I know I made a thread about this before, but there are some new people here (einfach) and I would like to listen to their input.
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.
You're forgetting the biggest point (In my opinon) of all:
Fear.
To quote Machiavelli, 'There can be hate, as long as there is fear'. The points you described are inportant in getting power, and not so much in keeping it. A Prince must 'utterly destroy a man, so as not to fear revenge'. If the fear is the greatest emotion felt by the people, than a Prince can do anything, because he need not fear the actions of his peoples.
However, once their hatred outweighs their fear, than the whole system falls apart. This is how a Prince becomes overthrown, and the whole process starts itself over.
In short, to answer Machiavelli's own question: It IS better to be feared than to be loved.
He is advocating some basic truths. 1. People in large groups are collectively stupid 2. Religion can be used to manipulate the masses 3. Certain actions like high tax rates, seizing property etc are more likely to lead to a revolt.
So would you say these are true?
It IS better to be feared than to be loved.
Of course, but you have to be kind. Love gets you in power, fear keeps you there.
But at the same time, during the Roman Empire, these not all these principles were held to be true.
The fourth is espicially important. The sure fire way to prevent rebellion is to have the People's Fear outweigh their Hatred. Once this tips over, they WILL rebel.
The fourth is espicially important. The sure fire way to prevent rebellion is to have the People's Fear outweigh their Hatred. Once this tips over, they WILL rebel.
Yes, but Napoleon faced four invasions, economic downturn, rebellion, and an epidemic.
Why is it that the Roman Empire lasted centuries longer than Napoleon's Empire?
Funny, I just had a homework assignment about Machiavelli. I haven't read the Prince yet, but I'll try to answer your questions...
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.
Seeing as politics is pretty much one big popularity contest, this belief, sadly, is probably true. I mean, if you look at how Obama is demonized for his supposedly Muslim beliefs in a nation that is predominantly white Christian, its apparent that a charismatic leader must share the same religious beliefs as its followers or else be ostracized because of it.
Why is it that the Roman Empire lasted centuries longer than Napoleon's Empire?
I'm not really sure about this, but maybe it was because the populace in Napoleon's Empire was more enlightened than those in the Roman Empire, which led to more revolts, or something...
You're doing it wrong. The Prince was satire. It exposes some truths to the cold light of humor. It doesn't advocate the type of activity described.
The Prince is interpreted by some scholars as being satire, but others say its political science.
Also, this should be in popular media.
I'm pretty sure that Italian Renaissance literature isn't exactly 'opular' nowadays. The Prince belongs more in the WERP, after all, Machiavelli's thoughts pretty much form the backbone of Western politics.
Seeing as politics is pretty much one big popularity contest, this belief, sadly, is probably true. I mean, if you look at how Obama is demonized for his supposedly Muslim beliefs in a nation that is predominantly white Christian, its apparent that a charismatic leader must share the same religious beliefs as its followers or else be ostracized because of it.
Religion plays a big part in politics.
I'm not really sure about this, but maybe it was because the populace in Napoleon's Empire was more enlightened than those in the Roman Empire, which led to more revolts, or something...
The Romans were quite enlightened. They pioneered things that lasted two millenniums.
The Prince is interpreted by some scholars as being satire, but others say its political science.
True.
I'm pretty sure that Italian Renaissance literature isn't exactly 'opular' nowadays. The Prince belongs more in the WERP, after all, Machiavelli's thoughts pretty much form the backbone of Western politics.
I'm pretty sure that Italian Renaissance literature isn't exactly 'opular' nowadays. The Prince belongs more in the WERP, after all, Machiavelli's thoughts pretty much form the backbone of Western politics.
Just because the work spawns more meaningful discussion doesn't mean it is not media. These are the sort of threads media needs, rather than yet another nonsensical Beiber hate thread. But the Internet is quick to platitudes. It may not be mainstream, but it is media, and the discussion is based around book. Whether or not it's popular shouldn't enter into the equation, but it seems to.
The Prince is interpreted by some scholars as being satire, but others say its political science.
Fun way to kill a weekend: Read anything else by Machiavelli. Then draw your own conclusions. Satire or not, up to you.
I kind of see connections here between Machiavellian methods and the government of 1984. Both use fear in the same way in fact it is to such a great extent in 1984 it has become love.
Just because the work spawns more meaningful discussion doesn't mean it is not media. These are the sort of threads media needs, rather than yet another nonsensical Beiber hate thread. But the Internet is quick to platitudes. It may not be mainstream, but it is media, and the discussion is based around book. Whether or not it's popular shouldn't enter into the equation, but it seems to.
Let's not discuss where it should be put.
I kind of see connections here between Machiavellian methods and the government of 1984. Both use fear in the same way in fact it is to such a great extent in 1984 it has become love.
Well yes, by why is it that the empires of the past were as if not more successful without "The Prince?" The Greek and Roman Empires all lasted centuries, but so did the English and French empires.
What caused the change in ideals about how to rule?
Why is it that fear seems to be the only efficient way to rule?
What caused the change in ideals about how to rule?
I think it was due to the globalization of society. People being oppressed hear of others living happy and rise up wanting what they have been denied.
Why is it that fear seems to be the only efficient way to rule?
I dont really think it is the most efficient way to rule. It requires constant pressure to make sure that the fear is still there and if fear becomes hate well then you have some problems.
I think it was due to the globalization of society. People being oppressed hear of others living happy and rise up wanting what they have been denied.
Romans were never oppressed, but corruption in the government led to its downfall more than anything.
Would you say corruption destroys empires?
I dont really think it is the most efficient way to rule. It requires constant pressure to make sure that the fear is still there and if fear becomes hate well then you have some problems.
But if nobody has anything to fear, then how do you get something changed that is actually causing the empire to fail?
