
What we get wrong about Machiavelli - collapse
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/what-we-get-wrong-about-machiavelli-the-prince-ferdinand-mount
======
tcgv
My takeaway on Machiavelli's The Prince is that it is a diverse collection of
ruling / governing practices he observed and recorded back in the 16th-century
upon which he tries to extract lessons and learnings, similar to what we see
nowadays with entrepreneurship success / failure stories analysis.

Machiavelli doesn't seem to actively promote wrongful behavior nor engage in
morality evaluations, mostly keeping a neutral, objective perspective
throughout his writings.

Nevertheless, his objectivism is commonly, and wrongfully, interpreted as
malignity.

~~~
klodolph
I've heard it explained by analogy as,

> Imagine that Jerry Seinfeld wrote a book about politics and governance
> strategy, and sent it to Hillary Clinton, because he wanted to get hired as
> an aide. Everyone is fascinated by this book, and it somehow becomes an
> important work in political science. Five hundred years later, Seinfeld is
> mostly forgotten, but people still call things "Seinfeldian".

That's Machiavelli.

~~~
keiferski
But Machiavelli wasn't a comedian or entertainer in any way. He had various
diplomatic and government posts prior to writing any of his books. None of
them were very highly-ranked or important, though.

A better modern example might be: imagine a mid-level office worker at the New
York Office of Public Records writes a book about politics and sends it to the
mayor, hoping to get a job. He uses examples from contemporary NYC and past
political history to illustrate his points. Years after his death, his book
becomes read across the world and NYC is simply seen as a temporary setting
for the broader ideas.

~~~
nl
_He had various diplomatic and government posts prior to writing any of his
books. None of them were very highly-ranked or important, though._

This is just wrong!

He was Florence's ambassador to the Vatican (the major power in Italy), then
ambassador to France (the major power in Europe) and Spain.

After this he trained and led a Florentine army to victory against Pisa, and
then lost to a Papal and Medici funded army and was banished from Florence.

It was at this point he wrote his book.

It's more like if Henry Kissenger had been a Marine as well.

~~~
keiferski
Maybe my example wasn't _quite_ perfect, but I think Florence at the time
could be compared to a city-state like New York City today. Florence certainly
wasn't a superpower on the world stage, so I'm not sure Kissinger and the
United States is really a better comparison. Machiavelli also made a militia
and as far as I can tell, had no military service himself.

A better modern example might be a high-level office worker in the police
department that was sent to other states. In either case, at some point, the
comparison becomes stretched.

But yeah, you’re probably right in saying that my statement was wrong.

------
hyperion2010
The author of this piece lacks an understanding of how Machiavelli uses the
term `virtu` (admittedly a common mistake). This failure to understand `virtu`
is why countless political factions all the way up to the modern US Democratic
party have failed their subjects and failed to protect their states -- they
were unwilling to sacrifice the appearance of being good, of keeping their
hands clean, for the things that really matter -- for example legislation on
climate change, and the preservation of the US ability to respond to global
pandemics to name only two. One of Machiavelli's key messages is that there
are some things that are more important than playing by the spirit of the law.
Those in the modern west who reject Machiavelli and this message doom
themselves and their constituents to live in states cursed with bad rulers.

~~~
kstenerud
Compromise is antithetical to a two-party system. One could make the same
arguments against the Republican party, using their hobby horses as examples.

Every gain for party A is a loss for party B, so you must ensure (with varying
degrees of subtlety) that the other party's initiatives end in failure to help
secure your victory in the next election. And once you're in power, you must
destroy anything the other party created that would bring them praise, so that
they can't point to it in the following election cycle.

~~~
ardy42
> Compromise is antithetical to a two-party system.

> Every gain for party A is a loss for party B, so you must ensure (with
> varying degrees of subtlety) that the other party's initiatives end in
> failure to help secure your victory in the next election. And once you're in
> power, you must destroy anything the other party created that would bring
> them praise, so that they can't point to it in the following election cycle.

I don't think that's a general rule, and the observation is only true in
certain conditions. For instance, I think compromise would be more common in
cases where the parties weren't starkly ideologically polarized. Similarly, if
the system allowed for some sugar make bitter medicine of compromise go down
easier, compromise would be more likely (specifically, I'm thinking of
earmarks).

~~~
blaser-waffle
Polarization is almost inevitable with 2 parties, and is arguably one of their
best tools.

There is no other genuine 3rd or 4th option, so you drive people to your party
or you count them as a loss -- there is no other strategy.

------
cambalache
What is this ridiculous trend of judging characters of the past by today's
standards? According to the author Machiavelli highly original philosophy
should be partially dismissed because he frequented prostitutes (male and
female).

~~~
watwut
What is this ridiculous trend of making up past standards how it suits us? Why
cant we admit past successful people ever did something wrong or immoral by
whatever standard.

> he picked up a pretty lad and, after he has had his way in the darkness,
> explains that he has no money, but states that he is called Filippo
> Casavecchia—and if he calls at his shop tomorrow, the boy will get his
> money. A surprised Filippo, a buddy of Machiavelli’s, denies it was him,

The falsely accused friend would not think it is ok and nor did prostitute
boy.

> and the boy threatens him with prosecution for sodomy.

Apparently, the act was illegal.

> Filippo asks if the boy would recognise the man’s voice? The boy says yes,
> so he is taken to a spot near the Porta Romana where Machiavelli regularly
> holds court. The boy creeps up behind the bench where the great man is
> telling an anecdote. He sees the boy and runs off.

If that was ok by past standards, why did he run?

"Past" is not universal excuse. Easy example is that I wont excuse Nazi
leadership for just being men of their time. "It was in the past therefore it
was ok" is ridiculous standard.

~~~
cambalache
I cant believe I need to point this out, but if you are comparing Nazi Germany
(oh Goodwin how right you were) with skipping out of paying a prostitute I
think no further conversation is needed.

> Apparently, the act was illegal.

Oh no, and he went anyway and fucked a man, despite being illegal.

> If that was ok by past standards, why did he run?

Dont be dense, it is not OK, it was not OK then and it is even less OK now.The
point is that for his times this was not more than a prank.Hell, the trope of
running away from a check/bill and left your friends to manage is a classic in
old and modern fiction. The only thing than could be considered really
outrageous is if the boy was underage, but yet again the age of consent in
medieval Florence was probably different than ours.

~~~
watwut
> Oh no, and he went anyway and fucked a man, despite being illegal.

Now you are applying todays standard to past actions.

> Dont be dense, it is not OK, it was not OK then and it is even less OK
> now.The point is that for his times this was not more than a prank.

No, it was not. Neither for his times nor for current. You are making
standards as it pleases you.

> Hell, the trope of running away from a check/bill and left your friends to
> manage is a classic in old and modern fiction.

In real life, in country where homosexual acts are illegal, being suddenly
accused of one is not fun harmless prank.

Real life is not fiction. In real life, had it been only about money, your
friends will distance from you or take you to small claims court. In fiction,
it is pretty normal to kill quite a few people with no big deal happening - as
long as the killed people are "bad".

> I cant believe I need to point this out, but if you are comparing Nazi
> Germany (oh Goodwin how right you were) with skipping out of paying a
> prostitute I think no further conversation is needed.

I am not saying they are the same. I am saying that knee jerk "past standards"
argument is nonsense.

------
nl
If you really want to understand Machiavelli then Ada Palmer's post's are
excellent[1]. She studies "heterodoxy, heresy, freethought, censorship and
information control, the recovery of classical thought after the Middle Ages,
its impact on science, religion and atheism, and the history of the book and
printing."

She puts Machiavelli into context, and points out that "the ends justify the
means" was really an ethical argument putting for the first time the idea that
the consequences of actions matter more than trying to justify actions by
religion.

I discovered this via a HN comment and I can't recommend it enough.

Here's a quote:

1508\. The Italian territories destabilized by the Borgias are ripe for
conquest. Everyone in Europe wants to go to war with everyone else and Italy
will be the biggest battlefield. Machaivelli’s job now is to figure out who to
ally with, and who to bribe. If he can’t predict the sides there’s no way to
know where Florence should commit its precious resources. How will it fall
out? Will Tudor claims on the French throne drive England to ally with Spain
against France? Or will French and Spanish rival claims to Southern Italy lead
France to recruit England against the houses of Aragon and Habsburg? Will the
Holy Roman Emperor try to seize Milan from the French? Will the Ottomans ally
with France to seize and divide the Spanish holdings in the Mediterranean?
Will the Swiss finally wake up and notice that they have all the best armies
in Europe and could conquer whatever the heck they wanted if they tried?
(Seriously, Machiavelli spends a lot of time worrying about this possibility.)
All the ambassadors from the great kingdoms and empires meet, and Machiavelli
spends frantic months exchanging letters with colleagues evaluating the
psychology of every prince, what each has to gain, to lose, to prove. He comes
up with several probable scenarios and begins preparations. At last a courier
rushes in with the news. The day has come. The alliance has formed. It is:
everyone joins forces to attack Venice.

O_O ????????

Conclusion: must invent Modern Political Science.

I am being only slightly facetious. The War of the League of Cambrai is the
least comprehensible war I’ve ever studied. Everyone switches sides at least
twice, and what begins with the pope calling on everyone to attack Venice ends
with Venice defending the pope against everyone.

[1] [https://www.exurbe.com/machiavelli-s-p-
q-f/](https://www.exurbe.com/machiavelli-s-p-q-f/)

------
keiferski
Unfortunately for M., the adjectival form of his name ( _Machiavellian_ ) has
come to mean something rather different from his actual ideas. His political
philosophy would be best described as _realpolitik._

Today, we often view the word _realpolitik_ in a somewhat negative sense,
because the underlying assumption is that a ruler should be 'good' first and
effective second. This is a modern assumption.

What this article doesn't delve into is the idea of _virtù_ itself, and
specifically how (someone like Nietzsche) sees this value and the Renaissance
in general as a return to pre-Christian, pre-Platonic ideals of excellence,
ones that precede modern ideas of good and evil. It is an idea intimately tied
up with aesthetic concerns of self-mastery, clarity, and the dispelling of
Platonic (subsequently Christian) idealism. Machiavelli himself was quite
interested in the ancients, so this is not surprising.

[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/#PoweVirtFort](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/#PoweVirtFort)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtù](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtù)

This excerpt from _Twilight of the Idols_ (Nietzsche) is maybe the best brief
description of the idea. Sorry for the length, the part about Machiavelli
specifically is in the third paragraph.

\--

 _I am not indebted to the Greeks for anything like such strong impressions;
and, to speak frankly, they cannot be to us what the Romans are. One cannot
learn from the Greeks—their style is too strange, it is also too fluid, to be
imperative or to have the effect of a classic. Who would ever have learnt
writing from a Greek! Who would ever have learned it without the Romans!... Do
not let anyone suggest Plato to me. In regard to Plato I am a thorough
sceptic, and have never been able to agree to the admiration of Plato the
artist, which is traditional among scholars. And after all, in this matter,
the most refined judges of taste in antiquity are on my side. In my opinion
Plato bundles all the forms of style pell-mell together, in this respect he is
one[Pg 114] of the first decadents of style: he has something similar on his
conscience to that which the Cynics had who invented the satura Menippea. For
the Platonic dialogue—this revoltingly self-complacent and childish kind of
dialectics—to exercise any charm over you, you must never have read any good
French authors,—Fontenelle for instance. Plato is boring._

 _In reality my distrust of Plato is fundamental. I find him so very much
astray from all the deepest instincts of the Hellenes, so steeped in moral
prejudices, so pre-existently Christian—the concept "good" is already the
highest value with him,—that rather than use any other expression I would
prefer to designate the whole phenomenon Plato with the hard word "superior
bunkum," or, if you would like it better, "idealism." Humanity has had to pay
dearly for this Athenian having gone to school among the Egyptians (—or among
the Jews in Egypt?...) In the great fatality of Christianity, Plato is that
double-faced fascination called the "ideal," which made it possible for the
more noble natures of antiquity to misunderstand themselves and to tread the
bridge which led to the "cross."_

 _And what an amount of Plato is still to be found in the concept "church,"
and in the construction, the system and the practice of the church!—My
recreation, my predilection, my cure, after all Platonism, has always been
Thucydides._ Thucydides and perhaps Machiavelli's principe are most closely
related to me owing to the absolute determination which they show of refusing
to deceive themselves and of seeing reason in reality,—not in "rationality,"
and still less in "morality." _There is no more radical cure than Thucydides
for the lamentably rose-coloured idealisation of the Greeks which the
"classically-cultured" stripling bears with him into life, as a reward for his
public school training. His writings must be carefully studied line by line,
and his unuttered thoughts must be read as distinctly as what he actually
says. There are few thinkers so rich in unuttered thoughts. In him the culture
"of the Sophists"—that is to say, the culture of realism, receives its most
perfect expression: this inestimable movement in the midst of the moral and
idealistic knavery of the Socratic Schools which was then breaking out in all
directions._

 _Greek philosophy is the decadence of the Greek instinct: Thucydides is the
great summing up, the final manifestation of that strong, severe positivism
which lay in the instincts of the ancient Hellene. After all, it is courage in
the face of reality that distinguishes such natures as Thucydides from Plato:
Plato is a coward in the face of reality—consequently he takes refuge in the
ideal: Thucydides is master of himself,—consequently he is able to master
life._

[http://www.gutenberg.org/files/52263/52263-h/52263-h.htm#THI...](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/52263/52263-h/52263-h.htm#THINGS_I_OWE_TO_THE_ANCIENTS)

------
jerzyt
It just occurred to me that Machiavelli could be grouped with Sun Tzu and Saul
Alinsky - each one of them wrote an incredibly insightful and influential book
on strategy or leadership.

Are there any other authors/books in this category?

~~~
MAMAMassakali
Chanakya and Nana Fadnavis. Chanakya has written "Arthashastra" and "Chanakya
Niti". Not sure about Nana.

~~~
john4532452
Comparing Chanakya to the works of Machiavelli is not fair. Chanakya was from
priestly class who used the religious belief's of the people to his leverage
and overthrow the king who did not accept Brahmin(priest) class is superior to
Kings. His writing's is about advocating the class system. In the case of
Machiavelli his writings is about the observation's of what qualities both
good and bad were required to be a king.

------
_0ffh
I've recently read "The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom" [1] and I think
it's definitely worth a read for anybody interested in Realpolitik and it's
intellectual history. The author's own extrapolations are wonky at times, but
the foundations are solid and food for thought.

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1270379.The_Machiavellia...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1270379.The_Machiavellians)

------
kyrieeschaton
This sequence on Ex Urbe is one of the more interesting exegeses of
Machiavelli I have read.

[https://www.exurbe.com/machiavelli-s-p-
q-f/](https://www.exurbe.com/machiavelli-s-p-q-f/)

------
Glyptodon
I always thought the Prince reflected that the means should befit the prince
(IE be apropriate to the governmening power if visible), and in general the
more vicious the prince, the more visibly vicious it's possible to be without
it be being effectively self-destructive. And that while the reverse is also
true, IE a benevolent prince could reinforce itself with visible benevolence,
the vicious is far _easier_ and harder to get wrong.

------
cdiamand
For those of you who read "The Prince" and are looking for a little more
context, I recommend Machiavelli's "The discourses".

It's been a while since I read it, but I found it to be an interesting romp
through roman history through the lense of Machiavelli's sometimes cold,
sometimes compassionate analysis.

------
KingOfCoders
Everything.

------
known
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%ADma_Wormtongue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%ADma_Wormtongue)

