tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post5325191430481921652..comments2024-03-23T04:01:39.348-04:00Comments on Understanding Society: Machiavelli and the totalitarian stateDan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-5754044631429809992022-04-16T04:51:19.128-04:002022-04-16T04:51:19.128-04:00It is not very uncommon for highly educated people...It is not very uncommon for highly educated people to misunderstand their own position. A fresh example is available from Finland in a form of a famous authority of history. He still, after 50 days of genocide in Ukraine, asks people to think and understand the Russians side of view, and calls himself as neutral.<br /><br />https://thoughtsprof.blogspot.com/2022/04/demonstration-of-ones-own-stupidity-is.htmlProfessorihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05511402507184655039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-86712701313939484482022-04-13T21:05:21.429-04:002022-04-13T21:05:21.429-04:00I think one problem with this interpretation is th...I think one problem with this interpretation is that Machiavelli was not interested in "the transformation of society" but, at least in The Prince, with the narrower question of how a new prince or ruler can most effectively hold onto and consolidate his power. One of Machiavelli's pieces of advice to a new ruler is to commit cruelties all at once, in one fell swoop, rather than dragging them our over time (see chapter 8). The latter course, he says, is likely to stir up popular opposition to the prince.<br /><br />As this example suggests, Machiavelli in The Prince is very attuned to the necessity for the ruler to maintain a base of popular support. Hence the ruler should be cruel and ruthless when required or "necessary," but not *too* cruel; he can presumably levy some taxes, but he should not cultivate a reputation for generosity (or "liberality" in another translation) because this will lead him to engage in "sumptuous display" and his resulting expenses will lead him to tax the people too heavily, thus incurring their hatred (chap. 16).<br /><br />A totalitarian ruler, almost by definition, doesn't much care about how his people view him; he maintains power by brute force, terror, and coercion. The Machiavellian prince, by contrast, has to care about how he is perceived and whether he has support from his subjects. Especially when read in its historical context, I think it's hard to see The Prince as a justification for totalitarianism. (There is room for differing opinions here, of course.)<br /><br />I agree with the point at the end of the post re: pagan boldness vs. Christian passivity not exhausting the political/moral options. As with the reference to totalitarianism, however, the reference to 19th-century and 20th-century versions of liberal constitutionalism may risk pulling The Prince too much out of its context. L. F. Coopernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-77667942918467766612022-04-11T17:42:53.109-04:002022-04-11T17:42:53.109-04:00There must exist an interesting tension in America...There must exist an interesting tension in America in particular- think of the "touchdown Jesus" of NFL lore- I believe the fact that Christianity is practiced as a belief system reveling in hypocrisy and that there are few true Christians in any more than one's circle of acquaintances(think 'give to Caesar what is Caesar's') the distinction is academic.<br />I'd wonder what Machiavelli would think about the Jewish Republic? While we don't love our enemies we lived a Christ like and beggarly existence during the Diaspora as the Zionists at the turn of the century bemoaned.Howiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12474061778220524205noreply@blogger.com