Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What we get wrong about Machiavelli

prospectmagazine.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 61 posts

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#41

Post by CapricornNoble »

jerzyt wrote: post #3

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?

Machiavelli also wrote a "Discourses on Livy", which mixes politcal philosophy lessons with Roman historical examples.

I'd recommend Plato's "The Republic". "Mencius" (self-titled work by the Confucian philosopher) and maybe Confucius's "Analects" for political philosophy and leadership.

For warfare and strategy, other posters have already said Carl Von Clauswitz's "On War" which is pretty much the gold standard of modern military thought publications so I'm going to reiterate it as a must-read. In particular I would focus on Book I, Chapter 3: "The Genius For War". Slightly less well-known is Alfred T. Mahan's "The Influence of Sea Power Upon History" but that's less about leadership and much more about strategy.

A very modern text on tactical leadership would be HJ Poole's "The Last Hundred Yards: The NCO's Contribution to Warfare" https://www.amazon.com/Last-Hundred-Yards-Contribution-Warfa...

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#42

Post by cmendel »

jerzyt wrote: post #3

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?

I'll rec On War, by Clausewitz

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#43

Post by john4532452 »

MAMAMassakali wrote: post #11
jerzyt wrote: post #3

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?

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

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.

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#44

Post by keiferski »

nl wrote: post #39
keiferski wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 contempora…

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 a…

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.

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#45

Post by _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...

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#46

Post by RobertKerans »

keiferski wrote: post #24
klodolph wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 contempora…

> But Machiavelli wasn't a comedian or entertainer in any way

How does being a writer of popular satirical plays and novels not count?

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#47

Post by neilwilson »

therealdrag0 wrote: post #19
hyperion2010 wrote: post #2

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 re…

Can you elaborate. What would politicians do if they understood virtu?

End unemployment permanently in the USA, Stephanie Kelton style.

Which would then force capitalists to compete for labour driving wages growth and productivity. Once the threat of unemployment is lifted, Uber, et al can be allowed free rein and the magic of capitalism will rapidly deliver a more effective transport system (for example).

"But what about the jobs" is about protecting the old and staid from disruption by the new and vigourous.

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#48

Post by cambalache »

watwut wrote: post #35
cambalache wrote: post #8

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).

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 bu…

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.

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#49

Post by watwut »

cambalache wrote: post #48
watwut wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bu…

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…

> 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.

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#50

Post by twic »

jerzyt wrote: post #3

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?

I have a copy of The Art of War which also has The Book of Lord Shang in it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Lord_Shang

Post reply on HN