Posted by Kim S on August 22, 19100 at 23:07:01:
In Reply to: Re: Free answers to your questions by a PhD historian posted by AMR on August 22, 19100 at 19:17:52:
Here are some answers to your questions.
1. The expression "Machiavellian" is usually a term of abuse; i.e., to call someone "Machiavellian" is to say that they are without scruples, that they are willing to do anything and everything in their pursuit of the self-aggrandizment of power.
One could argue, however -- as would his defenders -- that Machiavelli was simply emphasizing a conception of politics that has existed since and was known to ancient times; read Thucydides's "Melian dialogue" in "The History of the Peloponesian War."
2. In Chapter 25 of The Prince, Machiavelli says that fortuna controls one-half (approximately) of human events and leaves the other (approximate) half for us humans to govern. Yet it is not the ordinary, common citizen who can govern this one-half of human affairs; fortune is like a raging river in flood sweeping aside all dykes and barriers standing in her path. It is only those rare men of extraordinary "virtue" and abilities who are capable of standing against fortuna; fortuna, as Machiavelli reminds us, is a women who actually likes to be beaten down by young, virile men.
3. Given that we today, supposedly, live in an era of globalization and in a "borderless world", to use Kenichi Ohmae's expression (I hope I got that right; it's been a while since I looked at his book), perhaps it is not international, national, or state leaders who should be considered Machiavellian; perhaps, instead, it is the allegedly all-powerful leaders of the supposedly omnipresent multinational companies, intergovernmental organizations, and non-IGO's who should be considered "Machiavellian."
Alistair McAlpine, and those of his ilk, would probably say that it is business leaderss who are the Machiavellians of today; see his 1997 book, "The New Machiavelli."
Hope all of this helps.
READ THE GREAT BOOKS
TERM PAPERS, RESEARCH PAPERS, ESSAYS