What's /his/ opinion of Machiavelli and Machiavellianism?

Having a firm grasp on how people actually behave is more important for a ruler then an idealized conception of how they should behave.

Machiavelli is based.

>>1680681
Exactly!
I just started taking interest in Machiavelli, but i can already tell how his cynism shows how "redpilled" (excuse me for the term) he is. He's somewhat a true liberal I could even state, with no idealisim about the masses and mostly personal gain, which benefits all.

>>1680693
The most important things to understand when ruling are, generally speaking

1. People practice reciprocity, not altruism, as a rule. AND

2. Different peoples are different and respond to different government types.

>>1680678

>machiavellianism

>>1680678
Is "The Prince" satire? I remember reading that a bunch of lefties were claiming it was

>>1680717
It was to stroke the egos of his patrons, wouldn't go so far as to say satire though.

>>1680717

not realy, it might have a satirical subtext, a implicit subversivenes, but ''dialogue in hell between machiavelli and montesquieu' is a satire, whereas 'protocols of zion' is strangely not a satire

>>1680700
>Different peoples are different and respond to different government types.
Get out of here with your racism. Take it back to /pol/ thanks

>>1680783
is this... bait?

>>1680700
Who exactly are you citing?
I'm new to Machiavellis ideas, but isn't his main idea that is very altruistic and one should be that?

File: 1454033741403.jpg (43KB, 339x350px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 339x350px

>>1680678
"The Prince" is his most well known work, but if you want the entirety of Machiavelli's thought you will also have to read his "Discourses on the Works of Livy."

>>1681348
thanks, I'll mark that

>>1680678

>What's /his/ opinion of Machiavelli and Machiavellianism?

Generally high. His breakdown of class relations and how it drives history not only predates Marx by centuries, but it actually presents a more nuanced and accurate view of what a "class" is.

On the other hand, he has some dumb ideas. His contemporary military notions were pretty retarded. "Hurr, INFANTRY GOOD CAVALRY BAD! ROMANS DID IT THAT WAY!"

>From what I understand Machiavellis "Prince" is one of the core books in political science?

It's one of the core books of pop political science. You want to really get into Machiavelli's thought, read the Discourses on Livy. That's where you get most of his real historical and poli-sci notions laid out.

>>1680730
I smelled a lot of irony every time he talked about theocracies, and the Papal state in particular.
I really like the prince, it was a light read, far from modern academic works that are written simply for the sake of publishing them.
It gave a lot of concrete examples from both history and recent/contemporary events of it's time. I've never felt there was fluff for the sake of length, unlike a lot of modern political books i've read.
Also, it's pretty apparent that he's licking the balls of Lorenzo de' Medici. So sometimes it's hard to distinguish what he's saying honestly.
I haven't read any of his other work yet.

>>1681373
>His breakdown of class relations and how it drives history not only predates Marx by centuries, but it actually presents a more nuanced and accurate view of what a "class" is.
This.