[Ombrageux]

I affirm that those who condemn these dissensions between the nobles and the commons, condemn what was the prime cause of Rome becoming free; and give more heed to the tumult and uproar wherewith these dissensions were attended, than to the good results which followed from them; not reflecting that while in every republic there are two conflicting factions, that of the people and that of the nobles, it is in this conflict that all laws favourable to freedom have their origin, as may readily be seen to have been the case in Rome.

It's stunningly modern and I could not have said it better myself!

[Elect G-Max]

So he knew Marx's idea of a classless society was doomed to fail before Marx was even born? Nice.

[Potemkin]

Actually, Machiavelli sounds like a Marxist himself - he is claiming that class conflict, far from being abhorred, should be welcomed as a necessity. The class conflict in ancient Rome was what drove the creation of Roman political liberty. This isn't a million miles away from the Marxist idea that class conflict in capitalist society will drive the creation of a socialist utopia. As Ombrageux said, Machiavelli sounds stunningly modern.

[Kman]

How can you be so in love with that statement? He never does any reasoning, he just says freedom happens because of this, he never explains why that is, why exactly does the existance of a noble class increase freedom?

[Potemkin]

why exactly does the existance of a noble class increase freedom?

It obviously doesn't. What Machiavelli is claiming is that the conflict between the noble class and the plebeian class increases freedom. This is a startlingly modern, in fact almost Marxist, insight.

[Ombrageux]

Well, K, the statement just describes a liberating mechanism, one which is constantly denigrated by illiberals because they let themselves be blinded by the ugliness of the cacophony day to day politics, one which I have seen in action constantly and thus enthusiastically adhere to. The full reasoning and the Roman history he is basing himself on is in the book itself, which I have helpfully linked to

The point as I read is that open, lawful confrontation between parties, while leading to to noisy propaganda from both sides as well as occasionally hindering the coherent action of government, is the mechanism by which political freedom and other benefits can exist. (Other benefits I would note: checks and balances, consideration for wider social interests than just the currently ruling class, stronger likelihood of respect for the rule of law, possibility of renewal of the ruling class, openness to new and competing ideas.. All these are far more difficult, or impossible, to achieve in an absolutist or authoritarian State which rejects party politics.)

As to Machiavelli and Marxism: Antonio Gramsci thought they were compatible but personally I think Machiavelli was far too wedded to the existing reality of politics to consider plausible a Revolution which would bring about a fundamentally different human existence (one which wold end the power politics of class).

[Potemkin]

The point as I read is that open, lawful confrontation between parties, while leading to to noisy propaganda from both sides as well as occasionally hindering the coherent action of government, is the mechanism by which political freedom and other benefits can exist.

I read his point differently, Ombrageux. The historical reality of the late Roman Republic is that it was precisely the violent and unlawful confrontation between the rival classes, with their massacres, their battles, and their Proscriptions, which led to the establishment of a stable political system which all parties could live with - the Principate. No amount of Parliamentary hot air, even featuring regular fist fights and shoe throwing, could possibly have achieved this. In this sense, Machiavelli could be said to be a revolutionary rather than a liberal.

[Someone5]

How can you be so in love with that statement? He never does any reasoning, he just says freedom happens because of this, he never explains why that is, why exactly does the existance of a noble class increase freedom?

It's one brief quotation from a book, what do you really expect in the way of explanation within the quote? Summarizing quotations are fairly common...