Was Machiavelli right?

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Post Reply
User avatar
Apollonius
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:32 pm

Was Machiavelli right?

Post by Apollonius »

A little late getting to this. The 500th anniversary of the publication of The Prince was in 2013.


A startling piece written by the former leader of the Liberal Party of Canada:


Machiavelli was right - Michael Ignatieff, The Atlantic, December 2013
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ht/354672/


Review of :

The Garments of Court and Palace: Machiavelli and the World He Made by Philip Bobbit (Atlantic Monthly)

On Machiavelli: The Search for Glory by Alan Ryan (Liveright Classics)

Redeeming "The Prince": The Meaning of Machiavelli's Masterpiece by Maurizio Viroli (Princeton University Press)

Niccolo Machiavelli: An Intellectual Biography by Corrado Vivanti (Princeton University Press)


Machiavelli simply didn’t believe that politicians should be bothered about their dirty hands. He didn’t believe they deserve praise for moral scruple or the pangs of conscience. He would have agreed with The Sopranos: sometimes you do what you have to do. But The Prince would hardly have survived this long if it was nothing more than an apologia for gangsters. With gangsters, gratuitous cruelty is often efficient, while in politics, Machiavelli clearly understood, it is worse than a crime. It is a mistake. Ragion di stato ought to discipline each politician’s descent into morally questionable realms. A leader guided by public necessity is less likely to be cruel and vicious than one guided by religious moralizing. Machiavelli’s ethics, it should be said, were scathingly indifferent to Christian principle, and for good reason. After all, someone who believes he has God on his side is capable of anything.


Not sure if Prof. Ignatieff is completely right about this. Mao was an avowed atheist and manged to snuff out as many people as Hitler and Stalin combined, and neither of them were particularly religious even if they managed to invoke religion when it suited them.


All of this looks like cynicism only if we fail to see its deep realism. In his book, Alan Ryan captures Machiavelli’s hold on the modern moral imagination when he says, “The staying power of The Prince comes from … its insistence on the need for a clear-sighted appreciation of how men really are as distinct from the moralizing claptrap about how they ought to be.”


[...]


What he [Machiavelli] refuses to praise is people who value their conscience and their soul more than the interests of the state. What he will not pardon is public displays of indecision. We should not choose leaders who agonize, worrying about the moral hazards of the power they exercise in the people’s name. We should choose leaders who sleep soundly after taking ultimate risks with their own virtue. They are doing what must be done. The Prince’s question about the current president would be: Is he Machiavellian enough?
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Was Machiavelli right?

Post by kmich »

Apollonius wrote:Not sure if Prof. Ignatieff is completely right about this. Mao was an avowed atheist and manged to snuff out as many people as Hitler and Stalin combined, and neither of them were particularly religious even if they managed to invoke religion when it suited them.
The fact that Mao was an atheist is not really important. Mao remade the symbols, the images, and the creeds common to religious traditions to hammer his people into devoted cult followers. The State was the Kingdom, Mao was the redeemer, and Red Square was the place of pilgrimage. Mao was as fanatically a religious leader as anyone. Jim Jones was an amateur compared to Mao.
What he [Machiavelli] refuses to praise is people who value their conscience and their soul more than the interests of the state. What he will not pardon is public displays of indecision. We should not choose leaders who agonize, worrying about the moral hazards of the power they exercise in the people’s name. We should choose leaders who sleep soundly after taking ultimate risks with their own virtue. They are doing what must be done. The Prince’s question about the current president would be: Is he Machiavellian enough? ... All of this looks like cynicism only if we fail to see its deep realism. In his book, Alan Ryan captures Machiavelli’s hold on the modern moral imagination when he says, “The staying power of The Prince comes from … its insistence on the need for a clear-sighted appreciation of how men really are as distinct from the moralizing claptrap about how they ought to be.”
Machiavelli was an astute and insightful observer of his times. He was also a man of his times, when governments were weak, unstable, violent, and short lived. This was the age of the Medicis and the Borgias where only the venal and cunning survived and ruled. Moralists like Savonarola were tortured in burned to death in the Florentine town square. The Prince is a guide on how a leader could be successful under these challenging conditions.

Of course, Machiavelli has long been reviled, mostly because he lifted the convenient pretenses of nobility and decency of rulers to expose how power really operates through amoral cunning underneath. Upon reflection of the subsequent history, the wars of reformation, of empire, of the murderous states of the 20th century, and of the wars and power machinations of our own times, it is hard not to see his writings as important and prescient.

On the other hand, his writings can be used to support a prevailing complacent cynicism about power that promotes a shoulder shrugging passivity in the population, supporting excuses for our governmental, political, civic, and social degeneration. I strongly object to that. We do not have to live in the world of the Borgias, unless we expect that is the best we can do. I just don’t buy that, but that is not Machiavelli's problem, that is our own.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Was Machiavelli right?

Post by noddy »

kmich wrote: On the other hand, his writings can be used to support a prevailing complacent cynicism about power that promotes a shoulder shrugging passivity in the population, supporting excuses for our governmental, political, civic, and social degeneration. I strongly object to that. We do not have to live in the world of the Borgias, unless we expect that is the best we can do. I just don’t buy that, but that is not Machiavelli's problem, that is our own.
one can argue the opposite aswell, that not having a proper cynical viewpoint on the self serving amoral nature of power politics makes one put too much faith in government and encourages the personal lazyness that leads to social degeneration.

are you sure we dont live in a world of the borgias ? my contact with the upper layers of government and business dont leave me with that impression, beyond the usual point that the modern world doesnt crudely kill competitors anymore, it just legally and/or financially destroys them.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Was Machiavelli right?

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Has anyone here read Fredrick II's response, "Anti-Machiavel"?
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Was Machiavelli right?

Post by kmich »

noddy wrote:one can argue the opposite aswell, that not having a proper cynical viewpoint on the self serving amoral nature of power politics makes one put too much faith in government and encourages the personal lazyness that leads to social degeneration.
I was critiquing the misuse of Machiavelli to justify the complacent cynicism that brings nothing of value to public life as far as I can tell. I was not advocating its opposite: perhaps a clueless optimism in the state and its leadership. In any case, cynicism is not any more realistic than optimism is, although cynics customarily adhere to their "realistic" pretense. These are world views, screens, agendas, biases, and attitudes through which events are understood and expressed. Machiavelli was solely concerned with carefully assessing his times to provide a guide for the success of leadership under the challenging circumstances he found himself in. He did not approach his work with a "proper cynical viewpoint," he simply assessed and responded to the world as he understood and experienced it. In his day, world views and agendas were for hapless characters like Savonarola. Again, he was a man of his times.
noddy wrote:are you sure we dont live in a world of the borgias ? my contact with the upper layers of government and business dont leave me with that impression, beyond the usual point that the modern world doesnt crudely kill competitors anymore, it just legally and/or financially destroys them.
A cynical viewpoint, like any well established view, will likely conjure up what it expects in any circumstance for its support. Viewpoints will discover what they expect to find.
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:Has anyone here read Fredrick II's response, "Anti-Machiavel"?
Yes, although it has been a while. The chaos and devastation of the centuries between Machiavelli and Frederick, with all the "Machiavellian" machinations of princes and clerics culminated in the 30 Years War in the century before Frederick's birth. The ravages of that war where the population of the German states declined up to 40% made a principled alternative for rulers based upon the enlightenment values of reason, honor, and justice not just of moral interest but of practical necessity for Frederick. He was a man of his times as was Machiavelli, and that context needs to be considered.

Below is the Forward to Frederick's Anti-Machiavel which stakes out some of his argument:
Machiavel's The Prince is to ethics what the work of Spinoza is to faith. Spinoza sapped the fundamentals of faith, and drained the spirit of religion; Machiavel corrupted policy, and undertook to destroy the precepts of healthy morals: the errors of the first were only errors of speculation, but those of the other had a practical thrust. The theologians have sounded the alarm bell and battled against Spinoza, refuting his work in form and defending the Divinity against his attack, while Machiavel has only been badgered by moralists. In spite of them, and in spite of its pernicious morals, The Prince is very much on the pulpit of policy, even in our day.

I will defend humanity against this monster which wants to destroy it; I dare to oppose Reason and Justice to sophism and crime; and I ventured my reflections on Machiavel's Prince, chapter by chapter, so that the antidote is immediately near the poison.

I always have regarded The Prince as one of the most dangerous works which were spread in the world; it is a book which falls naturally into the hands of princes, and of those who have a taste for policy. It is all too easy for an ambitious young man, whose heart and judgement are not formed enough to accurately distinguish good from bad, to be corrupted by maxims which inflame his hunger for power.

If it is bad to debase the innocence of a private individual, whose influence on the affairs of the world is minimal, it is much more to pervert some prince who must control his people, administer justice, and set an example for their subjects; and must, by their kindness, magnanimity and mercy, be someone to be looked up to.

The floods which devastate regions, the fire of the lightning which reduces cities to ashes, the poison of the plague which afflicts provinces, are not as disastrous in the world as the dangerous morals and unrestrained passions of the kings: the celestial plagues last only for a time, they devastate only some regions, and these losses, though painful, are repaired. But the crimes of the kings are suffered, for a much longer time, by the whole people.

The kings have the capacity to do good when they have the will. In the same way they can also make evil. The lives of the people are sometimes pitiable, and they have very good reason to fear abuse of the sovereign power, when their goods are in prey when the prince's avarice asserts itself. Their freedom is at the mercy of his whims; their peace and security are vulnerable to his ambition and perfidy; and their very lives are subject to his cruelties! Machiavel's advice, if followed uncritically by a prince, may lead to real tragedies in the real world.

I should not finish this foreword without saying a word to people who believe that Machiavel wrote what the princes are, and not what they should be; or that, as has been said by many people, it is a satire. Those who pronounce that Machiavel's Prince is a typical sovereign were undoubtedly swayed by the examples of some bad princes, which never leave the memory once their cruelties are seen or experienced. Or they may conclude this from the record of the contemporaries of Machiavel, quotes by the author, and the life of some tyrants who were the very opposite of human. I request these critics to think, that just as the seduction of power hunger is sometimes overwhelming, it is also possible to deploy more than one virtue to resist it. Thus, it is not astonishing that, among all princes, his is the bad one among the good. The Roman Empire did suffer under emperors such as Nero, Caligula, or Tiberius, but the universe greets with joy the virtues of Titus, Trajan, and Antonin.There is a real injustice in concluding that the rotten apples are representative of all of them.

One should preserve in the history only the names of the good princes, and let those of the others die forever,along with their indolence, their injustices and their crimes. The books of history would be less accurate, but humanity would profit: a prince's reward for their virtue would be the honor of living in history, to see their names and examples live in the future centuries until eternity. The book of Machiavel would not infect any more the schools of policy; people would scorn its contradictions; and the world would be convinced that the true policy of the kings, founded only on justice, prudence and kindness, is preferable in any direction to the disjointed and arbitrary system, full of horror, that Machiavel had the effrontery to present to the public.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Was Machiavelli right?

Post by noddy »

kmich wrote:
noddy wrote:one can argue the opposite aswell, that not having a proper cynical viewpoint on the self serving amoral nature of power politics makes one put too much faith in government and encourages the personal lazyness that leads to social degeneration.
I was critiquing the misuse of Machiavelli to justify the complacent cynicism that brings nothing of value to public life as far as I can tell. I was not advocating its opposite: perhaps a clueless optimism in the state and its leadership. In any case, cynicism is not any more realistic than optimism is, although cynics customarily adhere to their "realistic" pretense. These are world views, screens, agendas, biases, and attitudes through which events are understood and expressed. Machiavelli was solely concerned with carefully assessing his times to provide a guide for the success of leadership under the challenging circumstances he found himself in. He did not approach his work with a "proper cynical viewpoint," he simply assessed and responded to the world as he understood and experienced it. In his day, world views and agendas were for hapless characters like Savonarola. Again, he was a man of his times.
mayhaps cynical is the wrong word, i used it in the sense of a temperance against evangelism and propoganda of politics and religion, not a lifestyle choice.

kmich wrote:
noddy wrote:are you sure we dont live in a world of the borgias ? my contact with the upper layers of government and business dont leave me with that impression, beyond the usual point that the modern world doesnt crudely kill competitors anymore, it just legally and/or financially destroys them.
A cynical viewpoint, like any well established view, will likely conjure up what it expects in any circumstance for its support. Viewpoints will discover what they expect to find.
political competitors dont tend to be poisoned or throttled them in back allerys now. beyond that i fail to see much difference, whats cynical about that, what do you think has changed beyond that ?

some might say evolved politics has led to our great improvement in lifespan and conditions for the masses, i tend to subscribe to technology being responsible for that.
kmich wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:Has anyone here read Fredrick II's response, "Anti-Machiavel"?
Yes, although it has been a while. The chaos and devastation of the centuries between Machiavelli and Frederick, with all the "Machiavellian" machinations of princes and clerics culminated in the 30 Years War in the century before Frederick's birth. The ravages of that war where the population of the German states declined up to 40% made a principled alternative for rulers based upon the enlightenment values of reason, honor, and justice not just of moral interest but of practical necessity for Frederick. He was a man of his times as was Machiavelli, and that context needs to be considered.

Below is the Forward to Frederick's Anti-Machiavel which stakes out some of his argument:
Machiavel's The Prince is to ethics what the work of Spinoza is to faith. Spinoza sapped the fundamentals of faith, and drained the spirit of religion; Machiavel corrupted policy, and undertook to destroy the precepts of healthy morals: the errors of the first were only errors of speculation, but those of the other had a practical thrust. The theologians have sounded the alarm bell and battled against Spinoza, refuting his work in form and defending the Divinity against his attack, while Machiavel has only been badgered by moralists. In spite of them, and in spite of its pernicious morals, The Prince is very much on the pulpit of policy, even in our day.

I will defend humanity against this monster which wants to destroy it; I dare to oppose Reason and Justice to sophism and crime; and I ventured my reflections on Machiavel's Prince, chapter by chapter, so that the antidote is immediately near the poison.

I always have regarded The Prince as one of the most dangerous works which were spread in the world; it is a book which falls naturally into the hands of princes, and of those who have a taste for policy. It is all too easy for an ambitious young man, whose heart and judgement are not formed enough to accurately distinguish good from bad, to be corrupted by maxims which inflame his hunger for power.

If it is bad to debase the innocence of a private individual, whose influence on the affairs of the world is minimal, it is much more to pervert some prince who must control his people, administer justice, and set an example for their subjects; and must, by their kindness, magnanimity and mercy, be someone to be looked up to.

The floods which devastate regions, the fire of the lightning which reduces cities to ashes, the poison of the plague which afflicts provinces, are not as disastrous in the world as the dangerous morals and unrestrained passions of the kings: the celestial plagues last only for a time, they devastate only some regions, and these losses, though painful, are repaired. But the crimes of the kings are suffered, for a much longer time, by the whole people.

The kings have the capacity to do good when they have the will. In the same way they can also make evil. The lives of the people are sometimes pitiable, and they have very good reason to fear abuse of the sovereign power, when their goods are in prey when the prince's avarice asserts itself. Their freedom is at the mercy of his whims; their peace and security are vulnerable to his ambition and perfidy; and their very lives are subject to his cruelties! Machiavel's advice, if followed uncritically by a prince, may lead to real tragedies in the real world.

I should not finish this foreword without saying a word to people who believe that Machiavel wrote what the princes are, and not what they should be; or that, as has been said by many people, it is a satire. Those who pronounce that Machiavel's Prince is a typical sovereign were undoubtedly swayed by the examples of some bad princes, which never leave the memory once their cruelties are seen or experienced. Or they may conclude this from the record of the contemporaries of Machiavel, quotes by the author, and the life of some tyrants who were the very opposite of human. I request these critics to think, that just as the seduction of power hunger is sometimes overwhelming, it is also possible to deploy more than one virtue to resist it. Thus, it is not astonishing that, among all princes, his is the bad one among the good. The Roman Empire did suffer under emperors such as Nero, Caligula, or Tiberius, but the universe greets with joy the virtues of Titus, Trajan, and Antonin.There is a real injustice in concluding that the rotten apples are representative of all of them.

One should preserve in the history only the names of the good princes, and let those of the others die forever,along with their indolence, their injustices and their crimes. The books of history would be less accurate, but humanity would profit: a prince's reward for their virtue would be the honor of living in history, to see their names and examples live in the future centuries until eternity. The book of Machiavel would not infect any more the schools of policy; people would scorn its contradictions; and the world would be convinced that the true policy of the kings, founded only on justice, prudence and kindness, is preferable in any direction to the disjointed and arbitrary system, full of horror, that Machiavel had the effrontery to present to the public.
ill try and find the time to conjure up a proper reply to this, its highly repulsive and makes machiavely look like a hippy.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Fred Would Have Gotten Machiavelli's Seal of Approval.......

Post by monster_gardener »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:Has anyone here read Fredrick II's response, "Anti-Machiavel"?
Thank You VERY Much for your post, NapLajoieonSteroids.

I recall reading that Frederick II/Frederick The Great of Prussia's tutor, Voltaire, is alleged to have said that Machiavelli himself would have approved Frederick writing "The Anti-Machiavel" and instructed him to do so to put people off their guard against him ;) :twisted: :lol:

And that once he became King, Frederick largely disregarded what he wrote in "The Anti-Machiavel" and acted as quite the Machiavellian Prince ;) :roll:
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Was Machiavelli right?

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

noddy wrote:ill try and find the time to conjure up a proper reply to this, its highly repulsive and makes machiavely look like a hippy.
I am quite curious to read this unmasking of Machiavelli as an unwashed hippy but there is yet a response. Fredrick the Great wins this round?

Apollonius,

What do you mean when saying Machiavelli was right? He has become such a symbol, and a vague one at that; it is hard for me to see how Machiavelli is nigh unfalsifiable. And how exactly does he differ from other early moderns? I believe it not laborious to recognize that his positioning owes much to being around for the transition of where are books divide history- A Michel de Montaigne effect. Columnists make careers out of writing articles about "how important Machiavelli...no strike that Montaigne...no wait, John Colet! was to history. Then they proceed to write a few specific columns (or books in some cases), "X: The Last Medievalist" or "X: The First Modern"; or as mentioned, "X: The World He Made/Created/Fostered/Breastfed"

I have no doubt that Machiavelli has had a lasting influence. We are still talking about him; we still take him seriously- maybe more seriously than some of the courts his works circulated within. But I have this sneaking suspicion that more people discussed and dreamed over the works of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and he has had the greater impact. Was Mirandola right, and people found it in poor taste to say so?
Post Reply