Machiavelism

[Egeides]

In politics, when is machiavelism correct, and when is it not? Machiavel basically says that we have a fortuna (luck, fortune...) and a virtu ( capacity to make our way and get what we want, in this case within our fortuna). When is it correct to go by the rules of Machiavel?

For example, if a ruler is proposing you to get money from him, but:

1- you know this money is corrupted

2- it will serve good purposes under your hands

Should you profit from your fortuna to do what you want with the money?

Remember, in politics, perhaps you probably wont survive very long if you just do what you want without consideration of a strong neighbor or by saying out loud that the big guy is ugly... Does the goal permits to let yourself more loose on the means? How would you manage this in politics?

[Anathema]

I read a bit about Machiavelli actually, but mostly stuff regarding the way a monarch should be like. He believed that it was useful to pretend to be virtuous, but that he should be like the exact oposite when the situation demands it.

His dream was a strong Italian nation under a single ruler, as at the time Italy was divided in numerous smallish factions.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, it depends on your own position, ideas, targets etc. For example take this situation: I would be a mercenary in service of Hitler. Then someone, maybe de Gaulle, will propose me some sum for betrayal. Then we have raging fight and my forces would surprisingly rebel inside german lines and disrupt them. It is vicious and dishonorable, but served a good idea... However, if he would for example corrupt reporters, let they write with better view about him, then it is worse.

[Acriku]

Who gets to decide what is good, vicious, and dishonorable?

The good thing about Machiavelli, is that what he writes about is what realistic politicians think about, and successful ones at that.

[Egeides]

Acriku, I think I can decide myself if an action is in itself immoral. But when you have immoral action + moral action mixed in one place, this is the situation I am bringing here.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

I think that in the duniverse board someone once called the harkonnens machiavelian

[Dante]

The Baron Harkonnen more than anyone else. Manipulative. This especially applies to his presence in Alia's mind. Machiavelli did state that being manipulative was a positive thing for a ruler. And that to rule well the ruler must be loved or feared, but feared was safer (he did not say this was good, only that it was sensible).

I like Machiavelli's ideas. Sensible man.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, Macchiavelli's true genius isn't in that he was showing ideas (in Il Principe, his military strategies are mostly theoretical), but truth, how it really is...

[VigilVirus]

Every ruler (especially autocrats) has to be manipulative to some extent or else people won't follow him.

Indeed, rule through fear is very effective (as shown through Harkonnens). "Benevolent dictators", such as Duke Atreides are followed as well, cause people view them as their God and love him.

Like the opposite ends of a spectrum - the angry God who holds you up from destruction and if you don't obey him you'll be destroyed (somewhat Puritan belief). And then there's the loving, peaceful God who wants what is best for you.

[Anathema]

Has anyone here actually read Il principe? So far I haven't seen anything in this thread that couldn't have been taken from a history book.

[Caid Ivik]

I read, many times. I have it near computer, as I use many quotes from it. I have to learn, you know  ;D

[Dante]

No, but I have read a few quotes from it. That one about fear and love was a paraphrasing from one of his works. One day when I'm older I'll read it. I hope.

[Egeides]

I read it. We also got a 3 hour class on Machiavel's view of politics.