|
|
Post by Earl of Rochester on Sept 15, 2019 5:38:56 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_MachiavelliNiccolò Machiavelli wrote his book about the Prince, which generally summarises as you have to be a trickster, ruthless and a wolf in sheep's clothing to get by. Apparently Hitler was quite a fan, as well as many other dictators. Is this something managers and leaders should aspire to if they want to survive in the dog-eat-dog world of capitalism? Is being easygoing and agreeable viewed as a pushover and not tough enough?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2019 6:18:59 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_MachiavelliNiccolò Machiavelli wrote his book about the Prince, which generally summarises as you have to be a trickster, ruthless and a wolf in sheep's clothing to get by. Apparently Hitler was quite a fan, as well as many other dictators. Is this something managers and leaders should aspire to if they want to survive in the dog-eat-dog world of capitalism? Is being easygoing and agreeable viewed as a pushover and not tough enough? Machiavelli had served as a minor Florentine diplomat and seen the brutality of Italian Renaissance politics close up in particular the modus operandi of Cesare Borgia. The Prince was published shortly after the Medici had returned to power in Florence and had burned Savanarola, who had run it as a Theocracy, and imprisoned and tortured Machiavelli who was associated with his regime. God knows the effect torture had on Machiavelli's psyche and he wrote The Prince as a means to get back into favour as was clear from the dedication to the Medici. The point I would make is that although The Prince defined Machiavelli as the devil incarnate it should be read in conjunction with The Discourses which clearly demonstrated his preference for a Republic to a Principality. |
|
|
|
Post by Windischer on Sept 15, 2019 10:30:54 GMT -5
Well, there's a reason psychopaths do well in corporations and climb the hierarchical ladder to high positions. Very agreeable people also earn less on average. I'd still argue that you need a bit of both for long term success and stsbility though.
|
|
generalpl4gue
Initiate
I'm about to cross the Rubicon. But i don't have an only legion!
Posts: 60
|
Post by generalpl4gue on Sept 17, 2019 21:22:50 GMT -5
Machiavelli Was a great Politic cientist in his time. I think the way he Write about politics just reflects the absloutism that he used to live in. He was a guide writer, he was just teaching kings and emperors how to maintain they power and use it well.
We in Brazil have an amazing edition of "The Prince", that is commented by Napoleon. I really enjoy it because Napoleon show where Machiavelli made a mistake and where he was right. I suggest it to you.
I use to think Machiaveli as a Dale Carnegie from his time. He was just a normal guy, teaching how to have powered friends and dela with asbolute power. I enjoy Machiavelli ( but i did not enjoy Dale).
|
|
Fox
Tyro
Posts: 5
|
Post by Fox on Sept 19, 2019 1:43:05 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_MachiavelliNiccolò Machiavelli wrote his book about the Prince, which generally summarises as you have to be a trickster, ruthless and a wolf in sheep's clothing to get by. Apparently Hitler was quite a fan, as well as many other dictators. Is this something managers and leaders should aspire to if they want to survive in the dog-eat-dog world of capitalism? Is being easygoing and agreeable viewed as a pushover and not tough enough? Machiavelli had served as a minor Florentine diplomat and seen the brutality of Italian Renaissance politics close up in particular the modus operandi of Cesare Borgia. The Prince was published shortly after the Medici had returned to power in Florence and had burned Savanarola, who had run it as a Theocracy, and imprisoned and tortured Machiavelli who was associated with his regime. God knows the effect torture had on Machiavelli's psyche and he wrote The Prince as a means to get back into favour as was clear from the dedication to the Medici. The point I would make is that although The Prince defined Machiavelli as the devil incarnate it should be read in conjunction with The Discourses which clearly demonstrated his preference for a Republic to a Principality. This provides some excellent contextual framing of the matter. Moreover, one might posit that the ultimate test of any ethical, political, or social theory lies in what one observes when a remotely good-faith effort is made to apply the theory in question. It is obviously the case that there have been social circumstances, both in history and in the present, where "Machiavellian" ideals might aid in one's personal advancement, or the advancement of one's goals. Yet looking at those circumstances, it is not clear, at least to me, that one might say, "Yes, this is how society ought to be; this is a manifestation of the good life." Given that, perhaps we should reverse the question, rendering it not as, "Should leaders act in Machiavellian fashion?" but rather, "Should we comport ourselves so as to reward those who do act in such a fashion, or should we resist, and instead incentivize those who wish to be leader figures to act otherwise?" From such a perspective, might not one consider the sort of capitulation described in Von Ranke's above description of the surrounding context to be an example of weakness, albeit perhaps understandable weakness, rather than an articulation of wisdom? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 4:13:23 GMT -5
You have got straight to the heart of the matter as usual Fox and I am really glad to see you on here. The first thing I would point out is that trying to compare the absolute cruelty of Italian politics behind the glittering facades of the Renaissance courts, as depicted by Machiavelli, with modern business ethics is perhaps stretching things a little. For example, Cesare Borgia had an unpopular governor, who was showing him up in a bad light, cut in half and left his body displayed in a town centre in a display of appealing to populism. Now while the modern business ethics of a few bad actors leave a lot to be desired I think we can agree ethical and legal standards have moved on somewhat from the Renaissance. Machiavelli was correct in pointing out that while men do have the free will to choose a course of action the choices faced are usually all bad. Machiavelli's personal situation reminds me of Shakespeare's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, middling courtiers who were caught up in a vicious power struggle which ended badly for them. Speaking truth to power, whether it be in the past or today's political and business climate, is a tough call which usually has bad consequences for the whistleblower and although Governments can utter platitudes to encourage it the fate of Assange and Snowden is there for all to see.
|
|
Fox
Tyro
Posts: 5
|
Post by Fox on Sept 19, 2019 21:58:55 GMT -5
Speaking truth to power, whether it be in the past or today's political and business climate, is a tough call which usually has bad consequences for the whistleblower and although Governments can utter platitudes to encourage it the fate of Assange and Snowden is there for all to see. On an individual scale, definitely. This is part of the point of collective action, right? Just as a union can prevail in work negotiations where a single disgruntled worker would not, a collective of citizens pushing back against the mistreatment of, say, whistleblowers can, at least in principle, prevail. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that most citizens, or even most voters, don't really care about the topic. A sizable portion of them are likely to even support how Julian Assange has been treated, for example, out of bitterness regarding the impact of his actions on their particular political candidate in what they saw as a crucial election. It's disheartening from my perspective, but the right populace with the right set of cultural values might overcome it with some degree of success. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2019 5:33:50 GMT -5
There is one area in particular where collective action can literally save the planet, if it is not too late already, and that is climate change. Governments in Western Europe and America are already coming under massive pressure to change their policies in the face of direct action in the form of demonstrations and strikes by school children and workers. Balancing the profit motive with the wellbeing of planet earth is a tough ask for politicians, but it will be fascinating to see if they have the backbone to rise to the challenge. I wonder what Machiavelli would have made of it all given his general disdain for the human race?
|
|
