If one compares eastern legalists, such as Shang Yang with their western equivalents, namely Machiavelli, one finds similarities, but also many differences.  The similarities involve actions to be taken by leaders, while the differences are caused by cultural differences and the relative importance of individuals.  This essay will compare the two systems, legalism and Machiavellianism, to examine on which points they agree and on which points they differ.

Let us first examine the situation that led to the development of these two systems.  Shang Yang, one of the leading theorists in legalism, lived during the Warring States Period of China (475 BC – 221 BC).  Meanwhile, Machiavelli, lived during the Italian Renaissance (1300 AD – 1600 AD).  Both of these personalities lived during a period of country-wide division, a civil war.  Both China and Italy were divided into many small states and in both cases, this division had lasted for centuries.  Italy became divided after the fall of the Roman Empire and remained divided for around 1800 years.  China was divided for around 800 years after the fall of the Zhou Dynasty.  However, it is important to note that unlike Shang Yang’s China, which was split into several states that faced no external threat from a more powerful force, Italy did, as it faced invasions from intervening Spanish, French, and German militaries.  Such common suffering caused these men, among many others, to theorize on how to end these civil wars.  Both men were also quite familiar with history and used this as a basis to state their arguments on what should be done.  Their goal was to end the chaos in the most efficient and most quicks quickest manner.  In addition, both of these men served a state during these periods.  However, both men also had their critics.

Reflecting the civil war that divided their nations, there was also an ideological division between the systems these men proposed and what others believed should be done.  In Shang Yang’s situation, legalism had to contend with the Mohists, who desired universal love and the Confucians, who favored benevolence and morality.  In Machiavelli’s time, he had to contend with the dominance of Christianity, and its focus on benevolence and morality and the republicans, who favored states without a monarchy.  These opponents criticized legalism and Machiavellism as evil, immoral, and that they would only lead to a worse situation.  In Shang Yang’s case, such criticisms were not initially successful in hindering legalism, but later they were.  In Machiavelli’s case, such criticisms were initially successful in hindering Machiavellism, but later his system was adopted.

Before we examine the similarities and differences of legalism and Machiavellism, there is the issue of cultural influence.  First, let us examine the names of these systems.  Shang Yang’s system was called Fajia, or the school of law, which is also translated more simply as legalism.  Machiavelli’s system is called Machiavellianism.  We can see the first cultural difference by simply comparing these two names.  Legalism, in its name, gives no hints as to who largely developed it.  Meanwhile, Machiavellianism is named after the man who developed it.  It is widely known that western culture emphasizes the importance of the individual over society, whereas eastern culture emphasizes the importance of society over the individual.  What does this entail?  It entails that legalism focuses more on how to develop a system, whereas Machiavellianism focuses more on the development of individual leaders.  As one will later see, this is a very important difference, whether the system or the individuals is of greater importance, permeates through both proposed doctrines.

Now that the reader has this important cultural difference in mind, let us now examine the basic premises and issues that both doctrines examine.  Legalism, as mentioned previously, concerns itself with developing a system and focuses little on how leaders should behave.  Machiavellism, meanwhile, concerns itself with developing strong leaders and focuses little on how a system should be created.  These doctrines are complementary.  If one focuses only on the system, then individuals within the system will not behave properly.  If one focuses only on the individual, then the system will not be properly developed.  If individuals are not developed, then they will become corrupt.  If the system is not properly developed, a state will not last much beyond the death of its leader.  Almost every Chinese state, including the Qin and Han dynasties, became corrupt because of its focus on the system, not on the individual.  Meanwhile, many well-known states in the West have not lived beyond their leaders, such as Napoleon’s France and the Third Reich, as the systems were not properly developed.  However, this is the first time in history in which people have easy access to both legalism and Machiavellism.  If these two systems can be combined, they can create a powerful combination.

First, let us discuss the basic premises of both systems.  First, both writers emphasize the need for a centralized authority, whose foundation is built upon law and the military.  Machiavelli discusses little on how to make law effective, whereas Shang Yang goes into great detail on the subject.  Shang Yang states that laws should be clear, simple, and harsh.  Machiavelli discusses military matters in great detail, whereas Shang Yang does less so.  For instance, Machiavelli states that a leader should study warfare at every moment by studying the terrain in a leader’s domain.  Meanwhile, he argues that mercenaries and auxiliaries are undependable.  Shang Yang does not go into detail on the subject, but from history, we know that the legalist Qin military did not use mercenaries or auxiliaries.  It largely consisted of conscripts.  Second, both writers were critical of aristocrats and noblemen.  Shang Yang argued that they should simply be removed in favor of a centralized administration, whereas Machiavelli was not so blatant.  He argued that they could be used, but that one should be aware of the problems they create.  Third, both writers argue that leaders should be willing to do whatever is necessary, even wickedness.  Machiavelli states that such actions should be done at one time, rather than gradually, so that trust can be more easily regained afterwards.  Fourth, both writers stated that a leader should be trusted by their subjects.  The legalists used a public reward to do this initially and the consistency of the law maintained trust.  The initial reward involved Shang Yang, who told a crowd that anyone who moved a block of wood from one part of the city to another would be rewarded one hundred coins.  Because up to this point no one trusted the government, everyone hesitated.  But, a relatively simple man did not hesitate and did as he was told.  He was rewarded the coins and so trust was quickly established.

Now let us look at some similarities that both writers have.  Both argued for a disciplined and warrior-like culture.  The legalists stated that people should be of one mind and that when going to war, they should, “Be like wolves upon seeing meat.”  Machiavelli also argues for this, however, in a different way.  Machiavelli saw Christianity as the reason the Roman Empire fell, as the Romans had a warrior-based culture before Christianity overtook it.  That being said, both doctrines are guided by a notion of spirituality.  Legalism is guided by Daoist principles, which are concerned with balancing a system, such as via reward and punishment.  Meanwhile, Machiavellism is guided by the principle that fortune and opportunity largely control one’s destiny.  Due to the dominance of Christianity at the time, and aware of the fate of those who went against it, Machiavelli was careful not to criticize it too openly.  Second, both doctrines argued that leaders should be adapted to the time in which they live and that men are only known because they do this successfully.  Third, both systems state that a leader should distrust flatterers and men who seek to impress the leader.  The legalists argue that to combat this, leaders should hide their intentions, while Machiavelli argues that such men should simply not be employed.

Now let us examine the differences of both systems.  The most notable difference is that Shang Yang did not discuss political strategy in relation to military strategy, while Machiavelli does.  For example, Machiavelli argues that a state that shares a leader’s culture and language is easier to control than one that does not.  Legalists do not see this as a problem, for they historically simply forced the defeated peoples to learn their writing system, standardized weight and overall created a system that could be used to unify a state that does not necessarily share culture and language.  Machiavelli also discusses the concept of Republic, which did not exist at during legalist times.  He argues that it is easier for a person to become leader through the people than through the aristocracy, for the people are willing to obey, while aristocrats see themselves as equal to a leader, and therefore harder to control.  In addition, if a leader becomes leader through ability, and not by fortunate circumstances, it will be easier for said leader to maintain control.  Machiavelli also discusses how leaders should behave, which legalists did not.  He argues leaders should be prudent and humane, so that too much confidence does not make a leader incautious and too much distrust to become intolerable.  Another notable difference is that legalists disarmed their populations, while Machiavelli agues one should not.  The reason for not disarming subjects is that if a leader does so, the people will feel betrayed and the action will show that you have little trust and faith in them.  This will cause people to hate the leader and a hated leader does not last long.  He goes further to say that people have one desire, to not to be oppressed, while noblemen have one desire, to oppress.

Now, many people erroneously consider Shang Yang’s and Machiavelli’s realpolitik to be dominant.  However, if one studies these two systems, one finds that this is not the case.  Many nations today have fallen into the traps that these men have warned us about.  First, states are decentralized, making unity difficult, and what centralization exists is hindered by indecisiveness and thick bureaucracy that hinders rather than supports action.  Businessmen have become a new aristocratic class that fights any change and view themselves as equal to the government, making necessary change difficult.  They have misled much of the people into believing that they would make better leaders.  Good law has been replaced by overly complex law, which is easily abused by those who know how to, while it oppresses and confuses the average person.  The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan could have been successful if leaders adopted the legalist system and had the political will to do whatever it takes to win.  Indeed, if politicians merely made a basic study of warfare, things would be more successful.  Meanwhile, some politicians, believing they know what is best, are trying to take guns away from the people, completely ignorant of why this is not a good idea (As discussed above).  Meanwhile, most politicians are not being guided by the times, but rather are trying to maintain the status quo at all costs.  Leaders are also surrounded, by their own doing, by many flatterers.  Such a situation can be disastrous.

Therefore, we find that realpolitik practiced today is not the realpolitik as recommended by the likes of Shang Yang and Machiavelli.  Therefore, we find that problems are merely expanding, rather than being solved, and this is not only causing needless suffering today, but will cause more suffering in the future.  There is the argument that being simply being nice will make all problems go away.  Such notions are not only naive, but also dangerous, as such thoughts have led many to these problems, which in turn causes the needless suffering.  The best way to being nice is solving problems, by any and all means at a leader’s disposal.  And this is what both Shang Yang and Machiavelli were trying to communicate.