|
I started a blog and thought I would share my post with a broader audience in case anyone is interested in discussing Machiavelli here.
awesomedrifter.wordpress.com
Written in the 16th century, The Prince is regarded as one of the earliest political science treatise. Earlier works such as Plato's Republic were founded on theoretical and moral considerations, ideals not founded in reality. Machiavelli examines what it takes to maintain political power and concludes unstained morality and political competence are contradictory traits in many cases. While The Prince was not original in terms of genre1, it brought shocking content for its readers. Previous works would place the moral character of the ruler as the most important quality. Machiavelli, suffering no illusions about man's nature, deems power to be most important. Without maintaining power a prince will lose his kingdom placing him and his subjects at the mercy of their conqueror. Those who place private morality over political expediency are at a severe disadvantage. Not all men are good and Machiavelli illustrates this uncomfortable truth for the reader.
Machiavellianism predates Machiavelli, and I think that's an important point to understand. Machiavelli is describing what he has seen and read, coming to conclusions based on evidence. Political advice at the time suggested cultivating traditional virtues and neglects subterfuge. This puts naturally good people at a disadvantage. Some people will resort to wicked deeds to obtain their ends and they will ignore moral guidance. Where as people that are naturally good will not consider all the possibilities becoming easier to deceive and more vulnerable to unethical behavior. The Prince provides examples of people doing contemptible acts to gain power, Machiavelli does not endorse these actions but shows the extremes potential adversaries may stoop to. Pretending that wicked deeds never pay is misleading and The Prince deals with when and how wickedness is useful. I think the examples Machiavelli provides are educational for a potential ruler.
What impressed me most about Machiavelli is his use of scriptural principles not typically talked about in church. Machiavelli claims that it is better to be feared than loved. The bible uses the word fear over 300 times2. Yahweh understands the use of fear as demonstrated in the Old Testament numerous times. It is important to note the difference between being feared and being hated however. Conflating these terms will cause ruin to the prince. The prince must exercise fear without being hated by his people. This is simple, don't take people's women or their property is a good rule of thumb. Men who will oppose you motivated by ambition alone are rare so avoiding a reputation that makes you hated will protect you from most internal threats by itself. Also Machiavelli understands that the root of fear (violence) must be within the prince's power to inflict. Patriotic troops dedicated to a national cause are the most sure way to maintain political power. At the time Italy was reliant on mercenaries and foreign troops which will never fight dangerous battles and will turn on you whenever it become profitable to do so. Machiavelli provides a direct biblical illustration. Before David fights Goliath he turns down Saul's armor3. A nation must rely on its own arms for security.
What seems to go largely unmentioned in the analyses I've read is Machiavelli's focus on being accepted as the people as a solid foundation for your political body. A good ruler will not interfer with its citizens property and will allow them to earn a comfortable living. People who like being ruled by the prince will not conspire to kill him and the prince enjoys great protection from being overthrown. People need to really dislike the prince before they will cooperate with others in conspiracy since the risks are so great and the rewards are questionable. Also Machiavelli praises the French king for implementing a consititution that helps check the power of the nobility against the prince under the guise of people's rights. This leads into the most fascinating part of Machiavelli's legacy. In Maurice Joly's “Dialouge In Hell” (1864) Joly uses Machiavelli as the revealer of Napolean the third's despotic reign.
Disclaimer: This next part is not about Machiavelli's historical writtings but rather his role in a piece of fiction I find interesting.
“The Dialouge in Hell” is a fictional dialouge between Machiavelli and Montesquieu in an attempt to speak out against a tyrant manipulating a modern government. The fictional elements are an attempt to sidestep censorship laws against poltically motivated material. Fictional Machiavelli is too accurate desribing the Emporer's methods, causing Dialouges to be censered almost immediately5. From what I can tell Dialouges accurately describes Napolean III methods he used to declare himself emporer of France with a military coup. Napolean was the President of France at the time. This was a new concept to me, why would the preseident stage a coup? Then I found out he couldn't be reelected so he decided on re-writing the constitution. Napolean III is an educational example for the fascists of the next century in an indirect way because of another book.
Let us take a detour to examine “The Protocols of the Elder's of Zion”'s dark role on the historical stage and its connection to “Dialouges” before further examining Machiavelli's legacy.
Protocol's notorious legacy is from the purposes Hitler used it for. Protocols supposedly revealing Jewish schemes of global hegemoney. It is often discredited as being a literary fiction but still readers find it has a feeling of truth to it. Looking at Dialouges, which Protocols have been shown to be plaguerized from reveals why this is the case4. Hitler was able to use the Protocols to justify war while he himself studied and employeed its principals. Even though Protocols is fictional, it plagurized so heavily from dialouges it takes on Dialouges essence. Protocols is an interesting book by itself, but it owes its “success” by plagurizing Dialouges so heavily. Let us examine the Dialouges to better understand Machiavellianism, leaving The Protocols for another discussion.
“Unfortunate are they that love the truth, and do not seek it out at its source”~ Giacomo Casanova6
The Dialouges features Machiavelli conversing with Montesquie. Montesquie assumes that it is impossible for a despot to gain despotic levels of power in a modern state and he argues with Machiavelli who proves him wrong. Machiavelli provides an accurate desciption of how Napolean III came to and maintains power. Thats why “Dialouge in Hell” was imediately confiscated and only a few orginals survived while Joly was arrested for his labours. Dialouges ends very powerfully, but it provides no ambiguity to the nature of the work. Dialouges describe the very Machiavellian censorship that repressed it, while tragic, illustrates Joly's political genius.
There are various ways Machiavelli can be interrperated in the Dialouges7. Machiavelli understands despotism and we might first be led to believe Machiavelli is advocating despotism. Upon deeper consideration however we see Machiavelli's knowledge being used to expose the emporer's excessive power. Machiavelli's words make us suspect that he is evil, while he is actually the revealer of evil. Machiavelli's works allow people to better understand the world the live in and his cameo in “The Dialouge in Hell” attests for the value of understanding Machiavelliaism. Accurate assesment of people's nature is a very important skill in many walks of life. Everyone, in various degrees, possess a Machiavellian nature. People care for their own personal benefits more than they value similar benefits for others. Machiavelli gives an important percepective of politics that modern readers still find insightful. Machiavelli is a frequently read author considering he wrote in the 1500's, his popularity throughout the ages is understandable by the quality of his writtings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrors_for_princes
http://www.christianitytoday.com/biblestudies/bible-answers/spirituallife/what-does-it-mean-to-fear-god.html
1 Samuel 17:39
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/protzion/DelaCruzProtocolsMain.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Joly
“The Story of my Life” I think he's quoting someone himself here, which would make me ironic quoting a quotation of this quote. This aside is worth suffering some irony for. I feel Giacomo Cassanova is another representation of how your legacy is only one small facet of your personality. His prison escape, his duel and his scam of the old lady are all examples of excellent stories. Cassanova is a polymath who has some crazy stories to tell, while his legacy equates him to a seducer. While being a playboy is a good legacy to leave in my opinion, Casanova is a much richer personality than is often suggested. Machiavelli's legacy suffers a much darker yet similar distortion and this is why I am interested in him. Casanova is an entertaining read, the most impressive auto-biography I've read, by the way.
http://www.amazon.ca/Dialogue-Hell-between-Machiavelli-Montesquieu/dp/0739106996 John Waggoner does an excellent job in his commentary which helped illuminate the Dialogue for me. I owe my perspective on the work to him.
|
thanks for posting. my friends and i are all wrong about exactly what Machiavellianism is. 
just another throwaway pop reference that turns out to be dead wrong.
and to that i can only say
“Unfortunate are they that love the truth, and do not seek it out at its source”~ Giacomo Casanova6
|
Canada8987 Posts
Great, I just reed the Prince and did a project on it for university. I don't have the same opinion on certain subject, mostly that the Prince is still a pertinent book to understand politics because it seems to me that the right state we live in, in which the government is their to provide different kind of benefit (or security however you want to name it) to the people is drastically different from Machiavelli vision where the Prince doesn't have to give anythings to his people and they don't really have a reason to follow him either, they just do because that is what people do. They are not political actors, they revolt when the prince is really bad for them but they don't want any more right or better living condition (well apart for not being badly treat by the prince), they fell more like dog that can bite you when you beat them then actual human.
This is probably explicated by the context in which Machiavelli write his text (by the way that part is mostly out of my ass), in a world where their was not realy any institution a large part of the population being peasant who lived mostly from themselves and the Church taking a large part of what to government would do today. It seems to me that the Prince is a better history books, than a modern political book, still a pretty interesting book to read if you have the time.
Apart from that interesting blog, I never heard of The dialog in hell, I might check it some day. Also it is just my interpretation that I gave, it may very well be crap.
|
"Earlier works such as Plato's Republic were founded on theoretical and moral considerations, ideals not founded in reality" All things are theoretical and all things are practical. Some things are just theoretically practical and some things are practically theoretical.
Read Discourse on Livy, then read Montesquieu because he's 2x better, then take off those Modernity-tinted glasses.
|
On December 10 2015 12:45 Nakajin wrote:
Great, I just reed the Prince and did a project on it for university. I don't have the same opinion on certain subject, mostly that the Prince is still a pertinent book to understand politics because it seems to me that the right state we live in, in which the government is their to provide different kind of benefit (or security however you want to name it) to the people is drastically different from Machiavelli vision where the Prince doesn't have to give anythings to his people and they don't really have a reason to follow him either, they just do because that is what people do. They are not political actors, they revolt when the prince is really bad for them but they don't want any more right or better living condition (well apart for not being badly treat by the prince), they fell more like dog that can bite you when you beat them then actual human.
This is probably explicated by the context in which Machiavelli write his text (by the way that part is mostly out of my ass), in a world where their was not realy any institution a large part of the population being peasant who lived mostly from themselves and the Church taking a large part of what to government would do today. It seems to me that the Prince is a better history books, than a modern political book, still a pretty interesting book to read if you have the time.
Apart from that interesting blog, I never heard of The dialog in hell, I might check it some day. Also it is just my interpretation that I gave, it may very well be crap.
Machiavelli thinks not giving people a good reason to revolt is sufficient. Modern man is incredibly docile too who will follow because that's what people do. People are still more or less the same animals now as they where then.
The Dialouge has Machiavelli arguing with Montesquie about using his principles in a modern government. The Prince might not be important per se, but understanding Machiavellianism is. The Prince is a good way to learn from the man himself.
On December 10 2015 13:09 Jerubaal wrote:
"Earlier works such as Plato's Republic were founded on theoretical and moral considerations, ideals not founded in reality" All things are theoretical and all things are practical. Some things are just theoretically practical and some things are practically theoretical.
Read Discourse on Livy, then read Montesquieu because he's 2x better, then take off those Modernity-tinted glasses.
I meant that he's using more examples to back up his observations. I didn't consider theoretically practical and practically theoretical considerations when I was writing it.
Montesquieu is on my list. I am interested in learning about him considering the role he plays in "The Dialogue in Hell".
|
I liked the essay and especially the paragraph where it talks about how fear is greater than love. Not sure if it's true but it's a great point.
|
On December 10 2015 13:09 Jerubaal wrote:
Read Discourse on Livy
This, ten times better than the Prince.
Also read Thucydides.
|
<3 All riveting reads, I do however so want to make you all concede that machiavelli's prince is the gateway book to getting people interested in all said books.
People do underestimate the power of restrain. This book can be read by housewives who love soaps and hate books or a garage guy who wants to get a raise, whatever the person, as long as it knows how to read.
It is (from where I imagined when I read it) a "politics for dummies' "manual" with centuries of marketability ahead of it when it is "published".
Come to think of it.. one damn book and the guy's name (if he wrote it) is here for eternity, not bad!
Imagine that!, being smart and knowing how to convey it to anyone.
|
On December 12 2015 06:15 fluidrone wrote:
<3 All riveting reads, I do however so want to make you all concede that machiavelli's prince is the gateway book to getting people interested in all said books.
People do underestimate the power of restrain. This book can be read by housewives who love soaps and hate books or a garage guy who wants to get a raise, whatever the person, as long as it knows how to read.
It is (from where I imagined when I read it) a "politics for dummies' "manual" with centuries of marketability ahead of it when it is "published".
Come to think of it.. one damn book and the guy's name (if he wrote it) is here for eternity, not bad!
Imagine that!, being smart and knowing how to convey it to anyone.
Yeah, but The Prince is one of the suicide vests of political philosophy. The stupider you are, the more damage you are going to do with it.
|
Wow I've never read the prince of the dialogue in hell but they both sound very interesting and astute observations of human character. Great summary, now I don't have to read the book myself .
|
On December 10 2015 12:45 Nakajin wrote:
Great, I just reed the Prince and did a project on it for university. I don't have the same opinion on certain subject, mostly that the Prince is still a pertinent book to understand politics because it seems to me that the right state we live in, in which the government is their to provide different kind of benefit (or security however you want to name it) to the people is drastically different from Machiavelli vision where the Prince doesn't have to give anythings to his people and they don't really have a reason to follow him either, they just do because that is what people do. They are not political actors, they revolt when the prince is really bad for them but they don't want any more right or better living condition (well apart for not being badly treat by the prince), they fell more like dog that can bite you when you beat them then actual human.
This is probably explicated by the context in which Machiavelli write his text (by the way that part is mostly out of my ass), in a world where their was not realy any institution a large part of the population being peasant who lived mostly from themselves and the Church taking a large part of what to government would do today. It seems to me that the Prince is a better history books, than a modern political book, still a pretty interesting book to read if you have the time.
Apart from that interesting blog, I never heard of The dialog in hell, I might check it some day. Also it is just my interpretation that I gave, it may very well be crap.
disclaimer: While it's on my list, I didn't read the prince yet. I read some summaries though.
Not too sure about the change in system. On the surface we all think that the state is there to provide benefit, but historically states are there because some people took over the leadership and started to create institutions around them to secure their power. The entire education and security is there to give it some legitimacy and is often abused to control people. Gangs act very similar for example.
Nowadays people seem to think that democracy is about normal people having influence in politics, but that's mostly not the case and we even have statements from high politicians here and there more or less saying that "the mob is too dumb to rule" (which is despicable but somewhat valid). Democracy's main advantage from a ruler's perspective is that if shit hit the fan and a revolution happened, they would happen peacefully in democracies. But at least in Germany and the US there still exists a political elite who mainly rule in a way that's good for them or good for the power of the state and don't really care what the people want.
|
historically states are there because some people took over the leadership and started to create institutions around them to secure their power
While I find Paleo-political philosophy amusing, it can't really rise above assertion. Secondly, that statement seems tautological: They accumulated power in order to accumulate power. Don't confuse the process for the purpose. Conquerors consolidated power, but groups (usually) stayed in those fiefdoms/empires because of the advantages it afforded.
(which is despicable but somewhat valid) How can it be despicable but valid?
You seem to have decided that governments are purely power hungry and then derived all of your statements from there. You're not unlike Machiavelli in that regard, I suppose.
|
On December 12 2015 08:42 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2015 06:15 fluidrone wrote:
<3 All riveting reads, I do however so want to make you all concede that machiavelli's prince is the gateway book to getting people interested in all said books.
People do underestimate the power of restrain. This book can be read by housewives who love soaps and hate books or a garage guy who wants to get a raise, whatever the person, as long as it knows how to read.
It is (from where I imagined when I read it) a "politics for dummies' "manual" with centuries of marketability ahead of it when it is "published".
Come to think of it.. one damn book and the guy's name (if he wrote it) is here for eternity, not bad!
Imagine that!, being smart and knowing how to convey it to anyone. Yeah, but The Prince is one of the suicide vests of political philosophy. The stupider you are, the more damage you are going to do with it.
Sadly I agree, possibly why I typed what I typed.
But f ck! that writer is brilliant. (and I agree that there is an ocean of other more insightful shit, just always thought he's special in his own thing)
|
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10827
Discourses on Livy made a strong positive impression on me, but I find I have forgotten much of the nuance in the years since I read it that I find myself interested in reading it again. Others should too, especially if you know only of the Roman Empire and not of the more virtuous Roman Republic that preceded it.
|
On December 13 2015 12:53 Korakys wrote:http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10827Discourses on Livy made a strong positive impression on me, but I find I have forgotten much of the nuance in the years since I read it that I find myself interested in reading it again. Others should too, especially if you know only of the Roman Empire and not of the more virtuous Roman Republic that preceded it.
Most people think roman republic is the roman empire 
In a social venue when you bring it up.. some people talk about the empire (which is out of context/nothing to do with the republic you were trying to bring up) as if to destroy any possible debate and wine/flee distilling a certain feeling by making people "picture the way it was back then" (wars/slavery/atrocities/etc). So hard to "get through" on that level, sort of like the "too old can't be good" baseless type of reasoning 
Agreed it did sound corny and stupid when russel crow declares that what they do in life echoes in eternity (in the tarty "aaaa? glad to kill"-ator movie) again, empire not jedi (compulsory trendy joke sorry)).. but this republic lasted almost half a millennia and it was for all intents and purposes what we live today (agreed an all weird and "other" version but founded on it for sure nonetheless).
So weird the flashback you have when you re read stuff:
(extract from link)
v
"They who lay the foundations of a State and furnish it with laws must, as is shown by all who have treated of civil government, and by examples of which history is full, assume that 'all men are bad, and will always, when they have free field, give loose to their evil inclinations; and that if these for a while remain hidden, it is owing to some secret cause, which, from our having no contrary experience, we do not recognize at once, but which is afterwards revealed by Time, of whom we speak as the father of all truth."
I read that around 12.. 14 year old and it never dawned on me just how much that shaped me ..
makes me feel both
 and 
|
On December 13 2015 05:21 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +historically states are there because some people took over the leadership and started to create institutions around them to secure their power While I find Paleo-political philosophy amusing, it can't really rise above assertion. Secondly, that statement seems tautological: They accumulated power in order to accumulate power. Don't confuse the process for the purpose. Conquerors consolidated power, but groups (usually) stayed in those fiefdoms/empires because of the advantages it afforded. How can it be despicable but valid? You seem to have decided that governments are purely power hungry and then derived all of your statements from there. You're not unlike Machiavelli in that regard, I suppose.
I don't see how the creation of institutions has anything to do with the motivation of the people working for them. Institutions are clearly something created by the people in power. They also very clearly enforce the rules/laws made mostly by the people in power or their predecessors. Not saying that anarchy is preferable.
I'm not necessarily thinking that every government only wants power. Sometimes rulers might be more interested in the stability than the power that comes with it f.e. As you pointed out power creates stability and economic advantages and being the most powerful gives you lots of possibilities that don't exist for everyone else. So ofc you can most of the time exchange power for wealth and sometimes stability and make the same choice, which makes it hard to deduct which desire is in the driver seat.
But yes, I believe that every government is power hungry and that accumulation of power is one of their major objectives. Why else would you like to rule?
Btw you can pretty much unriddle any major state's action if you just think about who profits and what would I do if I was thinking only about power. Why is everyone officially fighting the IS? Power. Why is nobody sending ground forces to fight the IS? Power.
@despicable but valid: despicable in the way that what you sacrifice is high, but valid in the way that it makes logically sense. Maybe I'm using valid wrong.
explanation:+ Show Spoiler +
The reason why democracy is regarded higher/as more legitimate than other state forms is that it theoretically allows for everyone to participate.
Saying that you don't want plebiscites because you think that the people are too dumb to make meaningful decisions (loose quote from a German parliament president) is despicable in the way that it clearly goes against the democratic idea, it's morally despicable, it's clearly the statement that freedom is bad for the average person.
It is however logically valid, because people have time and time again proven that they sometimes deactivate their brain and let homophobia and fear run rampant, so it's bound to create some really really bad situations if you give average people too much power.
|
Saying that you don't want plebiscites because you think that the people are too dumb to make meaningful decisions (loose quote from a German parliament president) is despicable in the way that it clearly goes against the democratic idea, it's morally despicable, it's clearly the statement that freedom is bad for the average person.
I don't know why that is so despicable. We wouldn't want to have everyone piloting a ship or driving a car at the same time. Similarly if we want a bridge built or disease treated, someone with expertise should be in charge. This doesn't mean "freedom is bad"... in fact, I think rule by a bunch of idiots is a worse tyranny than that of a mediocre ruler. In any society, freedom can never be unlimited, because our wants and desires will always conflict with someone else's. I think a competent, benevolent ruler can maximize freedom for the average person better than equally diffused power.
|
On December 14 2015 04:12 Glowsphere wrote:Show nested quote +Saying that you don't want plebiscites because you think that the people are too dumb to make meaningful decisions (loose quote from a German parliament president) is despicable in the way that it clearly goes against the democratic idea, it's morally despicable, it's clearly the statement that freedom is bad for the average person. I don't know why that is so despicable. We wouldn't want to have everyone piloting a ship or driving a car at the same time. Similarly if we want a bridge built or disease treated, someone with expertise should be in charge. This doesn't mean "freedom is bad"... in fact, I think rule by a bunch of idiots is a worse tyranny than that of a mediocre ruler. In any society, freedom can never be unlimited, because our wants and desires will always conflict with someone else's. I think a competent, benevolent ruler can maximize freedom for the average person better than equally diffused power.
Yeah as I pointed out things could go really wrong if major questions were solved by plebiscites. But that isn't only a problem with direct democracy. The fact that we Germans voted the Nazis is a good example for how much people can screw up in representative democracies.
Also politicians aren't super wise leaders on average, their job is selling well. What happens after parliament has voted on something is that the person who is in charge delegates the work to someone capable. That wouldn't change if you substituted the parliament with plebiscites. Somebody would still formulate the new laws, still ask the questions, still delegate.
It's despicable because it says that people shouldn't rule themselves. Someone who is in a high position in a democracy shouldnt say that he thinks that the basic idea is bullshit. That's promoting dictatorship as a president of the parliament.
It's the classic "nobility is smarter"-argument and completely missing the point, because democracy isn't supposed to be smarter. It's supposed to give people more possibilities to participate.
It's the thought that freedom is worth making mistakes.
@Dictatorship: I agree that the perfect ruler is better for the wealth and stability of the country than the non-perfect democrats. I think the percentage of rulers that are benevolent and competent is very close to zero though. You just don't become dictator if you are benevolent. So chances are that the more powerful dictator screws up big time.
|
Dictate happiness!
I was laughing out loud when the paradox (multitude may not be as efficient as the unique) dawned on me.
We have alpha types that want power.. what they do with it is often ingrained in their culture/past/etc but nothing makes them inherently bad for wanting that power, nor for gaining it.
The real zest of the question (for me) has always been:
does it take alphas being morally void to get to lead? Is it incidental or vital in the process?
My readings would say yes, which is kind of dark.
Knowing what you could do (to circumvent attacks that you would not allow yourself to perform) is not enough to counter what less moral / ethical opponent would do..
so it would seem impossible for anyone not using unethical/unmoral tactics/strategy to lead proficiently?
|
On December 14 2015 23:29 fluidrone wrote:
Dictate happiness!
I was laughing out loud when the paradox (multitude may not be as efficient as the unique) dawned on me.
We have alpha types that want power.. what they do with it is often ingrained in their culture/past/etc but nothing makes them inherently bad for wanting that power, nor for gaining it.
The real zest of the question (for me) has always been:
does it take alphas being morally void to get to lead? Is it incidental or vital in the process?
My readings would say yes, which is kind of dark.
Knowing what you could do (to circumvent attacks that you would not allow yourself to perform) is not enough to counter what less moral / ethical opponent would do..
so it would seem impossible for anyone not using unethical/unmoral tactics/strategy to lead proficiently?
I agree that morally void is an advantage in politics, at least if you are smart enough to hide it from the large masses. I don't think it's necessary. There are other points like contacts, wealth and charisma that play a large role. I think a person who is strong in these points and not too strict can still win against a person who just doesn't care at all but is rather weak in all other points.
So I don't think it's necessary, it's just that much harder to do things clean than do them less clean.
That's another reason why I like democracy, rulers are forced to keep a good image. People just don't watch very closely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
