In the Western tradition, before Machiavelli, we had Plato's "Republic" which advocated what essentially amounted to a totalitarian state, run by philosophers, as well as Aristotle's "Politics" which claimed that some people needed to be ruled by autocrats because that's all they could understand. In both of these, the authors attempted to explain their reasoning as each government being somehow best for the society. Machiavelli didn't bother to appeal to loftier notions of what is best for society, but simply what is best for those in power, which is usually more power than their neighbors and adversaries. He also advocated the use of subterfuge and deceit to gain advantage in a very open manner, again only to the benefit of the ruler, and not necessarily anyone else, such as the people. Previous philosophers had also done that, but as always, they tried to justify their means by claiming it achieved a superior end. Plato, in Republic, is full of admissions of deceit of the people in order to make them loyal to the state above their loyalty to their families or even their lives. He states this is necessary in order to have the state function properly.
In summary, Machiavelli presented a treatise on advancing the interests of power for its own sake, even using what would amount to criminal acts. He presents no higher philosophy, in a departure from previous political treatises which always relied on philosophical underpinnings. That this sort of behavior was going on had always been clear to those connected to power, but it was not supposed to be something so freely recognizable to the masses.
