The Prince

A nice short book that will teach more about politics than several political science courses out there.

Has almost no actual substance for such a famous "book"

Ya i feel like agreeing with The Prince's views on upper class leaders being the ones who can most effectively work within the system was similar to agreeing with malthus on the landed aristocracy. You have to keep in mind they are trying to court individuals from these groups and their writing often very transparently reflect that goal

Yes, very good. It's like listening to a Italian genius rambling at a pizza bar.

When Machiavelli describes a prince and what he should do and be like and so on. The goal is just that the prince maintains his power? For Machiavelli is the measure of government stability?

How to acquire power and maintain it are the objectives of The Prince.

It's why it is such an amazing book. Very well written.

Thank you for that user

Short sweet and difficult to read. Idc call me a brainlet. I really enjoyed the part regarding being both a lion and a fox

I have heard people say it is satire. Or was intentionally giving bad advice(though lorenzo never ended up reading it?). After all Machiavelli was only in public office under the republic and was exiled under the Medici's. The edition on gutenburg commentary seems to take it as sincere, here is a quote included from correspondence
>and as to this little thing [his book], when it has been read it will be seen that during the fifteen years I have given to the study of statecraft I have neither slept nor idled; and men ought ever to desire to be served by one who has reaped experience at the expense of others. And of my loyalty none could doubt, because having always kept faith I could not now learn how to break it; for he who has been faithful and honest, as I have, cannot change his nature; and my poverty is a witness to my honesty
Is it supposed to subtly show republics as superior by showing princes are motivated to act ways that go against the interest of the people? In that case I suppose it is still sincere to some degree if biased attempt to examine what princes need to do to gain and maintain power. Or is it intentionally bad advice meant to sabotage the Medici's if they followed it... this seems a little fanciful to me. You write a book and send it to someone and hope they will follow what it says that seems like good advice but will undermine them, why would anyone think this would work and actually write a book to try and do it.

Entry-level political science. Read it. It's foundational.

It gets most principles right. Easily compatible with Christian morality, whatever the plebs think.

its the jewish art of war

Read it again.

you're retarded. also

>HURRDURR I POST THE ANCIENT SCULPTURE IM SUCH A PATRICIAN LUL

Why do I never see Guicciardini on this site. Do you pseuds not even know the superior Med intellectual? Guicciardini, at least, got his advice from experience rather than summarizing stories of the abhorrent. This board continues to suck.

It's not Jewish. The Night of the Long Knives was a Machiavelli tactic that gave National Socialism in Germany a decade of peace and stability.

>I have heard people say it is satire
Yep, it is.

>was intentionally giving bad advice
Power is abstract and absurd. It's a satire because the system he lived in was absolutely incredibly more power-hungry than even the culture we live in. It was legitimately good advice for an absurd, ridiculous time period that he found himself in.

And thus, because power still exists as a facet of society today, it is still good advice.

I hope this helps you retards understand why, just because something is a satire, doesn't mean it isn't still legitimate. This is one of the greatest works of political philosophy ever. Incredibly wise.

Has it ever occurred to you that you might not have all the answers there is to know? That underneath all of the social interactions you have is something else entirely? The Prince aims to show you what exactly that is, the very exponential function of the system of power acquisition and maintenance itself.

>Is it supposed to subtly show republics as superior by showing princes are motivated to act ways that go against the interest of the people?
And also, yes, I believe you're catching on to how exactly it is supposed to be satirical. Doesn't make the advice any less true, however, and I'm sure Machiavelli would agree that it almost doesn't matter how you form the state, as long as there is a leader of your household/company/neighborhood, this is the de facto ruler of that specific principality.

I mean, I really did think Machiavelli saw all too clearly how power worked, and he thought it absurd himself a little.

The most interesting part about this, is that if it IS satirical (which would explain why it was proliferated so ubiquitously as a treatise), then it was intended as an under-the-belt insult to Lorenzo Di Medici, who the treatise was intended for in the first place. In other words, to give him some good advice, but to slyly insult him and everyone like him in a way he wouldn't be able to figure out.

t. jew

imo it uses way too much references to the politics of his time in order to be fully appreciated today

The problem is that it's difficult to murder your opponents and their families in a liberal society, hence we are doomed to internal division and strife, and can not benefit from Pax Machiavel.

Only the most utterly contemptable of brainlets would advance the notion that the Prince is satire. It's the foundation text of modern political realism, all its points are elaborated on in Discourse on Livy, it become the "Coran for Courtiers" from the moment it was printed, probably inspired the Protestant Reformation (why it gained political support) and the decisive acts of the Counter-Reformation (St Bartholomew's Day massacre, expulsion of the Hussites & Old Town Square execution etc.)

>implying it can't be metaphorically applied

Complete pleb who will never grasp why The Prince is such a good book.

see

It's a good book to explain to you how politics work, basically seeking a balance between tyranny and benevolence.

No homocide can't be metaphorically implied. It's a description of a literal tactic to extinguish opposition and it's future fonts by the only absolute and irreversible means. A proper reading of Machiavelli would necessitate that in the absence of a moment of decisive massacre you have to implement a system of perpetual tyranny and repression to maintain power.

>The Prince is satire

The advice in Discourses on Livy is much the same as in The Prince. Machiavelli makes the argument that Republics are more capable of implementing the realist tactics he advises in The Prince and Discourses. There isn't a great gulf in the advice he offers different systems of government. The satire meme relies upon the advice given in The Prince to live amongst your population, which is supposed to be an inducement to placing the Prince at risk of a republican assassination plot. However the reasoning for the tactic is explained at length in Discourses on Livy: by living amongst your population you become immediately aware of their concerns and can administer/deal them quickly and efficiently before they become cause for disquiet and revolt.

>Honest opinions
no such thing

Machiavelli had experience in government.

Sure and was dismissed. Guicciardini served in Spain and the courts in Italy. His career also never blew up.

normans will find it hard to read but its a good how-to guide for contemporary reality if you can understand and draw modern parallels to the ideas presented in the book

In regards to image related, yes he actually did vomit on a hooker, google it friendo

>t. autismo

He's not wrong, look up the research paper titled "A Machiavellian Christian"

Even Matthew 7:6 alludes to Jesus prescribing Machiavellian actions

>No homocide can't be metaphorically implied.

Pleb. Besides, Machiavelli advises you to be a good person to gain power, first and foremost.
Pleb.
Why are the best political theorists those who were dismissed?

The only other political treatise I can think of that comes close to The Prince is The Social Contract by Rousseau. Very similarly written, actually.

Gulistan by Saadi Shirazi is considered to be the Persian version of The Prince

Haven't finished it yet but so far it's quite similar

>the prince
>the red pill

anyone old enough to remember when tupac came out with that machiavelli album and everyone said machiavelli was "a poet who faked his own death", now looking back on it, what the fuck? a poet? faked his own death? it's too bad the internet was just barely a thing and everyone was high anyways

>Christ who was against aggressive violence, worshipped the poor and was essentially the image of a lamb was Machiavelli the guy who wanted to use people as pawns in his political designs
I guess everything can be anything in this Post-Taoist Bug world amirite lads?

>unaware of Matthew 10:34 and Revelation

nice shitpost buddy, back to /r/atheism you soyboy

>****TIPS********** TIP TIP TIP TIP
TIPS AHAHHAHAHA =DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDd

Christ stormed the Temple and physically removed the Pharisees while whipping them. Don't project your cowardice upon the omnipotent.

You're not understading why Machiavelli prescribes the literal massacre of opponents. You need to kill your opponents and their families otherwise they will ALWAYS cause further disquiet and rebellion as an alternate claimant on your rule. There is no Pax without the literal death of your enemies and their heirs. If you can't kill your enemies, then you need to expect future conflict. Liberals can not kill their enemies like non-liberal Communists and Fascists can, therefore they need to expect perpetual internal conflict and create a system of ongoing repression and factional warfare to deal with living opposition.

The Pope literally struck a medal celebrating the St Batholomew's Day massacre of Prots that saved France for Catholicism (for another 200 years)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew's_Day_massacre

>You need to kill your opponents and their families otherwise they will ALWAYS cause further disquiet and rebellion as an alternate claimant on your rule.
t. brainlet
You can substitute personal assassination for character assassination and lose nothing in the translation.

Machiavelli was merely pretending

I heard Purple Rain was good but I never heard it because it banned it off the internet.

No you can't. Living people can make counter-arguments and perform counter-acts. The dead can not. The closest to actual death would be a business Machiavel having a rival fired from employment, even then it's imperfect and more akin to banishment than execution.

>No you can't. Living people can make counter-arguments and perform counter-acts.
This argument is so low energy even Jeb could do better.

Explain what death is and how living is different to it. Machiavelli gives advice on what will happen if you don't kill your opponents. If you can't commit homicide, you need to follow the advice from those "if you let your enemy live" sections and prepare accordingly. You're masturbating over the idea of being Machiavallian and not listening to what Machiavelli actually advises about how living opposition and rivals will act.