What are your views on Machiavelli's "The Prince?" Are the points true?
It is true that people are afraid of change? The prince would lose all political status, as people who benefited from the old order will oppose it with great passion. The best way to keep support is to make promises that people do like, and at the very last moment, when you have full support, make change. People will be blind by the prince's charm.
The prince has to be charming, merciful, and religious. People love these qualities, therefore, you must appear to have them, even if you really don't. A bad reputation shouldn't matter; do everything you can to stay IN power.
The prince should be generous to his followers, but not risk economical problems for love, either. He shouldn't be a pushover; he should have power and a backbone. He should be feared, not hated, more than loved. Stalin and Bonaparte possessed these qualities. Both were successful.
The prince should keep his word, only when it benefits him. It is also advised to form alliances with powers usually weaker than you, for large powers do attempt to invade other territories, if I'm not mistaken; but you should also form alliances with powers that are stronger, if you are in a threatening position. A prince should be able to determine which alliances he should make, and when. This is true. The US does try to "liberate" other countries, forcing their allies to join in the fighting.
A prince should never change his mind, as that shows lack of decisiveness, a quality that you must have.
How the fuck does this have 0 replies? Christianity vs. Atheism has a ton of replies and the debate is so fucking stupid. You don't even have to read it. Just go on Wikipedia or something.
I think that many of the points put forth by Machiavelli's work are sound arguments, however much is open not only to interpretation, but many are only applicable insofar as the environment said leader is in permits them.
The process of managing requires a large assortment of political and social tools to be successful, however knowing when and how each tool may be applicable is what sets truly skillful managers apart from those that simply possess the tools.
The connotations put forth by this work are quite accurate, however I feel that Machiavelli paints a bleak portrait of the ruling class and the book is as much a social commentary of his time as it is a depiction of a truly skillful ruler.
Yeah, I agree. Machiavelli shows how to be a successful ruler, but there are some aspects of being a ruler that demands cruelty, not just charm and charisma. Do you think some present day leaders can become a better leader if he performs some aspects that are stated in "The Prince?" Or does that just lead to a dictatorship?
I think in order for much of what is described that a dictatorship would be the most applicable form of government to utilize certain techniques, but realistically anyone in a position of authority can draw upon many skills talked about in the novel.
The issue that I see with much of it is that political correctness has taken precedence over common sense and reason, and that has severely limited our society in my opinion.
The entire aim of political correctness is to avoid offending anyone, but as we know you cannot please everyone all the time, and when you attempt to do so you end up pleasing no one.
That's true, but it's purpose does not negate the fact that it provides an interesting study in the psychology of leadership, especially as is perceived by someone not of a ruling position. There are many thought provoking ideas talked about and many of them are as applicable and questionable today as they were then.
I think in order for much of what is described that a dictatorship would be the most applicable form of government to utilize certain techniques, but realistically anyone in a position of authority can draw upon many skills talked about in the novel.
The issue that I see with much of it is that political correctness has taken precedence over common sense and reason, and that has severely limited our society in my opinion.
The entire aim of political correctness is to avoid offending anyone, but as we know you cannot please everyone all the time, and when you attempt to do so you end up pleasing no one.
A dictatorship, if I read the message correctly, was the most efficient way to run a government. It would be perfect if the ruler's interests benefited us, but that doesn't happen. A dictator can do what he wants with no criticism or anything, but it's just that he becomes corrupt.
I find this whole thing hilarious, as Machiavelli's book was basically written to mock rulers.
