by a few, will always be a thing. Even after a big change, like a revolution that wants to get rid of all special family advantages, a new small group of rulers will form. Mosca wonders if it would be good to get rid of all family advantages when picking leaders. He thinks maybe having some advantages because of birth isn't all bad for society. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 99](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=98) Mosca talks about why both "aristocratic" and "democratic" trends exist in society. In the "aristocratic" trend, keeping power in the same families for a long time might actually help society. It can make sure that the leaders have the skills and qualities needed to rule well. But if everyone had an equal chance to become a leader, things could get really crazy. People would use up a lot of energy just trying to get to the top, and that wouldn't help society as a whole. However, both these trends are always at work in every society. Usually, if one trend becomes much stronger than the other, big changes happen in society. Sometimes these changes can even lead to a revolution. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 100](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=99) Mosca, like Machiavelli, talks about what kinds of government are good or bad. But he doesn't dream about a "perfect" government. He thinks that's not realistic. In fact, he warns that ideas about a perfect world can actually make things worse. They can hide the real goals of people who might not have good intentions. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make things as fair as possible. Even though we can't have a perfect world, we can still work on making it better. Mosca points out that aiming for a government that needs people to be heroes can lead to bad stuff. Like Burke said a long time ago, it could make things more corrupt. So, even if we can't have a world that's completely fair, we can still work on making it as fair as possible. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 101](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=100) Mosca talks about how a well-organized society has laws and rules that everyone follows. These laws help make sure people are fair to each other when they're trying to get ahead or keep their place in society. He also talks about the idea of "liberty," which means that the laws should protect people from unfair treatment by those in power. Liberty is all about making sure that the government and leaders have to follow the rules too. This is what Mosca calls "juridical defense," which means that the law protects everyone, not just the powerful people. So, in a free country, the laws are there to protect everyone's rights and keep leaders from doing whatever they want. This includes things like the right to vote, the right to speak freely, and the right to a fair trial. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 102](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=101) Mosca talks about things that make a society free. He says in a free society, you can't just take someone's stuff, and you can't just arrest someone without following rules. People can choose their own religion, and newspapers can say what they think about the government. Also, people can gather to talk about political stuff. Of all these freedoms, Mosca thinks the most important one is the freedom to speak your mind. He says this is super important for a society to grow and be civilized. A civilized society is one that is good at lots of things like art, science, and business. But what makes a society really free and civilized? Mosca says it's not just about having good laws written down. Even if a country has a constitution that says it's democratic, that doesn't mean it really is. Like, Hitler never got rid of Germany's democratic rules, but we know he wasn't democratic. So, it's not just about what's written down in laws or constitutions. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 103](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=102) Mosca argues that no perfect system exists for how a government should be set up. Whether you have a king or a president, one group in power or many, what really matters is balance. Power needs to be checked by other forms of power to make sure no one group takes control of everything. In simple terms, when one group becomes too strong and takes over, people lose their rights and protections under the law. This is what Mosca calls "losing juridical defense," and it's a bad thing. It's like a game where one team is so strong that no one else has a chance to play fairly. Mosca thinks that a well-balanced society needs different groups with different ideas and powers. This helps keep any one group from taking over and allows people to think freely and make fair judgments. He believes that having this balance is important for political freedom and for justice between the people who govern and those who are governed. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 104](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=103) Mosca says that what really makes a society free and helps it grow is when the people in power are kept in check by other people who are independent and don't have the same interests. He says that a society does well when there are many different groups and ways to gain importance, not just one. Freedom comes from having different ideas and some conflict, not from everyone agreeing all the time. Mosca warns that if any one group or idea gets too powerful, that leads to a kind of rule where one person or a small group makes all the decisions and that's not good. He says it doesn't matter if that rule says it's based on God's will or the people's will; if there's no one to keep it in check, it will probably be bad. So, Mosca thinks that the key to a good society is having different groups that can balance each other out. If only one group is in charge and they say they're the only ones who know what's right, that can lead to them abusing their power. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 105](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=104) Mosca thought that the governments of the 19th century did a pretty good job at balancing power and keeping people's rights safe. He called this "juridical defense." Even though he pointed out a lot of problems with how these governments worked, he still thought they were the best option we've had so far. But just because something works well at one time doesn't mean it will always be the best choice. Mosca thought that things could change and that these governments might not last forever. He felt that it's not smart to think that one type of government will always be the best. It's like saying your favorite game is the best game ever; it might be true for you now, but there are lots of other games to play and new ones coming out all the time. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 106](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=105) Mosca thought that the way governments were run was going to change a lot. He said the time after the War of 1914 marked the end of an era that had started with the French Revolution in 1789. In this new time, he thought the old ways of government might be replaced by something new and maybe even better. But he was also worried that people might try to make big changes too quickly, and that could lead to bad things like less freedom and a worse way of life for everyone. Mosca wasn't very hopeful about the future. He said that even when people try to do good things, it often leads to fighting and hate. In the past, people fought over religious beliefs. Then they fought for freedom and equality. Now, they're fighting for other reasons, and he worried that they might keep fighting in the future, even when they're trying to make the world a better place. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 108](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=107) Georges Sorel is a bit different from other thinkers we call Machiavellians. For starters, he has some really strong political opinions. Machiavellians usually don't stick to just one way of thinking about politics. Also, it looks like Sorel doesn't really like science, but that's not totally true. What he actually doesn't like is fake science that just tries to make some people look good. Sorel believes that real science can't get big groups of people to take action. But he comes to that idea by using real science, so he's not against it. Like other Machiavellians, he thinks politics is all about who gets to be in charge. He also thinks you can't just listen to what people say; you have to look at what they do, especially when it comes to power. Another reason we talk about Sorel is because he influenced other big thinkers like Robert Michels and Vilfredo Pareto. Pareto even said Sorel did a great job of getting rid of silly ideas and focusing on real science. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 109](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=108) Sorel was a big thinker who had a lot of influence on how Michels, another thinker, saw things. Sorel is most famous for a book he wrote called "Reflections on Violence." To understand what Sorel was talking about, you need to know the background. At the time, Sorel was active in the movement that wanted better rights for workers. Most of these worker groups were part of larger political parties that said they wanted big changes but were really just trying to get small wins like higher pay for workers. Sorel was part of a different group within the worker movement, called the revolutionary syndicalists. These people didn't like any government or political parties. They wanted workers to organize themselves in special unions that were separate from the government and political parties. They thought that any government, not just the one in power at the time, was bad for workers. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 110](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=109) Political parties, even socialist ones, aim to get power in the government. So, according to Sorel, they're not really about helping everyone; they're just another way to keep some people in charge and others not. This idea is the same as what other Machiavellians think. We'll talk more about this when we look at what Robert Michels said about socialist parties. Instead of all the detailed plans and promises that regular political parties make, Sorel says we need a big, powerful story that gets people really excited. He calls this a "myth," and his example is the "general strike." In this story, all workers stop working at once. Everything stops, and the old way of doing things falls apart. Then, workers start everything up again, but this time they're in charge and everyone is free. Sorel thinks only a big story like this can get people to really change things. Small plans or weighing the good and bad won't do it. In fact, those things just make leaders more powerful and regular people less powerful. The important part isn't really the specific story of the "general strike." What's important is the idea that a big, powerful story can make people do big things. If you look at this story like it's a science experiment about what will happen, it seems kind of silly. But that's not the point. The point is that it moves people to action. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 111](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=110) Sorel talks about something called a "myth," but it's not like a fairy tale or something that is either true or false. A myth, according to Sorel, is a strong belief that a group of people have. It's what drives them to act in a certain way. For example, some workers believe that if they all go on strike together, they can make big changes happen. This belief isn't something you can prove right or wrong with facts. It's more like the team spirit that keeps everyone going. Myths are different from scientific ideas or Utopias, which are perfect worlds imagined by thinkers. Scientific ideas can be tested to see if they're true or not, and Utopias are often used to think about how to make small changes in the real world. But myths are different. They aren't about small changes or facts. They're about big, motivating ideas that get people to act together. So, when people are part of a big movement, like fighting for worker rights, they often have a strong belief, or myth, that drives them. This myth makes them feel like they're part of something big and important, and that they're going to win in the end. Sorel thinks that these myths are powerful and can't be easily broken down or proven wrong. They work as a whole to inspire people to act. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 112](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=111) In summary, myths aren't about telling the truth or describing the world. They're about getting people ready to do something big. Even if a plan doesn't work out, that doesn't mean the big idea, like Socialism, is wrong. It just means people need to try harder next time. But not just any story will work as a myth. It has to really speak to what people care about and it has to help solve real problems they're facing. It's about finding the ideas that really get people moving and make them feel united in what they're doing. Even though myths often paint a picture of a perfect world in the future, that's not the point. The point is to change things now. Asking whether that perfect world will actually happen misses the point. Even if the perfect world never comes, the myth can still make big changes happen. So, the power of a myth isn't in whether it comes true, but in how it can get people to act differently now. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 113](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=112) Sorel talks about how myths, or strong beliefs, motivate people to act, even if the outcome doesn't turn out exactly like the myth said it would. He gives examples from history to show how powerful myths can be. For instance, early Christians believed that Jesus would come back soon and make a perfect world for them. Even though this didn't happen, the belief itself helped Christianity grow and become strong. Similarly, people like Luther and Calvin had big dreams about how their religious ideas would change Europe. While things didn't happen exactly as they thought, their beliefs still had a big impact. Sorel also talks about the French Revolution. The people who started it had ideal pictures in their heads about what it would achieve. Even though the real changes were different from those dreamy pictures, the revolution still brought about huge changes. So, Sorel is saying that even if the myth doesn't come true in the way people imagine, the belief itself can still make big things happen. It's like the fuel that powers the engine of change. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 114](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=113) Big ideas like myths can make people ready to do big things, but they become even stronger when there's also violence involved. Sorel wrote this when most leaders said that peace and being nice to each other could solve all problems. They thought that fights between countries or between different groups of people were things of the past. But Sorel says we shouldn't just believe this idea of peace and niceness. He says that force and power are always a big part of how people and groups interact with each other. In a system where some people have more money and power, those people use that power to keep others down, even if they don't use physical violence. So, when leaders talk about peace and being nice, they're not really telling the whole story. This kind of talk can even help keep things the way they are, with some people having power over others. Violence, according to Sorel, is a way to shake up the system and make real change happen. But it's important to know exactly what kind of violence he's talking about and why. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 115](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=114) Sorel talks about how the way society views violence has changed. In the past, physical violence was more common. Nowadays, it's less about physical force and more about tricks and cheating to get what you want. This kind of "fraud" is often not looked down on as much as violence is. Sorel is saying that this shift is not all good. Sure, it's good that there's less physical harm, but now there's more cheating and lying to get ahead. This is especially true in business, where some people get away with big scams while others who don't cheat much get in trouble. When it comes to workers and their rights, Sorel says that the people in charge don't like it when workers use force to demand better conditions. Instead, they promote ideas like "social peace" and "cooperation" to keep things calm. But this often benefits the people in power more than the workers. Sorel thinks that sometimes, workers might need to use force to really shake things up and make changes. But, those who have something to lose in society don't like this idea. So, they try to keep the workers calm and controlled, often by making small changes that don't really solve the big problems. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 116](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=115) So, Sorel says that when we talk about peace and negotiations, we have to really understand what's going on. For example, when employers agree to raise wages for workers, it might not be because they want to be fair. It could be a way for them to keep control and make sure they still make lots of money. This could also make the government look good so they win the next election. He also says that when groups like labor unions talk peacefully but really mean "do what we say or else," that's another kind of hidden force. This isn't really about being fair or peaceful; it's about using sneaky ways to get what they want. Lastly, Sorel says that when leaders talk all the time about peace and being nice but actually use hidden ways to keep power, that's a sign of a society getting weaker. It's like the people in charge are too scared to actually lead, so they cheat and trick people. This makes everyone, both the leaders and the regular people, less strong and honest. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 117](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=116) Sorel talks about the idea that when people in power act nice and talk about "social duty," it doesn't really make things better for those who have less power. The thinking is that if the powerful are nice, then there won't be a need for force or violence to make changes. But Sorel says that's not how it works. Being nice doesn't really fix the big problems. Sorel believes that sometimes, the use of force can actually be good for society, as long as it's tied to a big idea or "myth" that people can believe in. When force is connected to a big idea like this, it becomes something more than just random acts of violence. It can actually inspire people to be heroes and make sacrifices for a greater good. What's more, Sorel thinks that when violence is tied to a strong idea or belief, there might actually be less overall harm done. That's because the acts of force that do happen take on a bigger meaning. People see them as part of a larger change that's coming, so they don't just keep fighting in small, pointless ways. In other words, it's not just about the acts of force themselves, but the ideas that are driving them. When people believe strongly in a cause, even a small act can feel like a big step towards change. This makes it less likely that people will use violence in a way that's harmful and pointless. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 118](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=117) Sorel says that just because people talk about being against violence doesn't mean there will be less violence. In fact, sometimes pretending to be peaceful can actually lead to more problems and even bigger fights later on. For example, leaders who keep saying they want peace sometimes aren't ready for big problems that come up, like wars. This could make those problems even worse. He points out that just saying you're against something doesn't make it go away. Like, if a doctor said germs don't exist, that doesn't make people any less sick. In the same way, just saying you're against violence doesn't mean violence won't happen. Sorel also talks about being "pessimistic," or expecting bad things to happen. He thinks being pessimistic is actually a good thing in politics. According to him, people who are always hopeful and think everything will be okay can be unreliable and even risky leaders. They might not be ready for the real challenges that come up. *** #### [The Machiavellians - Defenders of Freedom by James Burnham Page 119](x-devonthink-item://7C0D1D1F-3F9A-4EEF-B374-07EA21540EF1?page=118) If someone is too optimistic and thinks they can easily change the world, they might cause more harm than good. This is especially true if they have a lot of power. When things don't go as planned, they might blame other people instead of understanding that change is hard. This can lead them to make really bad choices, like hurting or getting rid of people who they think are in the way. For example, during a time called the Terror, the people who caused the most harm were actually the ones who wanted to make everyone happy. They were so focused on their dream of a perfect world that they became really harsh when things didn't go their way. On the other hand, if someone is more cautious or "pessimistic," they understand that making big changes is hard and takes time. They're less likely to blame others when things don't work out and they won't make rash decisions that can hurt people. They know that they can't make the world perfect, so they try to make it better in ways that they can manage. ***