Customer Reviews

Machiavelli's The Prince

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

In the course of my political science training, I studied at great length the modern idea of realpolitik. In that study I came to realise that it was somewhat incomplete, without the companionship of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine governmental official in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The Prince is an oft quoted, oft mis-quoted work, used as the philosophical underpinning for much of what is considered both pragmatic and wrong in politics today. To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally politically incorrect. Being Machiavellian, alas, can often be politically expedient.

Machiavelli based his work in The Prince upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way.

Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness.

Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend.

Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects.

Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion.

Whoever reads Roman history attentively will see in how great a degree religion served in the command of the armies, in uniting the people and keeping them well conducted, and in covering the wicked with shame.

Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics!

Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority.

The title of this piece -- the virtues of Machiavelli, must be considered in this frame; certainly in no way virtuous by current standards, but then, it shows, not all have the same standards. Be careful of the words you use -- they may have differing definitions.

Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses.

This is an important work, intriguing in many respects. Far shorter than the average classical or medieval philosophical tome, and more accessible by current readers because of a greater familiarity with politics than, say, metaphysics or epistemology, this work yields benefits and insights to all who read, mark, inwardly digest, and critically examine the precepts.

The work contains some important practical lessons for dealing with conflict in traditional settings. It was written in the 1500s. This period was years before the classic theories on organizational conflict matured. An important theme of the work is to change with the times in order to have good fortune. This is a critical lesson because it requires us to be accommodative or suffer the consequences of obsolescence-planned or otherwise. Another pertinent maxim is that it is rare for a republic to be fully organized from the beginning of a conquest or reformation. Therefore, it will be necessary to recognize and incorporate
old institutions into the newly contemplated governmental
apparati.

Nowhere is this principle truer than in Iraq.
The model government which evolves in Iraq may have elements of
old institutions , as well as newly organized structures,
institutions and organizational designs. The details of the
final outcome may allude historians now; however, the process
toward an acceptable organizational apparati will unfold over
the next years. Whatever the outcome in Iraq, the principles
set forth by The Prince will apply. The optimal government organization will flow from the general acceptability
by the various subgroups in the region.

The author states that the conquered must develop a natural affection for the new governing class; otherwise, the territory will be difficult or impossible to hold or cultivate. Conquests in France taught us that it was important to win over the Barrons as a condition precedent to a smooth transition of power.

Machiavelli's work still has some value today, although there are new organizational techniques and technologies to refine the governmental structures and ensure continuity. In some areas, Machiavelli generalizes too much without supporting data to attest to the conclusions reached. Despite some of the more obvious weaknesses noted, the volume contains many common sense approaches aimed at maintaining order in the aftermath of territorial disputes. The work may be enjoyed by a wide
constituency of readers; such as, students, teachers, historians,
psychologists, leaders in government and the general public.

Forget about Covey and the habits of highly effective people and any other book you have ever glanced at to try to pick yourself up and guide yourself out of the rat race and have a look at the greatest specimen ever conceived of the self-help genre. The Prince is a mysterious, multi-layered magnum opus with shocking and provocative insights into politics, psychology, religion, and life. Not for the lazy or shallow reader.

This book was written by the famous Italian statesman Niccolo Machiavelli in 1531. This book is a classic and I was pleasantly surprised that the content was not dated and the principles translate easily into the modern worlds of business and politics.
The author wrote this book as an instruction guide for governing princes in the 1500's when Italy was divided into city states and were being defeated by many foreign powers. I belive that the work is directed to Lorenzo de Medici by a letter included in the work and because at the end of the writing Machiavelli calls for a prince to unite and lead Italy against its oppressors.
The book is not unethical as I had imagined from my understanding of the ruthlessness of Machiavellian ethics. The author is only explaining tactics to use to maintain power in a kingdom or city state that are pragmatic for his time period.
Here are some examples of principles from the book:
1. When conquering a territory keep the current laws and institutions in place, but eliminate all the family of the defeated prince.
2. When trouble is sensed ahead of time it can be easily remedied, if you wait for it to show itself, it is to late.
3. Whoever is responsible for another becoming powerful, ruins himself.
4. There is no surer way of keeping possesion than by devastation.
5. Men do you harm either because they hate you or they fear you.
6. Violence must be inflicted once and for all, it must be over quickly.
7. Build your power through the people.
8. Power is maintained through religious institutions.
9. Neglect the art of war and you lose your state.
10. If you act virtuously, you will be undone by those who are not, make use of this or not according to need.
The above is just a small sampling of the lessons in this book. My review can not do this book justice, it is full of wisdom and life lessons. It is a guide book for business leaders and politicians. I strongly suggest adding this book to your home library and referring to it often.

The treatise Machiavelli wrote back in Middle Ages is still relevant today. Even though it is written as a guide for the rulers, it can be applied to every person who is working with other people like in business and law. Machiavelli was one of the best psychologists of that time. He perfectly depicted the nature of the man and what is it possible of doing. As some later philosophers as Hobbes and Nietzsche would write, the man is driven by will to rule over others, a will to power.

Machiavelli makes a great analysis of the contemporary politics in Italy and elsewhere in Europe. It is interesting to read also a historical source of the event happened for Machiavelli brings back the stories from the past to support his argument.

It is an outstanding political and philosophical treatise, but I would recommend it only for people who are interested in authority/people management issues and in the historical perspective on those matters. The language is a bit tough and hard to get accustomed, but it was written in the Middle Ages, so I would expect nothing less.

The philosophies and applications to leadership given in this book are timeless truths with application in war, politics, business, and personal endeavors. The scope and complexity of Machiavelli's ideas are complimented by their basic simplicities. It can lead one to wonder that is today's leaders took more time to review the ideas laid out almost 500 years ago if the course of modern wars may have been different. Machiavelli's understanding of the difference between occupying and conquering a foreign land or enemy are sadly over looked in today's international politics.

"The wish to acquire is in truth very natural and common, and men always do so when they can, but when they cannot do so, yet wish to do so by any means, then there is folly and blame." Without out making this post about US Foreign Policy I will simply state that the truths of this book are vastly ignored buy those who try to lead today. This book encompasses thousands of years of practical application of leadership all of which has value today.

One of my favorite books and an annual read for anyone in a leadership position.

So, this idea of progress of being able all of a sudden to come into possession of perceptions that had not been accessible to us before, meant that now the self could now possibly be seen in ways that it had not previously been seen, and this was the hallmark of Renaissance humanists. When one looks at texts such as Niccolo Machiavelli's, (1469-1527) "The Prince," 1513, it becomes obvious that there is a different kind of emphasis that started to take shape around the notion of the self. This becomes particularly evident when you begin to compare Machiavelli and the Prince to works such as Sophocles and the Antigone. So, Machiavelli's theories of self aware role playing is essentially what he espouses, you have to be a self aware actor and performer. He is really the first; post modernism is always accredited with this notion that identity is performance. There is no such thing as identity it does not have a palpable existence, identity is merely the sum total of things you do, and the things you do are inconsistent. So this thing we call identity can only be the result of this kind of illusory coherent series of actions and representations consequently, the self itself is very questionable and very unstable and people always talk about this as one of the hallmarks of postmodern thinking. What I think is interesting is to read Machiavelli and think of him as the first postmodernist, as kind of a pre modern postmodernist. He has ideas about the self and about identity that come right out of postmodern thinking. He is so much about performing and role-playing, the self-made self, that whatever result you want you make it and you make it by the way you act, and the way you perform. Artful manipulation this is a challenge to the kinds of traditional definitions of the self as inspired by Divinity. In Machiavelli, of course, the Devine has no matter at all it has no place. Only what he talks about Fortuna, luck and not the Devine is what plays the ultimate role in determining the kind of life you are going to have. She quotes him "Fortune is the arbiter of ½ the things we do the other ½ to be controlled by ourselves." Therefore, there you have it, ½ luck, ½ our determination and your will so, that is about all you have to go on. So, where does that leave you, the luck part you can't do much about. Therefore, you have to focus on the ½ that you can do something about the ½ that you control. That is what his book the "Prince" is about that ½ and the rest of it you will never be able to control. "The prince need not necessarily have good qualities, but you should certainly appear to have them, you should appear to be compassionate faithful to his word, kind guiles and devout, and indeed you should be so, but his disposition should be such that if he needs to be opposite he knows how. You must realize this that a prince, especially a new prince cannot observe all the things that give men a reputation for virtue, because in order to maintain his state he is often forced to act in defiance of good faith, of charity and kindness or religion. He should know how to do evil if that is necessary." Therefore, at this point you can find this theme of the human agent who can invent himself. Therefore, the person can decide to invent himself. This kind of thinking, I think this is still how we think about ourselves, I think that this is still how we think about identities. This is a very modern idea, and it ties into this very modern idea about taking responsibility for one's self, which we adhere to. It has been just as debatable and just as contestable back then as it has been now. Even in the secular literature of the Renaissance there is always evidence of this kind of deep rooted skepticism about to which the extent we can be fully controllable or fully controlled agents.

Recommended reading for anyone interested in history, psychology, philosophy, and literature.

If you read this book you will probadly never look at the world the same way as you do now. Mr. M strips away the PR , Spin and gives the true way to manage the affairs of man in a successful manner.

I was very pleased with the product and recommend it to those who are interested.