I 12 Emmanuel Terray

Translated by Antonio Callari and David F. Rueda .

\
\
An Encounter: \,
\
Althusser and Machiavelli
\
\
\,

The name of Machiavelli is rarely cited in Althusser's work. Apart from the
1978 conference in which "Machiavelli 's Solitude" was delivered at the
National Foundation of Political Sciences (and later published in Furur anllirieur
[A1thusser 1990, 26--40]),1 I can find only two citations of any importance.
The first one is at the beginning of "Montesquieu, Politics, and History."
A1thusser explores the binh of the idea of a political science. He admits that
the Ancients can be criticized because of their conception of science. "But the
Modems!" he continues. "How could the mind of a Bodin, of a Machiavelli, of a
Hobbes or of a Spinoza, the contemporaries of the already rigorous disciplines
triumphing in mathematics and physics, have remained blind to the model of
scientific knowledge that we have inherited" (1972, 17). Along with Bodin,
Hobbes, and Spinoza, Machiavelli is credited here with having introduced-in
anticipation of the issue with which he is concerned-the positive spirit of
Galileo's physics into the srudy of politics. But the 1978 text will carefully show
the insufficiency of this rendition of Machiavelli's contribution.
The second citation appeared in the 1975 "Soutenance d' Amiens" (AI-
thusser 1976a, 133). To explain and defend his thesis of theoretical antihuman-
ism, Althusser declares: "For my part ... I remember Machiavelli, for whom
Translators' note: We wish to acknowledge the assistance of Fabien Rocha and, most of all,
Joseph Butligieg.

I. There are IWO versions of this text: one typewritlen (1978.), the other published (1990).
Toe first is without doubt closer to the teltt that was presented. It is also a bit longer than the
second. the difference owing to stylistic reductions.

257

Scanned by CamScanner
 ,'1

l~/J • r oll I/O' C1.u . 11'

J Ooyolld
\
I IlIlPUllccd but ulwuys practiced, is that ~•.
Ilw tlICIIIII(jolllld rll lul ,'/Ire y II , b)1 which we understand. in a po}~ t,i
cnl
I Illc cx.ln:rll cs - I :,uJ.Qn
II C~()f.iillry )(I III'" k II I , , " where, In "'like I lought possible, ~
WllVfC fine /lIH1fHlIll"("/' Ih llll-l ,eses, ,' lie In appl YlIlg
It
' tIliS ' ru Ie, AI thusser 21\' "'"
(I{.;(: upllm rile pIlice II I' I"e 111'1 "" ., ,<1'.d '('rolll Machiavelli:, ""Vh y
- "
at does j\'lachi1
Ie III ~II horlO wC 1' 1' ,-
yel fU lfil/1C1' 1;"111111' 'lido!! in the history 0 liS country . hence in
I '

veW tip'! III order 10 (;hnlll~c !-IOll . W'IIlIS to provoke into thinking at I;!, W
le •
lilt: I;pllll pIll: /' I rC' JUl c n~' wholll I
lIe •
I 'nterlocutor that one must count on On<!'s
., I
CII
Mllchlilvtdli cJ(, l'lalll~ 1\1 Ille II )SI' I • ,' " I)oint 10 COllll t on nothim!-neiL1er
I I ' I ~ I Y ill II C ellSr.: . ' ... 1
OWl! !:I f'!:lIg l I, I lilt I,'. (I , 1 " P ' m;c- bul on the nonexistent impossibl!'
111(; c"J~ IiIlH SUlh: 1101' lilt: CX IS,III11!I', r,l'Th US /I rule of method, to think at ~
' 'W PrincI pII IIY, 'I
il n eW 1'1'IIif,:C III II lie I' "Ilioll of this rule to the problem of how
c)\ l,.c rll c~ , II I IICI I,11111'III, ,I'lid Ihe 111' 1' ,c,
/" ' 10 the problem of the new in history: the
, 1'1' I' jf III1C pre cr,o;,
10 hc!{ III III flO I le!1 " • , • I '1\1 ' Iud no Icgacy. that which is made
m
frill y new iN Ihlll wiliclll :-: II CI/,prCCI"I',""1 wl'l,' ch in the stri ct sense of the WOrd
'1'1 II "re ure, ' -
frIllIl IHllhlllj{. eX III II 0- I '. I: r Hlllder as creator,
, ' "t.: OIl ~ CqtlCIll;C . 11 C ( .
,,II crc aIIOIl - ,I ~ ,1 ' " liOn! developed form, In the 1978 [ eXL A
We fllI~1 Ihcs~ iclcl1s :'~::;~:i ~~ ::;I:il1atioll Ih<ln mine could add a few suppl~~
Illore IIlCIU:lllo\ls IIIItI dCI" I I I 'l1'Ingc the (1cneral impression that
, .. /'" "s' HUI II Will i ( 110 {; • :::
lJlcnl;uy Ie cn.:IlCC" , 1IIII",sser's published works onl\" occa-
M,IC , ,hl,lvcl
" ,1"II,S" eXfllt, I' 'ill.y preselll
, y.. "' , II who" we re taught orally by Althusser -
siOll'dly and til a sc:lllcled W,IY, cl.l fl th'
, " " " , lislc'ulillg It dut:s not at all re eel e Importance
kn"w II : Itll,'1 ImpreSSion IS II . . ' h" ' I I h-
II ' Florenline Secretary, of the ,SlOnca ro e _
Ihal A~lhllls~crl ~ta Vcl,I!I· lhC I/~rcsenee oj' ~uch silences. I always remember this
rceOWH7.C( 1/1 lilli , I · . d b h' ,
'
venlc Ily . , ~ , SI J,I", I'e,'se
' , , "And Ihe sun is unmenllone ut IS power IS
;"''''''~''I "",' ( I'W!, 27),

II

Ilow .lIul wllell did Altllllsscr JIIeel Machiavelli? If my goal here were to
CYClkl: lUI inlellectual hiography, I wou ld have to admit my ignorance. The
f()lI"win~ r""",rks Ihereforc havc oilly a hypot hetical. or imaginative , value,lt
sccm,' 10 IIIe /1",1 IWO roads coliid have led Alihusser 10 Machiavelli : the srudy
"I' Ihe rclaliolls"ips helween polilies and philosophy of Ihe eig hteenth ccnrury
ill Francc, whie" IIllhllsser had c,,"sidered making the subject of a thesis , and
his rC:H.lin~ of Gralllsci.
or
lis cMly as Ihe lirsl chapter his essay 011 Montesquieu, Althusser nOled
Ihal "all Ihe polilital Iheurisls of Ihe sevenleenth and eighteenth cenruries
I
were, wilh Ihe c,ceplioll of Vico and Monlcsquieu, Iheoreticians of the social ,I
j
2, St'(' , t~l l('d:l l1y, Ahhus.\cr rtlJ69, 94: 1~76a , 129: J978~l, 11 8).
!

Scanned by CamScanner
 I
I 'I,!,.,.,,',!.
A!tll
.. ".,.,er "",I M""hll,vclll • 159
contract" (1972, 25). When I w'"
"!tcmB" .. I ' . .
. " ., ""11",· "I II
5()
late 19 5, Alth I
ussc~ 111 d given hilllself0 tile III ~k ' ~ , Ie I',cole ,lU ring 11i(:.
~orphoses of the social contmcl froll1 Hohl," . of rollowl,,!! the 1111;111 -
'" eN to L(Ick • I I'
Rousseau. But the effect of the doctrine of Ihe I' C 11111 1011'1 l .ot:kc 10
. . • Nne til t l}/Iln "
same through all these mutatIOns: it was all ',lIcnl Ie ICllIIUiuca l 111\:
. . . PI 10 Jlrc'I~ 11I HI .
ensuring the transItIOn frolll the stare of" 11'1I1l1'C II ' l; 1.:IlI1Inl'!lIIN
• Ie IIcl!,II IJofl 01' H ) 'I I

I
. . . •
the exislmg society; It WHS an aUcmpt to "dccllll'c truly' '1111 '1 I , I e y. 10
. f
origIn 0 a II h . . . . "('b' ,"
um.1O Instltlltlons I "I., 2(,). Now lIt II • I I c " ''''til""""" 'h e
. d' . f l ' . Ie le y. ""I"B (,I' Ihe
theoretical Ira ItJOO 0 11C contract, there IN. at lensl 11lIrllyII ' I
. II " . fuol CII III f(ll Usl II
man, MaclJlave I, who c1allns exactly the OppOsile: Ihe SIIIle I1l1d 111(, Hllelely
that the State makes pos.slb~c .~lJ1d organizes ;Ire 1101 Ihe "Wllllellill" II CUllll'lIct
belween naturally equal mdl.vlduuls; they arc the result of IIp,o,leCi of <lomln".
lion uniting force and cUlllllng.
Why, then, should it be surprising to find ""lIIy klll., hips lind rcinlions,
some limes very close, between Machiavelli and those who in Ihe ci~hlCcnth
cenlury became the enemies of the theory of Ihe social colllmcl'! This is
particularly the case with Montesquicu. Montes'!uieu , lik e Allhu" er, rarely
cites Machiavelli-for example, only two eilltlions ill all of Ihe Spiril of II",
Laws. In spite of that, it is possible to filld many close cOillpari.,o,.,., bel ween
them, as proved by Augustin Renaudet's 1956 book 011 Machiavelli, concern.
ing the very object of the invcstigntion: Ihe .Iearell for Ihe principles IInci
causes that govern the evolution of stllles and of political regiolls; Ihe thesis of
the cycle in which governments revolve indefinitely; IIlc defillitioll of freedom
as the security of persons and possessions; Ihe intillwl c solidarily that links the
longevity of the principality to Ihe exislellce of ine,!uality IIIHI Ihus to Ihe
presence of the nobility, as well as, on the contrary, Ihe orgallie link hetween
the republic and equality of ranks and forlunes. Also, whcll we sec Allhus,;c,
attributing to Montesquieu the "mosl profound convielion- thal a science of
politics can never be founded except on its own objeel, 011 Ihe radical
autonomy of the political as such" ( 1972, 22), how could we lIot he reminded
of the effon Machiavelli madc 10 ensure this same lIutonolllY against Ihe
pretensions of religion and moralily. II is not only in Ihe style Ihal we perceive
astonishing echoes: "A ll men arc animals; the princes arc anilllal.~ which a rc
not tied up. " It is not Machiavelli who is Ihe aulhor of Ihis formu la; il is
Montesquieu. We can find it in his N(){(:/J(Jok.\· (1941, 1(5). In short, ill
studying the theoreticians of the social conlracl, Althusscr ncce.<sarily had 10
encounter their e nemy, Machiavelli; in .s tudying MOlltCSqlliclI, he had to
encounter, no less necessarily, one of his main illspiraliolls- Machiavelli
again.
Elsewhere, in his attempt to rcsuscitate Marxi st Ihoughl, Althusser- I do
not know when but probably before Reading C"/II/al- bccanic ultcrcstcd to
Gmmsci. Despite the doubts he e~pressed abolll Gral1lhci's "h istoricism" in

Scanned by CamScanner
 260 • Polltlcs: CIIlss and B'yond

"Th e 0 bjOCI
' of Capillll" (Ahhll""
grc~t d~<11 of ndmimtintl t\, , . ~ t,:\1U..l \\n\\'h:\I' \'170
genms' (1970 1'6) t I I r Ihls <'IIUn"(llIsl\, I I')' We know Ihat he had a
' . \. c. \C~\\c 'lilt!
,I • I\\~l'l ~ t'ruilf\l\ r . ~ubtle work' of
' • - lUl 1\ Sol' " r ' t "
h Istorical lluHcrhHs \" 11 ' '
tam p'-ln in Gr- ' _", ~ t lll,l.) , \Vl.~ nhm know 11\,\1 't\~ ls\,;'I ~lVcrics in the Held of
I .Ullse t s thour:.ht \' C. . ' :\C \HlVt!lH pl" S
theoretician of the IHl)lk'rl' ~I'tl' . ',I.'" I I11HHScl. Mnchiuvc\\i is flOrYI aOr ,mIIPohr-
• f

m' . . c, 11\ t Ie S ' 1\ ' 1" S 0 ate

ore precisely. he is "th~ thl"l't'cth,:hn ' ,I.! ~C H~\('ln:'\1ls give 10 this :.\djec·tive·
,

monarchics" (Ielle\' 10 li ', ,(II Ihc 1\:I\\\lIIal Slales ruled b 'tb ' '
",\:~Ii":::,S~hlldl~: Gra~:ci s~~~~
'
153) , Rising to the 1·1 N"vember 1927, in
Machiavelli had "Ihe "CI,'II ' I n~lI\ll".m Ihtlllghl (Gramsci 1971, 173-75)'
h' . ~ lS l' I1\l\1\t 'md llrc~' 1 "
lstoncnl problem of the cpol:h" W'\~' • " ,CI.\ ~y~tel11altcally" what "the
•

sci 1994, 153). At Ihe mOI\\<'1\\ Wh:"" ' IIII:<.. I\'\[t~tI""ml' of tlational states (Gram-
d h ' < d n rt,\11IC( '\ task f I
an 1 e same cnonnltv-thc..' sochH 't ' I ' ' d. 0 t Ie same nature
dictatorship of the prt,;ICI"ri"t=-h:"'~ c:~~'; ;1~ltln "b" ~hc establishment of the
t S 0 servatlOtlS and (.'ont'\usil)l\S" ~\1I tl
'" b . l \C not C IIltcrcsted m M h'
. d ' ,. . .
\~ more so because Mach'
ac tavel-II'
stu dd'Ie . not onlv. Ihe n"I\\lX'. .'1\1(\ thl:' I'ul\ctu.ll\lng
." . '
01 these slates but I lavehI
con 1~lons and the inSlrllmc l\\s 1~U\t cn::lle Ihe possibilit;, of their com~:ot g e
be~ng. encount~r h~twccn
the t:womhlc circumstances and the action ~~to
a
Pnnce endowed with ",ml. In lacl , Gr:\Itlsci sces the polilical part h
modern Pnnce. the collecliw Princc (kl\1'11I<1c<I b)' Ihe "ro ' Y as e
~ I t
SOC'lal d \" I I' {" ' wlOg comp exlty of \
h' . an \ po tIIea I e: 'bUI 111 (I(lil\~• Ih"l. he -~ive s 10 Ihe party n0 t onIy t he
iStonc ro e of the Mac\""wlli:11I Prine<' bill also, :1I1d perhaps more problem- i
atlc, so~?e of llS charactcnSlt(· lr:\lts , In ~\lly case. in being interested in
Gramsct s \vork. Althu5scr roul" not but encounter Machiavelli again.3
I come now to Ihe 1978 tCXt amI 10 whal it shows us about the theoretical
and political motifs thai A!thusser brings to Machiavelli,

III
A first element attracts Allhusser's attenlion : the parallel that one can draw
belween Machiavelli and Marx wilh respecl 10 Iheir situation and their
historical roles, To lilY knowlcdg,~ , we ,)we Ihe first known version of this
parallel to Benedetlo Croce. wlltl , in Ni"",,.i!'''{ Mal('/'ia/i.llll "lid the Ecollom·
ics of Kar! Marx. wrOlC: "r.larx t<'acll,'s us, although it is with statements
approximate in contenl and paradoxic'al in fonn. \(1 penetrate to what society is
in its actlla! tr/lth . Nay. from Ihis point of view. , am surprised that no one has
thought of calling him '11t<' most notable successor of the Italian Niccolo
- -
3. A third path m~ly h:I"c ~uidcd :\lthUi'!;Cf I lJW:\f\! ~bchi:\\'clli: the reading of Spinoza. who
deYotcs tWO laud:ltol'V a.nd sitlnific"al\t ch!lptl.· r,; of the Trm:tarus pofiriclIs (Y. 7 and 8) to the
Florcnline Secretary. BUI 1 ha~'C' not found. :lIlY indi,,':ltioll in Althusser's published work that he
really followed thi s pnth .

Scanned by CamScanner
 Terra)': AlIhus~cr and MnC'hiuvclli • 26l
Machi " 4 II~) In file!,
G aVelJj'. I b mOVCTlH!111 (191. .
rarnSci • a Machinvclli of the n our · . ' . hus 'IC(,.'Oll1plishcd
for a lt1odrernarks, "the fotllld(:r of rhe philosophy 0,1 prn~t~ . . . lishc.!d in his
time" (l9;rn social group the same thing Ihl1l Mnt:lwwclh act.:l~ ".1~ : . I' 'Ill the
capaC't 5,2:1315) . What Croce and Gnullsci ,,!lud<.' 10 h..:rt! 1:-; re.I 1:-> ~ 'I
I y_ h ' II' I M 'lrx-tD rcue 1
"the efti ,5 ared, according to them. by Macht:1VC I m,lc " . 1I

they eChve reality of things" and 1O show it 10 the socml group tor \\ han
Want t J'
Althu 0 Ighl Ihe way, , 'r
. SSer Proposed another version of this parallel-or emher n tUfIIH.:
~pecItiC~tion of the version presented by Croce and Grmnsci. There is. m:cord·
mg,to hIm, the same relation between Machiavelli and the thcorcticinnl' of the:
SOCial Contract as between Marx and the theorctician~ of the bourgeois
~conomy. At the origins of capitalism. carefully masked by "bourgeois"
Ideologies, there are, Marx tells us. fhe pillages. robberies. extortions. the
violences of primitive accumulation. At the origin of the State. carefully
masked by rhe theoreticians of the social cantmcr. there arc. ~tachin\'elli tells
us, the brutalities of conquest and the lics of dominntion-in short. ~\ "primi~
live political accumulation" symmetrical to the primitive economic acc\llnula~
tion. Thus, both Machiavelli and Marx engOlgc in "unveiling secrets" and
"divulging the truth," Behind the soothing fictions or conscnt and the pact,
both of them show the use of force and Ihe role or violence,
Of course, this realism is not-or rather is not only nor primarily-a
psychological disposition, a theoretical option, nor :m ethical vinue, It is
subject 10 historical conditions ofpossibility, which Althusscr described in Ihe
following way: "It is perhaps there that one finds the exlreme poil1l of
Machiavelli's solitude in having occupied this unique and precarious place in
the history Dfpolitical thDUght, between a very long moralizing, religious, and
idealist traditiDn Df political thDught, which he radically rejected, and the new
traditiDn of the polilical philosophy of natural rights that was going to
overwhelm everything and in which the emerging bourgeoisk recognized
itself, The solitude Df Machiavelli consists in his having freed himself from
the first tradition befDre the second one overwhelmed everything" (1990, 34),
In a somewhat similar way, Gramsci, in his sixth Prisoll Nmc/mok , described
Machiavelli as "a transitiDnal figure belween the corporatist republican Slate
.. and the absolutist monarchist State, He dDesn 't know [Gratllsci continues]
how to detach himself from the republic , but he understands thnt onl\' an
absolute monarch can resDlve the prDblems 101' the epoch" (1975, 2:724), Here,
G~amscI sees the apparent contrast bel ween Machiavelli's republican sympa-
thtes . and. the appeal. he makes for .
a New Prince'
. ,'.
laler lIe " 'I'll ~l\'e
0 '
a tnore
convmcmg explanatIOn, But the Important point lies elsewhere' j' G ' "
I fAith 'f M ' ,or r,HnSet
as we I as or usser,l achiavelli can be a realist and speo" "tile ft' ,
f thin .. ' , b ' .." e eettve
tru th 0 gs, tt tS ecause he finds himself in ' ' ...
transition between a dying feudalism and a " b a pO,nod of hlstone:!1
nsmg a solu1.tst monarchy, nle

Scanned by CamScanner
 262 • Politics: Class al1d Beyond

first one is out of breath; .the latter has only t.ak . t

been given a coherent and systematic discour~: us. fihfst steps and h~Sf n~tts~~f
Who . " Wit which to jllStl 'Y 1 .
•It emerges IS a certam enhghtenment through h ' h 'd logy is
t' " " W le the fog of 1 eO
lor an I~s tant pler~ed. T~ere IS nothIng left in feudalism, and on the side of the
monarc Y there IS ~othmg . yet to rationalize and to legitimize. Realism can
I

Ihus be deployed wllh relallve freedom. Therefore, realism is nol an attitude

that a philosopher can choose from among the atemporal arsenal of philosoph-
ical "positions": it itself presupposes a favorable opponunity, a kairos . Good
intentions notwithstanding, it cannot be presumed that everyone is a realist.,
we are well posilioned-most of uS-1O know Ihat.
Machiavelli's realism is linked to a second condition of possibility. Gram-
sci points out several times in his Prison Notebooks that The Prince is a "pany
manifesto" (1975, 3: 1555-56, 2:951-52, 3: 1928), and he notes that Machia-
velli 's works "are the expression of a personality who wants to intervene in
Ihe polilics and the history of his country and are, in this sense, of democratic
origin. There is in Machiavelli the passion of a Jacobin" (ibid. , 3:1928-29).
Althusscr himself returns to these affirmations, pointing out that a manifesto
of a movement both analyzes a conjuncture and proposes an action. Now, this
qualily of being a "manifesto" and its status as a committed work, far from
being an obstacle for "realism," are instead a necessary condition. It is
relalively easy to be a realist when dealing with the past; one needs only, like
Minerva 's owl, to take flight at sunset. On the other hand, how can we distance
ourselves, step back, from the present? How can we be detached enough to
judge the present? Gramsci answers: by taking oneself resolutely into the
future, into a future that is qualitatively distinct. It is precisely this movement
Ihat makes all the difference between politics and diplomacy or, again,
between Machiavelli and Guicciardini.
In \he sixth Prison Notebook, Gramsci writes:

In politics, in facl, will has a far greater importa~c~ than in diplomacy. Diplomacy
sanctions, and tends to conserve, the clash of polItiCS of dIfferent Stales; It IS only
creative melaphorically, or by philosophical convention .... Therefore diplomacy,
Ihrough the very habils of the profession, tends to skepticism and to conservative
Iwrrowness of mind.
In Ihe internal relations of a Slate, the siluation is incomparably more favorable
10 central initialive, to what Machiavelli understood as a will 10 command. (1971 ,
173-74)

·
Th at IS hy the diplomat Guicciardini "regressed to a purely Italian political
w h h " ('b'
thought, whereas Machiavelli had attained a European. t ?Ug . t .. lId., 173).
In the same way, "Machiavelli is 'pessimistic' ... GUlcclardtnt IS not pessl-

Scanned by CamScanner
 , "'; t.·· ti : ..
I ', , . , ' •
;
d Machiavelli • 263
. Terra),: Althusser an
I1Hslic b • I \.
G . . lit skc. . .' the side of ;:"
, rUICCllITdir ' Phcal and peny" (ibid.), In short, reah sm 15 not on
on II 11, \Vh
. I '
t preserve It. tiS
"

,
, .'
Ie side Of ~ rC~igns himself to reality and only ,:"ants 0 , \'

BUI 10 t"l. M'\Clllavclli who wants to transform It.

necesSarily" " 'I!
oneselr '
resolutely toward and into another future-IS. that .not
•
docs nOI a to (<II! into Ulopia? No. answered Gramsci: "The attribute 'U~oplan
incnpi.lbl c:r 1y to POlitical will in general, but to specific wills whIch ,are
whiu1S dr fel uting me;,ms to ends and hence are not even wills, but Idle
" 0'"1ts.lo 11 ~lng.s.
M:.Ichiavclr n·
etc. .. (197'1 . 175).
or. ns Gnunsci I, m:.~n of party and man of action. has to worry about the fU,ture
'l)' of s ~ .' PUt n. of what "ought to be." "The question, , . is one, thallS to
'S" eelnn \ h .
. ~ v ether what 'ought to be' is arbitrary or necessary~ whether It
1SICO~!crc(Gtc will on the one hand or idle fancy. yearning, daydream on the
oller
", h ' rams CI' l971. 172). Thus, forb Savonarola, what ought to e 15 '
. <t, st~<tct .tnd ph.tntasmagorical." whe:reas for Machiavelli it is "realistic even
If 11 (lid not in faci become reality" (ibid .• 173). Here the criterion for realism
is col~crcnce or. more precisely, making the means appropriate to the ends.
Machl,welli wanted to "teach coherence in the art of governance, and a
coherence employed in view of a certain end" (Gramsci 1975,3:1928), Such
coherence is inherent to the essence itself of will because "only those who
want to reach an end want the appropriate means to achieve it" (ibid" 3: 1691).
In other words, without it, there is no real "will." and all the scruples that can
arise between means and ends do nothing but bring into question the very
existence of the ··will."
Thus, the existence of an authentic political will appears as a necessary
condition for reali sm. \Ve see emerging here a reali sm very different from the
Galilean positivism normally attribuled to Machiavelli. The opposition be-
Iween Ihe diplomal and Ihe politician, between Guicciardini and Machiavelli,
is also, says Gramsci (1971 , 171), Ihe opposition between the "scholar of
politics" and "the actual polilician." The scholar of polilics wanls to be neutral
and objective and a\tempts to establish stable relationships. Now, such goals
may fit the natural sciences_but they do nol fil polilics or hislory. Althusser
shows this very well in his texl: in considering Machiavelli merely as one of
Ihe first figures of modem positivism. we miss whal is essential in his
contribution. In history and in politics. 10 reach Ihe effeclive trulh of things.
one must first have the will 10 chanee , them. '
In Ihe end_ Machiavelli 's realism depends on two condilions: Ihe existence
of a historical break intenupting for an instanl the continuity of ideological
discourse and Ihe presence of a transformalive political will . We can consider
this realism 3S a theoretical feat, but we have to recognize that th eo retical feat s
are like polilical accomplishments: they bolh require Ihe encounter belween
an opportunity and a will.

Scanned by CamScanner
::p.?:;..:' 'i'::~ !.,\ "
.
,";r·
,

><
"
•

iV

"It,,,,, 11 ,'it~~Hl IHI .heme IIlIrue

III 111,\ '
- lN AIIIHI "" "'. ' '
r S Interest· M hiave 1
II' appears
1(, h IIII 1(1 hl' II IIu10 m li c illll 01' Ihe revolution WI .' ae . view '
'I II ' II " , " " " 'Iat, In Althusser s ,IS
n IH) I 11\ l1 I N 1'111' pONe , It COI'I"
, ...il. s 111 his posing
. of t Ile po huca
" I q uestion 0 f
Ih~~ COl'" IIhlll N It n' filu lornuHlO1l of a nntional State in a country which does not
ptl~ S l1,o,lS II. Illn ~ OIlI1lI''y which hUN no nUliollul unity, Italy. in a country exposed
I" hU l.:'l'Iml divi s/OliN lind In invltsions from the outs ide" (Althu sser 1978b, 10).
In \llh ~ I' WUI'''N. how to introdllce something new into a history marked b
,'HIIIIIIUIl,\' IIIHI n,;polilioll'l What is n beginning in politics? How can on~
C'iolll1hH ~ h It nlJ w I'oginll!. found n new State, open a new era? This is the
quaMllIlI 0 1' lilt I'ovtlllllhlll 111111, III n rclalively high degree of generality and
nb~ ll·n c llolI. Is hei ng raised here,
1'1'11111 1110 III'NI pllgcN"I' '/'//1' Prince , Mllchiavelli shows the extraordinary
dimellll,\' "I' Illc Illsk. II is e llsy, lie lells us, to preserve a hereditary princi-
jllllliy, hut Iller" iN 'HI heginning or novelty tllere, It is also not very difficult to
colul'go Hli O:dSlilig dOlllai n by adding to it provinces of the same nation
IIIII~IIJIH O, IIl1d clJNloms, hili lIere again cllange is only quantitative, If nation'
lanlllJlIgC, and CIISltll1lN lire different , the task becomes complicated; then "on~
\lecdN II w eill dell I "I' good fortune and much zeal" (1964, 13), But the
dinkllll)' 1'!!lIches ils IIpex wilen il becomes a question of founding "entirely
II'W prillciplllilicN, wllere Illerc is a new prince" (ibid" 41 ) , Then, two cases
PI'!!SCIII llicmsc lves: It is possible 10 acquire a new principality "with the arms
",\(1 f1lI'iIIlICN 01' ollwrs" (ibid" 49), with the help of external circumstances,
hili, ill Illis e ll Sl!, Ille new Prince will have great difficulty in maintaining
him,' clf, III !llher Word N, Ille novelty will oflen be ephemeral and the beginning
IcmplII'lIJ,}', hecaH sc tile "Id condilions will soon return, In fact, the only new
solid prilleipll lilie", arc Illc ones Illc Prince conquers "by means of one's own
al'l\l N,\lid illgcnlJily" (ibid " 41 ). In this case, in effect, the founder counts only
on hilllscll'- lInd 011 fortlJne , Bill Ihis also means that he can count on no one
h\ll hilllNC lf: he IIIIlSI lake fro m himself all the resources, And, Machiavelli
adds, sillcc he hilS no Oilier choice but to a~t alone, we c~n say that he can
COllllt (III II Olll 'lllg '' IIIC ere'liion '
of a new pnnclpahty IS strictly a creatIOn, a
,mldudillil 011 Ihc hasis of nOlhing, ,
Ii NCtlll'lS 1(1 me Illal Alihusscr saw per:ectly the m~amng of these needs:
.1 t ' I -('111 1'1 1' 011 10 creale a new prlllc.pahty,
SOUle. un\'. ~y \. C . ,
It IS necessary to effect• .
a
e I' I I ' 1'llJlcle rllrlUrc wilh Ihe legacy
ra e leu Hnl l,;()1 , ,
and Illfluence of "
the past. This IS
, f' , ", 13 ' 0r" ill' " Cesare Borgia dId not succeed m foundlllg a new
1he ,,'asl.! () C:-;1lI C C'" . , .
, ' I" I I 1111'S \V'IS because there was nothlllg at the begmnmg, because
Prlm:lp" 11)", )11 "I'ly ' ,,
eSI 'lblished Prince, because he was not the Pnnce
,
of any
he W 'IS 1101 Ull lire. 1 .. " ,
,: 1 " I I 'il'IU been a f.Jrisoner, because he was not the pnSoner of any
S Ulle III W lI C I Ie •

Scanned by CamScanner
 Terray: Althusscr and Machiavelli • 265

of the POlitical systems with which feudalism and the, P~pacy had co~crcd an
Italy ravaged by invasions" (Althu,"er 1978b, 12). S.mllarly, the sOlitude of
the founder is but the condition of and support for his liberty: "Why must he
be alone? This solitude is an isolation, this solitude is a seclusion. He must be
alone in Order to accomplish the historic task of constituting the national State.
In other Words he must find himself, by fortune and virtu, radically tom away,
~ut off from ~1I roots, tom away without returning to the political and
Ideological forms of the existing Italy, because these forms arc all old, marked
by feUdalism and one cannot expect anything from them. The Prince cannot be
new unless he is granted his solitude, that is, his freedom to found a new
State" (l978b, 17). It is an old truth with which all revolutionaries arc imbued:
"Let us make a clean slate of the past," intones the "International," just as for
Mao, "it is on blank pages that one writes the most beautiful poems."
But to say that the founding of a new principality is, in the proper sense of
the world, a creation, is that not to consider it a superhuman task, beyond
human possibility? Only God is creator; to tum the founder into a creator-is
it not to transform him into a divine figure, a hero in the old sense of the word?
And for a thinker as resolutely skeptical as Machiavelli, is that not to call into
question the very possibility of it? Althusser raises the issue as if in passing:
"It is clear that Machiavelli spent a good pan of his life looking for the Prince
of his hopes; we know that he altered them, and in the end we can ask
ourselves if he did not know that it was impossible to find him" (Althusser
1978b, 11-12).
We can find many indications of this impossibility of the founder and of the
founding in Machiavelli 's thought. One of the major difficulties in attempting
to lay the foundations concerns the means the founder is led to use to
accomplish his work. These means are violence and treachery, without which
there are no radical or irreversible ruptures with the past. It is useless to cite
here all the formulas that have created, from the cruelties and necessary
betrayals, the sulfurous reputation of Machiavellianism. The problem posed
by these means is not that they are themselves immoral: Eric Wei! has shown
quite convincingly that the creation of the State and the introduction of laws
could never be subjected to moral rules, because the State and the law are
necessary conditions for morality to exist; before them or apan from them,
there is no morality (1971, 2:213). The difficulty lies more in the fact that
there is a contradiction between the means and the ends and in the consequent
risks that the ends will be corrupted by the means. The founding of the State is
the passage from the state of nature to the rule of law, the guarantee of liberty
and secunty of human bemgs. The state of nature is defined by the natural
wickedness of human beings, their bestiality, force and trickery together. But
10 order to leave the state of nature, it is necessary to use force and trickery
because force and trickery Can be defeated only by superior force and triCkery:

Scanned by CamScanner
 266 • PolI.lcs: Class and Beyond
, I I"
'('! 'rcforc Ihe founder hns to lise VIO cncc um hes 10 or cr to
d create an order
It.:: · . . . I)c prosen'h. cd or at Icast
' contro II ed'. .sO. he has to
\V
I. ere villkncc :IIHI lies will
, • • • I . a har and the
he 'Ill one nnd the :mlHc tllnC, VIOlent untlthc enemy at VIO ence, "
cn~ my of lies. viulcnll.lnd a linr in his actions, an enemy of violence and hes In
hil' uims. I\·tnchiavelli illustrates these demands with the fab~e of the centaur
Chiron. half-henst and hnlf-human. and concludes that the ~nnce has to know
how 10 net us heast nnd m:m. In his being the beast. the ~C1nce has to be both
strunpcr Ihal1 the strong and craftier than the crafty I both hon and fa,x. In other
words. the Prince has to be able to simultaneously play two opposite charac-
h:rs nnd to gu from one role to the othcr according ~o even~s .and .circum-
~ III11CCS, These involve a diversity and mobility that radically dlstmgUlsh them
from what mortnls have in common. They are endowed with a naturalness and
n dctcnnincd character that have a tendency to persevere in him.
In the Di""(1I1I',"", this difficulty is announced through what I will call the
paradox of Ihe refonn of the Slate, In rcality, the refonn of a conupt State is
nOlhing bUI ils rcfoundalion, It prcsupposes the use of "extraordinary meth-
ods. s,;ch us the use of force and an appcal to arms"; the refonner must be
willing.. "before doing anything. to become a prince in the state, so that one
can dispose il as one Ihinks fit" (Machiavelli 1970, 163), But, Machiavelli
immediately \Yams. "When unrestricted authority is given for a long time ...
it may always be dangerous" (ibid" 197), Moreover, and above all, whereas
"to hnvc recourse to violence in order to make oneself prince in a republic
supposes a bad man," the intention to refaml, on the contrary. can come only
from a "good man," As a consequence, a founder has to be either "a good man
ready 10 usc bad melhods in order to make himself prince, though with a good
end in view," or "a bad man who, having become a prince, is ready to do the
righlthing and 10 whose mind it will occur to use well that authority which he
has acquired by bad means" (ibid" 163- 64), With good reason, Machiavelli
conduded thm "very rarely will there be found " such a character, mainly
because of Ihe fixily and inertia belonging to human characters,
We can add other indicaTions, The founder is also a legislator, Now, the
qualilies needed by lite legiSlator-wisdom and virtu-are not only foreign
but onen contrary 10 human nalure in general, as Machiavelli described it.
From Ihe pain! of view of wisdom, human beings are not capable of finding
tlte ~enom ludden m lIungs: the legislator knows that in all good there is
l_urkmg,some evtl. Hu~an bemgs arc not capable of distinguishing appearance
,trom , reahty;
, lite legislator elmgs to the truth of things , not to h'Is~n
nnaglllJtJon, Human beings are trapped in the present; the legislator knows
hoI\' to separate lumself from the preSCnI in order to perceive the future F
th' 0' I f ' f' l h ' rom
, c p m 0 view 0 Vim , uman beings are enemies of danger; the legislator
l~ cour:lgcou~, Hum:m beings are hesitant, lazy, inclined to simplistic solu-
lions: the legislator, on the contrary, knows how to decide and choose sides,

Scanned by CamScanner
 'f'af'ay: Althusscr lind Machiavelli • 267
I hl!lUIi '
\ hell ' 'firm in IllS
l'tS.O)lIllnll ' 'HI. Ill"! II/.t ht, dlallgeablt:, "nd fickle; the legislator IS '. I •
I
' ICllIg
' hl~ i., ~\ It'l) , ' , t how excepllon.1 .1
' lItlllllS. ami per:;istclIl, One can gauge JUs
'1'1 ",
Ii) 1111" 't'
I \L' .llIgs 1"1 " S 10'1 tl ICII hecol1lcs onl~ 01"kllOWlllg 'IfI . ·cty , ''Ul d hulna n
... SOCI
tIC st.lle,
,
nlld Ilw I • \
" 1\ 1\ ' I f ,I
SII li N to facilitate the appearance of the ()unuer, IC
tl' reformer•
ollly fill, Chlsl"t ' ',
hili' ,"f, 1\1 lirslglallce, Machiavelli's answer IS posllive. II'/ ,
\I.' /I' is not
wilh \'j,.,O I~'I(IIIIII 'Illalily hilt a collective one; there arc peoples e~d()wed
~dIlCl\ti()II' ,III Olle CIIII act 011 the !'irni of a people through the subterfugcs of
cerlaill rc ,:111\1 the Plllilical regillle, Education can awaken virui; moreovcr,
.. I 1.llllcs-- IlIl \ler Ihe cil'l:ullIslances Ihe republic-arc more favorable
I~) I Ie, crcatiol\ or GI'l~1I1 l1Iell" thall other~. But 011 the other hand, there is a
IlII~ruIIlIIlOI'I"")" . , I' )
, 1/ I Ihal IS totally IIldepelltienl of the will and acllons 0 mman
bellll's, ~ M'II''''I
. ~ , vel'. M ac 1I11Ve I SOll1ellmeS exp lell y <lsserts t at II IS ·0 rt une
I' II' , I' , I h ' . J-
thnt cl:eatcs the great "1111111," III the Ufe (~r Castrlu:cio Caslracani, he asserts
Ihnt. hkl~ his hero. great "mell" arc generally from humble origins. and he
ndds: "In nClillg this way, Forlune is attempting to demonstrate to the world
that it, :l11(lnOI Iheir OWII wisdom, makes great men." The two theses arc not
necessarily cOlltmtiictory: at the beginning of the process of education, an
l'dlll'OIlOr is needed; similarly. the political regime had to be founded; there-
fore, neither education nor the regime can be secn as the ultimate causes of
\'if''') , In the end, I'irfl" which has the task of taming Fortune. is itself a gift of
Fortune,
Nevcl1heless, however inconceivable, however miraculous. there have
bcell founders: Mosl~s. CYnlS, Romulus, Theseus, Heron of Syracuse, and
olher less illlp0l1ant ones, "There have been" cxpresses well the determinant
rnlc of Fortune in this mailer and the irreducible contingency of its effects.
Wasn't Althusser tempted 10 claim as much with respect to the revolution?
Here, too, Ihe "after" would not in any sense bc contained or prefigured in the
"hefore," and no necessity would link them; otherwise, the "after" would be
only the repetition of the "before"; the novelty would be illusory, and the
revolution wuuld be slillbum. )n other words, the revolution is necessarily
unpredictable and irrational, including for those who carry it out. If it is
nonetheless possible. it is because there are more things in the sky and on
earth than in all our philosophy.

"
v
Althusser turns to Machiavelli for a third, far more general reason: he consid-
ers Machiavelli to be the first modern theoretician of politics. The first. in all
senses of t.l~e tenn: from a chronological point of view but also from the point
of view (II IInportance and historical role. In Althusser's view, Machiavelli is

Scanned by CamScanner
 268 • Politics: Class and Beyond

the "discoverer" of the continent of "politics," just as Montesquieu, then

Marx,. would later discover the continent of "history" (1990, 29). To be sure,
Machlavellt had some great predecessors in antiquity, but until he appeared,
no one had ever thought about politics in tenns of its radical specificity and
autonomy. beyond all moral or religious considerations. For Aristotle as well
as for Plato, politics remained a subordinate science: politics serves goals
superior to itself. With Machiavelli, politics finally reached its independence
and sovereignty: the State has no other goal than itself, its own greatness and
its own preservation. But Machiavelli's discovery was to remain largely
unexploited and sterile; as Althusser shows, it was going to be "covered up,"
hidden, by the ideology of natural rights and the social contract. But covering
up is not going beyond; that is why the questions posed by Machiave11i are
still of interest today, and still today they have received no answers. It is
precisely this situation that Althusser describes under the name of the "soli-
tude of Machiavelli."
But Althusser pays attention to Machiavelli not only as a philosopher or as
a thinker motivated by curiosity or intel1ectual admiration "in general." If I
can say so, this attention is political1y motivated: when Althusser interrogates
Machiavelli, he does so as a Marxist philosopher and as a Communist
intel1ectual, and his way of proceeding is dictated to him by the affidavit of an
absence, an insolvency.
What is it that is missing? In "Contradiction and Overdetermination,"
Althusser writes:

For if Marx has given us the general principles and some concrete examples (The
Eighteenth .8rumaire, The Civil War in France , etc.), if all political practice in the
history of Socialist and Communist movements constitutes an inexhaustible reservoir
of concrete "experiential protocol," it has to be said that the rheory of the specific
effectivity of the superstructures and other "circumstances" largely remains to be
elaborated; and before the theory of their effectivity, or simultaneously (for it is by
formulating their effectivity that their essence can be attained) there must be elabora-
tion of the theory of the particular essence of tire specific elements of rhe supersrrue-
IIIre. Like the map of Africa before the great explorations, this theory remains a realm
sketched in outline, with its great mountain chains and rivers, but often unknown in
detail beyond a few wen-known regions. (1969, 113-14)

Concerning more specifically the political superstructure, Althusser, ill

"The Materialistic Dialectic," writes:

And here again we see that this political practice, which has its defined raw material,
its tools and its method. which, like any other practice, also produces transformations
l which are not knowledges, but a revolution in social relations), this practice also may
exist and develop, at least for a time, without feeling the need to make the theory of its

Scanned by CamScanner
 269
chlavelll •
. Terray: Althusser and ·M a
own prnctlce, the: Th mUI't:li"
'11 '. Cory of . ul evell II ,.
WI, \~)l1t It; JUst like any 0 Its ·'method." It may exist. survive::II JtH IlhJecl Hln'
C:<~SI~I~g World ,of the SOCiet p~actice-_unlil the mOlllent in which slstllllCC 10 II In
lher
!mci. II 10 fill In th'IS gap. (Y1969
that It is t f . ) )()ses enough re,
Tans omung oPI .
. . ' 175-76)
1\velve years lat ,everc
er, Alth . 'lO ci (l1ore '
I>cCUUse the gap in . usser became bOlh more precISe, 7 ' lIerve" -
tion on the crisis 0 qfuMestton was about to become lethal. In hi , 197 " ' 1' Ihere
an is f Ik ,.hOIlI • '
does not really eXist 'M ~, he dots the i: "We can he nt' ' 'I yOIl will
not find in the MarXi:t h anlst theory of the Stale.', , . AnaIOgOU~:;>rganI7,J1_
tions, espeCially of I' ~ritage any real theory of the class str ugS'34 1~) No
POll.eal ' , "(1979 2 - , . '
tIleory 0 f the State h panles and trades uOions ' I' polillcH
, no teary f h . . , ntlal part 0
thut thus remains c O t e Party: .s .t not the esse
, .Or Marxi t h " ?
Now, the prnctices_ . ~ t eory, terra Incogmta . , tlcticc::- havc.
I darcsllY, created a h POlll.cal practice as well as sc.enufic pr f l ed wilh
such an emptiness thorror out 0 f the theoret.ca ' I emp t'II lesS
:.,
Con
.
ron
I' theories
available on the m' key naturally try to fill it by look.ng ror tIe tl ' first
ar et at the t" Of h do not choose .e '
theory they meet' th 'me, course, t ey , ' mnil ies
with the theo ' ' hey are more disposed toward theories thai have :"11" It
n es t ey already have From this perspective, Mach"'"" " I'
se~ms to me, plays both a deciSive ~nd a subt~rranean role in the hi story 0
"M,lfXlst thought
. ' .Speak'mg Very generally, everything happens as. .'r, hck ' Ill!:,
.111 ,luthentl.c, MarXist theol)' of politics, the Marxist inte}lectuuls and. 1110st ,"f
all, the poht.calleaders of the C · t have lumed to Machta-
11" r. ommUnlst movemcn
"e • ~ po IIlCal theory in order to fill the void, Thus, Machiavelli's Ihenry has
functIOned as a substitute for a weak Marxist theory,
Consider the example of Lenin: in the tex ts he dedicated to Ihe 1917
revolution-whether gUiding its direction or drawing lessons from ii - in,
these texts in which Althusser sees one of the best available presentallons 01
Marxist politics "in the practical state" (Althusser 1969, 95n, l77n), ho w can
one not recognize the spirit and maxims of Machiavelli? How is it possi ble not
to recognize them-by the attention paid to circumstances, by thei r inlinite
diversity, by their incessant mobility? By the importance accorded to the
current moment, by their originality, their panicularities, and Ihe care wit h
which the processes of maturation are studied-how is it possible not tn
recogni ze the Machiavellian preoccupation in the situation? Whe n Le nin
concluded the first of his "Letters from Afar" by declaring, "S uch is the ae/1I111
political situation, which we must first endeavour to defi ne with the g reatest
possible obj ective precision, in order that Marxist tac lics may be based upon
th e only possible solid fo undation-the foundation of fac/,, " (1964, 2J:J(4) ,
how can one not remember Machiavelli 's prefere nce for "the e ffective truth o r
things"? In the appeals sent out on the eve of the October insurreclion- I'or
determination, for the spirit of decisiveness-in the insistence on the ad Van-

Scanned by CamScanner
 270 •
Politics: C'ASS and B
eyond
t<ages
. of .vigorous. .'I IltI rapid
. Itcli . .
dernnatlon of '10
~ \\'lless
nnd evasivenesS_how C'\I\) On. In the strong c.o~~ u e praise ~,tachia\'ell'
addressed to ";I'Il) COIn . ,,( ne nut hear al\ echo o l d coura'e 'h' I
. pnslllg kc' . d cnt d ·U\! an e . \\ l"'h
makes possible the triumph llVer Ih~\ JU g11\ct . ';~s;A.nd finally, i~ the s~
called '1 1l10r',Jism of L . VOrst.\ vena It:: . f th
I f' I ... " . C1ll11. in the decision to lI SC the interests 0 e proletariat
ane 0 t lc rC,volullon :'IS the only guides for 'lClion-how can one not find
what, Gra~llsci Collis (as I said above) M:.\chiavc·Hi'S coherence. the recognition
d lills cVlllcncc Ihat "who Wants. the'en ds wants II \e m e"os"
of .... because '''-h
. . . oever
oes ~Ol Want tl~c means docs not re'IHy Want the ends?
With Gramscl, the references to MaChiavelli become very explicit, and th
encounters-morc than borrowings-multiply. \Vithout pretending t be e
.
Iluushvc, I WI'11 speak to four cnses. In the first . place lVlachiaveU,'~ e0 ex·
.
' . ' , x p enm
realism, .wants.to COIWlllce the people ... there ',0~ no other wa\'
. he is addressing:
of reaclung the luml goal that we IIItcnd. the destruction of the \'esu' 'f
. r d l' . . ges 0
leu a Ism and the constmcllon of the nanon,,1 State. So. Gramsci comrn .
"Machiavelli's position in this sense is similar to that of the theoretician ent5
ci
polilicians of praxis, who also Iry to build and spread a popular realism ~f~
masses" (1975, 3:169 1), A popular realism of Iho masses: a good definitio~
for a Marxist approach to politics.
In lhe second place , Gramsci compares Bolshevik amoralism with Machia.
vellian amoralism and gives it a hislorical interpretation. The Prince. whether
ancient or modem, nels during a period of transition: the old State has
• collapsed, eaten away by corruption, and with it has collapsed the old S\'stem
of values. The old moralily no longer exists: as for the new one. it h.; 10 be
founded , and it will take foml and slrenglh only when the Prince has buih the
State, which is ils necessary condition. In olher words. it will see the light of
day only if the Prince succeeds; therefore, the success of the Prince is the onl\'
criterion on which we can judge present <lclion because it constiLUtes the only
chance for the rebirth someday of a morality. Gramsci explained it very well
as regards the modem Prince: "The modem Prince, as iI develops, revolu·
tionises the whole system of intellectual ,md moral relations, in that its
development means precisely that any given act is seen as useful or harmful,
as virtuous or as wicked, only in so far as it has as its point of reference the
modern Prince himself, and helps to strengthen or to oppose it. In men's
consciences, the Prince takes the place of the divinity or the categorical
imperative, and becomes the basis for a modem secularization" (1971 , 133).
In the third place, Gramsci finds in Machiavelli's work this dialectic of
force and consent, of dictatorship and hegemony, that is one of his privileged
tools of political reflection. This dialectic helps him to solve the so·called
problem of the contrast between the Discourses and Th e Prillce, between the
attachment Machiavelli has to the republic and the suppon he gives to the
monarchies:

Scanned by CamScanner
 Terray: Althusser and Machiavelli • 271
Mnchinvell"
the t eXam' . , f States
. preservatio IOes above 311 the great political questions: the creation 0 nev.: ;
dictatorship an n and defense of or anic structures in their entirety; questions 0
S~atc. R.usso. i Of, hegemony on a v:st scale. in other words, the ~hol~ ,sphere ,of the
d
dictatorship ( n his Prol . ak T'l Prince into Machiavelli s treatise on
. mOm egomem. m es ,ze . ' t J's
~renhse on he ent of authori and of the individual). and the Dlsc~lIrses m ~ .11
"COfreCt • nI t hgetllony
0
(mom ent tyf h '
0 t e umversa
I and of libeny), Russo s observatIOn
. TI
there are allusions to the moment of hegemony Of c~nsc.nt In Ie
ugh
Prince too, bes.
that there' Ides those to a th· d force. Similarly the observauon lS correct
. IS no u only an ' . I .
Involved is rath oPpOsition in principle between Principato an,d republic: w ~,at, IS
(Gmmsci 1975 er the hYPostasis of the two moments of authonty and universality.
,3: 15 64)

~~s~ , '
lion betwe nt, We can see, Althusser closely follows GramscI, The oPPO~t-
velli want:~s the mOnarchy and the republic is a false dilemma: what Machla-
the mom a State that exists and that lasts, The monarchy corresponds to
Dictators~~t of creation and the republic to that of duration (197~b, 15-16),
mental I P and Intellectual leadership Gramsci continues, form two funda-
,lf' ,evels corresponding to the du'al nature of Machiavelli's Centaur-
1" • -antmal and h '
t' dI alf-human, They are the levels of force and consent, authon-
~ an "egemony, violence and civilization of the individual moment and of
b e umversal mOment" (1971 169-70) G~amsci thinks of the relationships
etween Machiavelli and Bodin in the ~ame terms:

Classifving
-. BOdin am ong the anti-Machiavellians ' . b J J . I ' t and
IS an a so me y lITe evan
superficial
. . questl'on. B0 d·In lays the foundatIons
,. . ISCience
of pohtlca ' ' France on a
In
terr.u~ Whl.Ch is far more advanced and complex than that which Italy offered to
M:l~hla\'elh, For Bodin, the question is not that of founding the territorially united
(nauona!) State-Le., of going back to the time of Louis XI- but of balancing the
warring social forces within this already strong and well-implanted State. Bodin is
interested in the moment of consent, not in the moment of force. (1971, 142)

Here again, Althusser will remember the Gramscian opposition between force
and consent at the moment he introduces his famous distinction between the
repressive State apparatus, which functions primarily by "violence," and the
ideological State apparatuses, which function primarily "through Ideology"
(1976a, 84-85),
Finally-but here we are on apparently more familiar ground-Gramsci
considers the political Party as the modern incarnation of the Prince for which
Machiavelli had hoped, Like this Prince, the Party "works on a dispersed and
shattered people to arouse and organize its collective will" (1971, 126), This
will must be directed by "goals which are concrete and rational" (ibid .. 130); it
cannot be satisfied with the destruction of the existing moral and juridical
re.1'~1 t·on
1 o
.:-.
In effect. Grarnsci asks, "will not that collective will with so

Scanned by CamScanner
 2:72 • Politics: Class and Beyond

nldirncrllary a fonn'uio .
, d' 'd
In
'
, .. ' C () exist, SCntlcriilS inlo :1 n inHnit'l• of
n ..tt Once ce'ls' t
IVt unJ wills which in th.
ing paths'! QUite 'Ipan f cIPo~lhVC phase then follow scpanllC und conniel.
. " rom t Ie tilet th ot d ' t '
without an implicit COl' t ' . a estruction and negation cunno C'Xtst
s ruClton 'Ind ' f f ' . t, t .
sense but in pracrice ' .: .\ lnn:ulllll_this not 111 a me .lp lymcal
Besides-it is still Gr" "
, I,e" POIlIlC'III),
I .' .•,IS pany program .. ('\' I 108 29)
1 )ll ., .. . - •

and cannot but b. th • mSCl .\V 10 IS. SI' , ca k''m£-"thc modem I' nne\! ' mus;t be
refonn h" l e e proclanllcr :lIltl Qrganizer of nn intellectual and moral
. W Ie 1 a so means crc'uing the t ~ • f
' n t' " . .' CrT:un or a subsequent (I eve I opmc1nI or
the. a 1011.1 -popular collect
. .. IV"
.... \vl'll t ' IS t IIe realization
OW,IT( ' ot' :l SUPCrlor.
, 101 I
form of modem clvlltzation" (ibid ., 132-33). a
,J"
Curiously, Althusser does not comment Ol~ the 'se f'unous
.
tcx.ts·
"
It'IS aIways
ns ~y and often Improper to make ;\ si lence speak. Therefore. I will limit
myself
. ,
to two comments. In making -
the Party~ a modem Prince • Gr'I'" '
.. SCI mns
a n~k II1 the sense that the ,suggested identification can c;lsily be reversed, h"
other words. when he consIders the Party as the modem ligure of the P " ,
doesn 't G ' ' " ..
ramSCl ru~l t l~ nsk of thmkmg about the Party in accordance with
nncc,
the :m odel of the Pnnce? ~mong other consequences. such an approach will.
at first , lead to a perception of the Party as a superindividual. with u can.
science of its own. a will (the ability to choose the goals). and an inlelli!'cnce
(the ability to adapt the means 10 the ends), When we remember the irrcn;edia-
hly ideological sta tus Althusser assigns to the notion of the subject and to its
metaphorical uses~ we can imagine that he might have been perplexed when
confronted wilh Gramsci 's approach, Besides, doesn't Ihis approach lead: us 10
\,
find an analogy between the relalionships that link, on one hand, the Prince
and I:he people and, on Ihe olher hand, Ihe Parly and Ihe masses') Certainly,
such an ana logy would not necessarily contradict a certain Leninist orthodoxy.
the one presented, for example, in What Is to Be DOlle? Machiavelli's Prince
in fact owes his privileged hislorical role 10 Ihe insunnounlable polilical
incapacity of the people, The people easily leI themselves be blinde,d and
deceived; they certainly have a kind of lucidity, but this lucidily is effective
only over the field of the langible, Ihe limited, the particular, The people know
how to see up close but nOI far away; they cannOI Iherefore predict. In
consequence, they are more likely 10 preserve Ihan 10 create, Similarly, in
tenns of action. the people arc powerkss because Ihey cannot unite OUI of
their own will; if they want 10 avoid defeat, "Ihey should al once make one of
their members a leader so that he may correCI Ihis defect, keep Ihe populace
united and look to their defence" (Machiavelli 1970, 251)-nolhing here, we
can se:e, that would shock a follower of Iheories of the " vanguard," If we
remember the importance that Althusser gave to the popular masses and to I
their initiatives, in parricular in his last published lexts (1979: 1978n, 11 In), i

'lssl' nn rdcrcnce in Ahhusscr and Balibar (1 970. 128).

4. However. I have tume d up a P. . ~

Scanned by CamScanner
 . .:::
.,
~
Jcrray .. Althusscr
. and Mut:hhlVt:lli • 173

We can und . ' h might have hesitaled when faced with ..

the ass'. erStand, once again , how C
Jnulation effected by Gramsci, . ., .
I t seems fi d onfirmll1ion oj these dUll hIs III II hrtcl ,
to me that I can n a c . .
remark in C . I d .. dans Ie p(lrll COUll/lilt/I .>;/(' tWhlll Mllst
C t! qUI nc peal p us ure, . I . . .
eaSe in the C . P ). "The peculiarity 01 the )(HlrgcOIs praclIcl! ul
I' . ommumst arty, , . Tl " I I
po HICS con sists in making others cnsure its domlnnllo n . 11))' IS 11 rc:u y true
for MaChiavclli, even if Gramsci did not see it" (Althu sser t97Mu, lOS) . if 1
were not afraid o f extmcting more from these sentences than they contain, 1
WOuld freely say that Althusser affinns the failure and impossihility or
carrying out the substitution presented above: in the ;,bscilce of :, real Marx.isl "
political theory, it is fruitless to pretend to graft Machi'lvclli's political thl!ory "
onlO Marxism , notwithstanding the undeniable similarities. When we come to
the role of the masses-who are, after all, the Reply 10 )011" L{!II'is (Althusscr
1976b) reminds us, the ones who make history, :'1 far from Mm:hinvcllian
fonnula-lhen rejecting this graft becomes inescapable.

VI

Nevertheless. we must inquire into the affinities that have led so many
Marxists to tum. secretly or publicly. to Machiavelli and that also explain
Althusser's passionate interest in him. One can summarize thcm thus: accord-
ing to Althusser, Machiavelli is an authentically and deeply malerialist Ihink-
er. What must we understand here by materialism? In the ronn in which
Althusser defended it, the materialist thesis asserts. lirst or all. Ihal realily is
irreducibly plural: differences are real, insurmountable. and every errort 10
abolish them, to resolve them into an artificial and arbitrary unity or uniror-
mity, is inevitably idealist. The notion of overdetcnnination means preciscly
that differences can come together and combine but that this combinalion is
never a fusiDn, a suppressiDn, Dr a reductiDn to unity or simplicilY. In Dlher
words, each instance of the real possesses its own nature and erreclivity: no
instance is the phenomenal form Df anDther; none is Ihc tnlth or anOlher. We
can alsD say this abDut cDntradictiDns and practices: "social practice" is
cDmpDsed Df quite distinct practices, each or which finds wilhin ilself the
criteria of its Dwn success. For example, the criteria or lruth arc internal 10
theoretical practice and cannot be searched for in a transcendental other space.
Materialism is thus a ratification of and a scrupulous respect for the diversity
of the given: all doctrines that tend tD diminish dis lances and to blur the
differences between instances-for example, cCDnomi sm, which makes the
my the truth Df the entire social space. or historicism. which reduces
econo . f Z ' .
the variety of the social to the unity 0 a ellgelSl-ull such doctrines arc.
whether they like it or not, Ideahst.

Scanned by CamScanner
 274 .. Politics: Class and Beyond
II
In panicular, materialism adheres to the idea that th . f t'now\cdgc
ak I . I . h' eprocesso" k
t .es p ace ~nt1re. y Wl~ ill ~hought. Whether at its point of dcpanurc or its
f
pomt of amval, It reSIdes m the same "element": there is no "cxit" from
I
thought to reality; reality and thought remain irremediably scparate.
As a consequence, materialism implies a particular definition of the whole
which Althu sser presents in opposition to the Hegelian conception of cx.pres~
sive totality. In this conception, each part is the image of the other pans and of
the ensemble, as if it were a set of mutually reflective mirrors. From the start ,
the genesis of this totality can be thought of as a self-creation. as the
movement of a simple unity that develops and transforms itself without ever
detaching itself from itself. On the contrary, the materialist whole-the
Marxist whole, Althusser specifies-is an "already-given complex whole." Its
plurality can be ascertained. but it cannot be deduced; it is the "raw material"
of all knowledge and of all action, and it is meaningless to try to find "behind
it" a simple principle or matrix that can explain its fonnation.
This definition of the whole encompasses a particular conception of time.
To Hegelian time, characteri zed by homogeneous continuity and by contem-
poraneity, Althu sser opposes materialistic time or, better, times. In effect, each
instance has its own specific time, and the times combine together in the same
way as the instances, without. being conflated with or reduced to each other.
All philosophies of the Origin are, from the start, rejected. In effect, a
philosophy of the Origin is always a philosophy of the originary unity; its goal
is to restore the One in order to guarantee, a priori, the possibility of
knowledge and of action. As soon as the "real" is posed as One, when subject
and object are but a superficial and temporary splitting into two, knowledge is
"founded," because there is , between subject and object. an essential comin-
gling and affinity. It is the same for action, which, at least in principle, can
occur without obstacles. If, on the contrary, multiplicity and variety .are
considered as being absolutely primary , if no unity can be found behind them,
if they are composed of truly autonomous elements, then the encounter and
harmony among these elements are necessarily contingent. In effect, each
follows in its movements a law of its own, and as Coumot would have it, the
intersection of independent series is, by definition, aleatory. Therefore, all
guarantees are fictilious and deceiving. In renouncing any pretension of
coinciding with a radical origin, materialism is inevitably a philosophy of
chance, of risk, of wager.
The preceding outline, however brief and concise, pennils, 1 think, an
examination of the extent to which Machiavelli belongs to the materialisl
family. Let us listen to him define his object: "1 have written a tract, De
Principatibus, in which I hollow out to the best of my ability the problems
posed by such a subject: what sovereignty is, how many species of it there are,
how to acquire it, how to keep it, how to lose it" (letter to Francesco Vettori,

Scanned by CamScanner
 ..... :
.....
~ ',;

,
•• Terra)': Althusscr and Machiavelli • 275
10 Decem>.. .
ver 15 h' 11" an revolution. we
know, is that t 13), The first real result of the Mac lave J discourse
that politics' hcsc problems co uld become part of nn autonomous ·fi· laws'
. d·
Irre uClble 1
IS thus
' constituted as an autonomous fiIC Id , ruled by .SpeCI IC 'me,
the essential 0 .morality Or religion. But Machiavelli affinns at the same tI .
their singu! ~Ifference among instances and the necessity to consider them 10
, arHy' fi
1n the sec 'lrst, political alliance.
elements of and, place, history is directly double or composite because th~
religions a d WhIch it is composed-the foundations and the re forms 0
n of States the projects of subjugation and conquest-are pro-
duce d byane ' Gd
'd nCOUnter between fortune and virlli, Fortune, not 0 or
Vl
Pro . ence. I do not know if Machiavelli was an atheist, but r am sure that his
work
, JS, God is radically absent from it, thereforc nothing can guarantee that
h ••
hlsto~, as a unity or a meaning, and the show that history offers-the
ins[a~lhty of states, their inevitable corruption , the indefinite succession of
religIOns and empires. the erratic migrations of virtu-testifies plainly to the
contrary.
On the other hand, the irreducible part of fortune prohibits one from
considering history as the result of human actions: there is in each of the
events that compose it an inexpugnable alterity, such that human beings can
never pretend to be its sale authors, In short, fortune and virtu are two
independent actors. Therefore, their encounter is contingent: one cannot
predict it; one can only observe it.
In order to restore an at least panial intelligibility to history, one might be
tempted to substitute "man" for God as original bearer of consciousness. But
such an attempt would be fruitless because human beings are themselves
irremediably divided: there are the great ones who want to govern and the
people who do not want to be governed; between them , no reconciliation is
possible because their desires are directly contradictory. In consequence, the
cohesion and strength of the state remain in a conflictual equilibrium between
the two " panies ," in which conflict enters in at least as cenainly as equilibri-
um. But this essential division of the community forbids us to consider "man"
as the principle or the motor of historical development. From this point of
view, Machiavelli is not a humanist. If such an engine must be found at any
price, one should look instead to the antagonism between the people and the
great ones.
Such premises induce a panicular conception of time. From the point of
view of knowledge as ~ell as of action, time is neutral; it is the parent of truth
but also of oversights, for time bnngs out everything, and it can bring with it
the good as well as the bad and the bad as well as the good" (Machiavelli
1964, 19). ThIS I~ because, in reality, time does not have its own being or
actions; It takes I~S substance from the event it encompasses· so whereas
permanence calls or permanence, change opens the door for chan~e: "in the

Scanned by CamScanner
 \
176 • Pollclcs: CI,," and Beyond

1II1I1I,lIlIy 111111 tlurnliull of his r e i . .

\
III'C (· .~lill~lIish':' I. IWCli liSC 0 ,gh" memoTlCS and the reasons for jnnoVHllons
1J001IHfIICIIllII of nnolhcr"
ne c nnge
(ibid 7)
."Iw I . f
ays eaves a denticulauon or
th c
·1
,. I1l1l1y. ill Iht' IIIJSCIlCC
" . Once agai
of such a u
-r terrain .
n We are on Caml lar
prt'sclll:I,' or "M'm",' ,'" . • . I g arantee from a divine plan or the
- • \\ I 1.1 CapitOl Ictter) at the . th d '
11111111." of lillie. the \'urinbilil)' nnd inrin't ~e~ter of hIstory. e ISCOn·
• ' _. • I e mOb1hty of circumstances make
gl: llr.! rllhzlIIg II vcr\' dangerous exercise In f
. II .. - . act, there is no law th at .IS nOL
SlIl,I.'!.;! hi cxccpllons: :md Ihe lllorC a law is general h '( is em t A
rr 'R I ( 97') • t e more I P y. s
-. :1Il~' ols l:gnnu I )' _. 37) saw, we can thus understand the imponance th
Mm:l~in\'clli g:lVl! to exnmples in his method. They are not there to illUstrat at
I'Ull~ 1(~lllltl clsl!wllcrc and according to others; they are the unique material ;o~
I'clh.·~IHHl :lIld tht.! exclusive support of the conclusions to which they lead. In
ollll~1' words. there arc only cnses, singular conjunctures, and the lessons one
ClIn lind endl time.! in thcm. These can shed light and suggest attitudes and
way~ of acting ill o ther siluntions, but their validity cannot be guaranteed
heyolld the evcnt that taught them. Thus, Machiavelli finds him self in opposi.
lion hl Ariswtle: if hy science we must understand certain knowledge, then
there is for him only :I science of the particular; as soon as one departs from
Ihe particular, science makes room for an. Of course, Machiavelli exposes
himself 10 the charge of empiricism; but, as Althusser warned us, the Lenin of
Lt.'f/c'rs from :\lar also leaves himself open to such accusations. Here we are
faced with Ihe residue. common to Machiavelli and to Althusser: the art of
W:lr, thc arl of politics-Ihis is what remains of reason and science when the
brcalh of timune and the power of matter have passed over them.
I ha y\? saict enough. I have ventured over four territories: realism. revolu·
[ion. polilics. lIl:tJerialislIl. I have charted the way, making many encounters,
htll of all Ihe one' I have broughl up, Ihe meeting belween Althusser and
Machiavelli is certainl y Ihe least fortuitous.

Frefer."'.s
Allhll~scr. L. 1969. For Marx. New York: Vintage Press.
_ _ . 1972. PoliTics llnd liistory: Momesqllieu. Rousseau, Hegel. and Marx. Trans.
R. BrcwSf('r. London: New Left ~.ooks. .
_ _ _ . 1976:1. PoSiTiofls . Paris: Editions Soc lale~. .. . _
_ _. 1976b. "Reply to John Lewis. "In Essays III Se(f-CrI/lCISm, Irans. G. Lock. 33-
99 l ondon: New Left Books. . . . .
. - C· C/II pIllS durer dalls Ie Partl COmmllnlste. Pans: Fran~Ols
_ _ . 1978a. ,. '1m lie I'
Maspcro. r
d d Machiavel" Typescript. Althusser Archives.
___ . 1978b. "SO tlU e . e of Marxism" In Power alld Oppositioll ill Post·
1979 ··The Cn<tS .
--. . ... GLock 225-37. London: Ink Links.
R{'l'o/urivlltlry SoneIH's. trans . . •

Scanned by CamScanner
 ___. 1990 .. s T{!rray: Althu sNcr and MiJch ia vclJi .. 277
. oJ't
Althusser, L an I ude de M. .
Len B k d E. O;dibar I acJuavcJ." Flllur (Jlflh/I!ur. tlC I, I. pp. 26-40.
Croce B 00 s, ' 970. /(c(uJlnJ.( Cl'Jpiwl . Tr:mll. H. UrewI;ler. I...ondon: New
• ,1 914 f/'
Mcred ' h . IS/orical Atmeria/f.rm umllhe El',,"omh.',r o[ Karl Marx. Tn.lns. C. M.
. II . London '
Gramscl, A. 1971 .' Alltn ilnd Unwin.
'ran s. Q. Hoare.. .Sf!/CC( t'OilS fmm I I
II! ' , Gram.rei. Ed. and
I d ,WII Norcbook.,' I'lf AII/f)If/(J
- - -. 1975 Qu and G. N. Smith. New Yorl:: JIIICrlla1ior1:l1 Publi shers.
- - -, 1994' L urlcr", del Cur(.'erc. 4 yols. Ed . V. GcrriJlana. Turin: Einaudi Edhore.
New York:. C eirers.firom Pri.ron. Vol. I. Ed . F. Hoscnga n cn. Trans . R. Rose nthal.
Lenin. V. I. 19640 lumblu Universi ty Pre s",
Machiavelli. N. . COII~cted Worh. Vol. 23. MoscOW: Pwgress Publis hers.
Prclis. 1964, n/{, Prince. Tm ns. :md cd. M , Musa, New York : S1. Martin 's
, 1970, T/, D ' .
Montesquie 19 c I,fCour.,'l'.r, Ed. Ii, Krick. London: Pcng um .
194941 ' Ca""~,.s. Paris: Gasscl.
Perse, S.-1. u.
Regnault, F. 19 ~ ~;IGI}(m,r. Trans, T, S, Elliot. New York: H<Jrcuurt. Bracc.
\Veil E 197' 7 ... La pcnstc du Prince." Cohiers pour rona/YUt no. 6, pp. 2 1-52.
, . 1 Ess .
. OIS el Conferem:cs, 2 vols. Paris: Pion.

Scanned by CamScanner