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

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#51

Post by oever »

jerzyt wrote: post #34
paganel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the OP but I can highly recommend Lenin's "What Is to Be Done?" [1], one of the best "no bullshit, no moralising, let's just get things done by seeing things as they really are" books of the "modern" era. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_to_Be_Done%3F

Thanks for the link. Interestingly, I grew up in Poland, under Marxism-Leninism, but none of his books were ever pushed on us, so this is somewhat of a surprise for me. I'm going to give it at least a quick scan to get an idea.

Lenin's actual writing was not the message that the regime wanted to be known. Usually, the message that gets regimes in power is not the message that keeps them in power.

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#53

Post by danharaj »

jerzyt wrote: post #34
paganel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the OP but I can highly recommend Lenin's "What Is to Be Done?" [1], one of the best "no bullshit, no moralising, let's just get things done by seeing things as they really are" books of the "modern" era. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_to_Be_Done%3F

Thanks for the link. Interestingly, I grew up in Poland, under Marxism-Leninism, but none of his books were ever pushed on us, so this is somewhat of a surprise for me. I'm going to give it at least a quick scan to get an idea.

Marxism-Leninism was Stalin's etiolation of Lenin's actual thought.

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#54

Post by bryanrasmussen »

marshray wrote: post #21
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.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if 500 years from now Seinfeld is considered essential reading to (mis-)undersand our age.

"The people of that time thought a lot about the discomforts and idiocies of plane travel."

sounds legit.

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#55

Post by cdiamand »

For those of you who read "The Prince" and are looking for a little more context, I recommend Machiavelli's "The discourses".

It's been a while since I read it, but I found it to be an interesting romp through roman history through the lense of Machiavelli's sometimes cold, sometimes compassionate analysis.

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#56

Post by ardy42 »

kstenerud wrote: post #40
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…

Compromise is antithetical to a two-party system. One could make the same arguments against the Republican party, using their hobby horses as examples. Every gain for party A is a loss for party B, so you must ensure (with varying degrees of subtlety) that the other party's initiatives end in failure to help secure your victory in the next election. And once you're in power, you must destroy anything the other party…

> Compromise is antithetical to a two-party system.

> Every gain for party A is a loss for party B, so you must ensure (with varying degrees of subtlety) that the other party's initiatives end in failure to help secure your victory in the next election. And once you're in power, you must destroy anything the other party created that would bring them praise, so that they can't point to it in the following election cycle.

I don't think that's a general rule, and the observation is only true in certain conditions. For instance, I think compromise would be more common in cases where the parties weren't starkly ideologically polarized. Similarly, if the system allowed for some sugar make bitter medicine of compromise go down easier, compromise would be more likely (specifically, I'm thinking of earmarks).

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#57

Post by elliekelly »

goto11 wrote: post #36
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.

I don't get this analogy? Are you suggesting Machiavelli was a random person that didn't know anything about governing? Or that he was a comedian?

He was a comedian.[1] A lot of his comedy wouldn’t be considered funny in 2020 but I would guess most comedy doesn’t age well.

[1]https://publicdomainreview.org/essay/machiavelli-comedian

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#58

Post by goto11 »

elliekelly wrote: post #57
goto11 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get this analogy? Are you suggesting Machiavelli was a random person that didn't know anything about governing? Or that he was a comedian?

He was a comedian.[1] A lot of his comedy wouldn’t be considered funny in 2020 but I would guess most comedy doesn’t age well. [1] https://publicdomainreview.org/essay/machiavelli-comedian

Great, I didn't know that! Truly a renaissance man.

That said, he was also an experienced diplomat, military commander and politician, so the comparison to Jerry Seinfeld is a bit off (unless there is also things about Seinfelds career I don't know about). He wasn't just a comedy writer who out of left field wrote a treatise on government.

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#59

Post by blaser-waffle »

ardy42 wrote: post #56
kstenerud wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compromise is antithetical to a two-party system. One could make the same arguments against the Republican party, using their hobby horses as examples. Every gain for party A is a loss for party B, so you must ensure (with varying degrees of subtlety) that the other party's initiatives end in failure to help secure your victory in the next election. And once you're in power, you must destroy anything the other party…

> Compromise is antithetical to a two-party system. > Every gain for party A is a loss for party B, so you must ensure (with varying degrees of subtlety) that the other party's initiatives end in failure to help secure your victory in the next election. And once you're in power, you must destroy anything the other party created that would bring them praise, so that they can't point to it in the following election cyc…

Polarization is almost inevitable with 2 parties, and is arguably one of their best tools.

There is no other genuine 3rd or 4th option, so you drive people to your party or you count them as a loss -- there is no other strategy.

Re: What we get wrong about Machiavelli

#60

Post by therealdrag0 »

neilwilson wrote: post #47
therealdrag0 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

I like the idea of a guaranteed jobs program.

Has this ever been tried? Any studies on it?

Post reply on HN