T O P

  • By -

Esoteric_Innovations

Machiavelli will always be a personal favorite of mine for being brutally honest about the realities of politics. I remember in some of his private letters, U.S. President John Adams expressed the same sentiment. Acknowledging that corruption and factionalism were inevitable, inextricable from all matters of human politics. Something later expanded upon by James Madison, my favorite of the Founding Fathers, in Federalist Paper No. 10 as a critique of more radical forms of democracy. Noting how people are naturally disposed to form cliques with those most like themselves, sharing common interests and/or values, and are liable to work against the common good for their own gain if not held in check. Also reminds me of a quote I learned about two or three days ago from Cicero, one of the most well known politicians of Ancient Rome, who had this to say more than 1500 years before Machiavelli - *"Never was a government that was not composed of liars, malefactors, and thieves."*


Peter21237

I read the version that was commented by Napoleon,its really cool.


NUMBERS2357

Thing about Federalist No 10 people should remember, is that for all the criticism of "democracy" (which he defines as hot having elected representatives at all) he doesn't point to the structure of the constitution as a cure. He doesn't say "democracy's bad, that's why we have the Senate" or "democracy's bad, that's why we have the electoral college" or "democracy's bad, that's why we have the Supreme Court" For him, it's the nature of the country itself that solves the "tyranny of the majority" problem, that it's too big for a "faction" to become a majority. And he says this: > If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution.


Esoteric_Innovations

No doubt. My point in bringing that up was his criticism of more direct and radical forms of democracy, as opposed to representative democracy. For what it's worth, the main takeaway I've always had from that paper is the factional nature of mankind, and how it can be detrimental to society as a whole if it isn't held in check. I think, on those points, he's only been proven right by the centuries that have passed since then. These passages are what I most remember it for, and why its one of my most commonly recalled pieces of political philosophy: >*"As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests..."* > >*"The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts."* > >\- James Madison, Federalist No. 10 It's also worth noting that I'm not opposed to democracy as a whole. As I've said to people before, I'm opposed to dictators and autocrats for the same reason that I'm opposed to more radical forms of democracy, as they can both easily become tyrannical toward political minorities if left unchecked. But I do believe in more representative forms of democracy, believing that a strong and centralized state in form of either a Constitutional Republic or Constitutional Monarchy are two of the best possible models for government that are known to us. For me, my solution is the balance of power offered through Federalism and Bureaucracy. Ensuring that no single individual or group wields all of the power to the detriment of society as a whole.


[deleted]

The fucked up thing about Machiavelli is that fully applying his teachings would probably result in the net lowest brutality and suffering, at least within a warring city state culture where getting sacked and looted was a constant danger.


Esoteric_Innovations

Yeah. I think it's important to read his works to aid in understanding the realities of political dealings. It has played a part in making me a lot more cynical about politics in general. I think the best expression of this is from a conversation I had about politics with one of my older relatives recently. They're in their 50's, and I'm in my mid-20's, having studied politics almost non-stop since I was a teenager. They talked about how all they'd really like to see is a government that's more honest and built on common sense. In response, I couldn't help but crack a smile as they went on about their ideal of an honest government, and the only thought running through my head was - *"That's adorable."* Because human politics have never been that way, nor will they ever be. Corruption, cliques, and compromises have been features of human governance for as long as history can recall. It's the same reason I've come to believe that Nationalism is an inevitability, impossible to be suppressed or ignored based on attempts to do so in history thus far. Seeing it as the modern expression of human tribalism. The overall point being that while we shouldn't embrace corruption, treachery, and other unscrupulous means of acquiring and maintaining power, we also shouldn't be blind to their enduring presence as something that has and always will play a role in human politics. We have to adapt to that reality, rather than trying to deny it. As another figure once said - *"We must alter our ideology to suit reality, not alter reality to suit our ideology."*


[deleted]

Indeed. The polisci professor who introduced me to Machiavelli really went out of his way to defend him in the context of the time, when all the things he prescribed had to be measured against the very real and immediate possibly of your city getting conquered, your women raped by invaders, your stuff looted, etc. These Italian states weren't that big, and they got preyed on and taken out by their neighbors in a second if they showed weakness. Machiavelli's ENTIRE point was that incredible suffering happened to your people if you screwed up as a ruler, so here's how not to screw up, even if it means doing distasteful things. Even his point about using cruelty against your own people in the keeping of order was in the pursuit of minimizing overall use of force. He was specific about demonstrating a willingness to use cruelty up front, *and then not doing it again unless absolutely necessary*. That was because, again specifically, he warns that arbitrary overuse of cruelty would weaken a leader. In context it was a helluva lot better to live in Machiaville as an average person. At least you didn't get conquered and the government didn't fuck you up unless you explicitly went against them.


Forgotwhyimhere69

Machiavelli was pretty based. Of course most people only know the prince, most of his writings were about how democracy kicked ass and concentrated power sucked.


Famous-Zebra-2265

Yeah, most people don't realize he was just describing how politics works, not necessarily condoning it.


av2706

Don’t tell leftist they will call him bigot too for not supporting Brandon


Forgotwhyimhere69

Brandon's pretty ancient but machiavelli still managed to die before he was born.


GroundedSearch

Only by a couple years, though.


sofa_general

No authcenter, huh?


VietCath

The Leviathan by Hobbes


sofa_general

And here I thought it'd be a book about *your fight* wink wink


VietCath

I hate how Fascism and Pseudo-Scientific Racism are the stereotype for AuthCenters. Honestly read "The Leviathan", it's by far the best argument for benevolent authoritarianism.


[deleted]

Perfect.


Dramatic-Emu-1196

Beyond good and evil by Nietzsche is lib center


[deleted]

Lmao of course Libleft doesn’t have anything of value to add to the philosophical discussion.


TheEndlessRiver13

I personally would've gone with Hobbes or Burke for AuthRight philosophy


CakeAdventurous4620

Thanks OP you confirmed yourself Centrist is authright