/lit/ - Literature

>>22571502
It depends anon, in a globalized world, no.

>>22571502
why does he look like he sucked dick so hard he lost all his teeth

>>22571526
Some parts of the book seem to be applicable to corporate environments.

>>22571537

This is the answer I would have posted.

I believe The Prince in particular is a useful book to read. It's not about if it's the best, the most clever, the most intelligent, or anything else like that. No, it's concise and direct, and doesn't waste time with nonsense.

In the end, if a person isn't intelligent enough to translate his ancient wisdom to a modern environment, then they probably aren't a Prince.

Thus, reading this book will still shed wisdom upon you, and give you even a slight advantage. And in this world, I think we are in dire need of true, honorable Princes.

And we must remember that he is not evil. He is effective. And he is on your side. He was not selfish with this information, so never think of Machiavelli as a devil. No, he is a man who turned around and gave US the key.

We have the key to unlock the door to the castle and climb the steps to the throne room and claim THAT chair as ours.

We could become King.

>>22571537
Pretty much this: >>22571546
If you wanted to apply it on a global economy well...

>>22571537
Going into more detail on this, I'm thinking of the chapter in which Machiavelli describes a strategy a prince of newly acquired/conquered realm might implement if the upper nobility is opposed to this change. Simply ignore them, and ingratiate yourself to the lower nobility. If you can get close to the source of taxes, the people / low nobility, and ingratiate yourself to them, you don't really need the support of the upper nobility.
The same wisdom could be applied when taking over a company, or even just a subdivision of a company, or even just an individual office. Make the workers like you, and then you as the chief can ignore the supervisors, and in time replace them with new supervisors who come from the ranks of workers who you've made to love you.

Check out the version I'm reading. It's based off Napoleon's personal copy with notes in the margins found I believe abandoned in the Russian campaign. Just started last night and am getting back to it now so nice to see this thread

>>22571502
Like what >>22571526 and >>22571537
said it depends. But general ideas seem to hold. For example, his teaching in Civil Principalities
where a Prince should choose to prioritize and pamper common people over the nobles,
even if he was put in place by the nobles. For the reason that common people are
numerous and are more willing to submit to you in times of need,
whereas nobles have the capability to scheme and compromise your power.
This is true for Populist leaders today. There's strength in the masses,
there's just added complexities but in general it holds.

Another one I've noticed relevant to current events is his teaching about governing
new principalities who used to live with their own laws prior to occupation. Machiavelli said there
are two ways to hold this territory: 1. Total destruction, hence total destruction of its political
and civil structure. 2. Is for the prince himself to live in this territory. I think Putin planned to destroy
Ukraine totally because he believes it is the only way to gain absolute control over it (although I
don't think it's going well.) I just thought this teaching, although targeted particularly towards
principalities, applies to Russia because almost everyone submits to Putin himself.

There's many more we can glean over it just like Sun Tzu's Art of War still benefitting people
of different professions today, it's mostly about the wisdom, not the actual application.
(Forgive the ESL grammar, it's the best I got)

>>22571572
Very nice, I have an Easton Press copy

>>22571572
>>22571594
Your books are so beautiful. I can only get the cheap mass produced ones lol. Maybe I should order from overseas, if it's worth the cost

>>22571572
>>22571572
Napoleon was a terrible man. A charlatan.
But that's exactly the point. He was a liar, because that's what he wanted to gain power.

The dark truth is that Napoleon is the man who used Machiavelli for evil, while Machiavelli is merely a sword. A sword can be used to defend the innocent. It can be used to attack the innocent. A sword can strike down the guilty as well.

Machiavelli is that sword, and Napoleon picked it up, and singing beautiful lies, he tricked the common folk into believing that his way was right.

Thus Napoleon conquered. For he was a Prince.

>>22571502
I know now i should never hire mercenaries

>>22571601

No, be happy with what you have.
It's the content within that is beautiful. Never judge a book by its cover, my sweet friend. No. Never.

>>22571601
I'm the one with the Napoleon commentary version and it's hideous, I just love Napoleon and reading his notes at the bottom of each page makes me smile. The print is all centered weird and the image on the front is blown up funny and pixelated. Just as a warning to any interested parties
>>22571605
Shutup faggot

>>22571605
Napoleon literally did nothing wrong

>>22571608
That's right. If shit goes south, mercenaries can just fuck off. If you hire people from your home town, they're fight much harder because their home is at stake too.

>>22571614

He deceived. I will trust Thomas Paine leagues above Napoleon, and I know very well that Thomas met Napoleon in person. I'm trusting the glorious Thomas Paine, for he was a writer who was able to change the fate of mankind in a way Napoleon never did.

You see, Thomas Paine had a sword of his own. It was a pen, and with it, he alone won America's Revolutionary War.

Thomas Paine is the man who was greater than Napoleon, for Paine was no liar. And he was no coward. He might not have been the smartest, nor the most wise, nor even the most brave or strong, but he was an honest man, and he was a free man. And when he smiled, you could see his pure heart.

In the end, Napoleon was shackled by his own narcissistic egomania and in this [current year] France is a truly fallen nation.

Thomas Paine died alone, unloved and forgotten. Yet if ever he was to be read again, if ever we were to ever even hear the words "Common Sense," "Rights of Man," and "The Age of Reason," then perhaps America would also rise again.

>>22571608
There are pretty clear lessons you could draw from that observation and apply to your own life as >>22571615 says

>>22571639
Utterly delusional nonsense
Napoleon forged the modern era and is half the reason America is even great because he cut us a deal for the Louisiana purchase. He was also the reason why the War of 1812 wasn't as bad as it could've been. You can choose to LARP about weird shit like muh Common Sense pamphlet, but America genuinely owes more to Napoleon than Paine.

>>22571684
more like a fifth but yes thomas paine is a putz

>>22571684

Now wait a second, I would NEVER say that Napoleon was not among the GREATEST of men. I only claim that he was wicked.

But this is not a condemnation. Did you forget what thread this was? Machiavelli is smiling down at us, and he smiles upon Napoleon as well. His smile is sharp; terse, but indeed, is it a very knowing smile. You see, despite the fact that I think Napoleon is an evil man...

Napoleon did nothing wrong. And that is the truth.

Now let's both take a drink and understand very well that this is much more than a mere argument for or against Napoleon, Paine, or anyone else. This is the mind of Machiavelli we speak of, and thus, we are not here to fight and squabble like common peasants.

We are Princes.

>>22571502
not really. if you read 'The Prince' expecting to figure out how modern politics works you're gonna be disappointed. Its a nice read though.

>>22571684
A quote from Wikipedia (may it be true.)

>Paine discussed with Napoleon how best to invade England. In December 1797, he wrote two essays, one of which was pointedly named Observations on the Construction and Operation of Navies with a Plan for an Invasion of England and the Final Overthrow of the English Government, in which he promoted the idea to finance 1,000 gunboats to carry a French invading army across the English Channel. In 1804, Paine returned to the subject, writing To the People of England on the Invasion of England advocating the idea. However, upon noting Napoleon's progress towards dictatorship, he condemned him as "the completest charlatan that ever existed".

Napoleon read both Paine and Machiavelli, as we know.
But guess which book Napoleon took with him to war?

Guess which book Napoleon favored. Oh yes, Paine was a good man, is all I can say. A good, honest man. How cute. How adorable.

But let's not be naive. Napoleon was more than a mere Prince.

He was Emperor.

>>22571639
Gayest shit I've read in my life anon, well done

Power is chaotic and manipulative, but ultimately the lust for it is absolutely insane and involves pure madness.

In his humorous sarcasm, Machiavelli understood this. It is both an incredibly intelligent book, and a hilarious look into the hellish designs of how to maintain power and control.

>>22571728
Like hypermasculine sort of gay?
Or like cute femboy sort of gay?

>>22571502
Yes they are, but the characteristically "Machiavellean" ones are not because they depend on conducting a brief but wide killing purge, like the St Bartholomew Day massacre, which isn't possible in a modern republic. Machiavelli tells you to kill all potential rivals in one swoop at the start of your reign because it gives you a clean slate, insulates you from future challenges, but also unlike a prolonged or permenant reign of terror it doesn't destroy the hope of ordinary citizens and back them into a corner and make them feel they can not live under your reign and have no alternative but to depose you. That strategy isn't viable in modern times, and you're much better off taking his other less characteristically "Machiavellian" advice of awarding ambitious people and potential rivals useless honours to satisfy their egos.

His Discourses on Livy where he advises people to start their own religion is still followed, the 2020 election versions being Q and Floydism.

>>22571572
Read Discourses on Livy if you want the real Machiavelli. The Prince is a pamphlet.

>>22571919
Just read >>22571732 anon.

The whole point was it was not viable in those times either. That passage was largely funny.

>>22571925
>a pamphlet
this anon knows

>>22571502
Machiavelli doesn't actually recommend what I think most people think he does. The stereotype would be that Machiavellian behaviour involves scheming, backstabbing, and horrifically complicated Byzantine politics. That's not really what The Prince recommends, though... Machiavelli does not want a state that requires a superhuman prince capable of delicately balancing dozens of competing factions against each other. The Prince describes a centralised and pragmatic autocracy. A Machiavellian prince doesn't reign over a city full of viciously competing interest groups, because the first thing he does after seizing power is ruthlessly crush everyone likely to pose a threat, while rewarding the forces likely to support his rule. He also encourages a sense of patriotism and civic duty, while avoiding mercenaries and assassins because of their unreliability. The first rule of being a Machiavellian prince is ensuring that everyone with power in the principality is loyal to you.

The correct strategy, I think: control people through incentive and obligation, not idealism; identify the people you need to keep on-side and keep them very happy; crush everyone else; and make sure to maintain a carefully disciplined public image, rather than indulge in luxuries.

A Machiavellian prince is not ostentatious. If a Machiavellian state is working right, you don't see a soup of conflict. Rather, you see a peaceful, prosperous, and successful state, with patriotic citizens, a well-organised civil administration, and a population that, if not always happy, is at least content. The state is organised, efficient, extremely loyal to its prince (out of respect if not love), and capable of truly impressive, glorious deeds under pressure.

>>22571931
No. Read Discourses on Livy.

>>22571925
I always liked this book. Unlike The Prince where you just get the final answers, you see Machiavelli working with the atoms from the particulars in Roman historical events to build up the foundation to that great edifice. Very Aristotelian going from the particulars onto the general. Reading it is like taking a seat next to an eloquent autist who is walking you through each step in an algebra problem.

>>22571944
This. The most important Machiavellian advice today is to not build castles within the city. Rulership can not ordinarily be at war with your own subjects within the city, you have to build and sustain their loyalty to you and rule amongst them. (Although remember his condemnation of Savonarola for not developing an army/militia/police so he could resist the mob with force when they turned on him.)

>>22571959
My favourite is the chapter on obeying your peoples superstitions and religious beliefs, in reference to the Roman admiral who threw the augury chickens overboard when they gave the wrong pre-battle answer ("Let them drink!") and then lost the engagement and was condemned (executed?) by the people for causing the loss by angering the gods.

>>22571925
Is it a long read?

>>22571986

It's a good read, but to be honest, I didn't finish it.
I actually got caught up in other things, so I wouldn't say it's boring. The Prince is a pamphlet, but it's a good one.

Read The Prince first, and try to finish it fast. Don't overanalyze it. Just get it over with and when you finish, think if you liked it or not, and if you did, check out Livy.

>>22571546
Why be a king
When you could be a God at games
Video games feel so real bro
Cross
Cross is the answer.

>>22571502
No. They never were

>>22571502
Yes. The terms and actual politics are dated, but the strategy is still sound.

uh

probably not

>>22572019
Vidya players are not gods and goddesses but, authors on the other hand, oh boy.

>>22571925
Neat. Hadn't heard of this, but my next read after the Prince was to be Livy's history of Rome. Through what >>22571959 says id imagine those are the books he's writing in response to, right? Or are there other Livy works I should read prior to reading Discourse?

>>22571715
Nta, but I find it funny that you'd mention it; I just received my The Prince copy, with Napoleon's notes. It's pretty insightful to Napoleon's thoughts and plans.

>>22571572
My copy actually arrived last night (here: >>22572905 )
Pretty enjoyable so far.

>>22572905
What language is that?

>>22572962
Portuguese, aka NOT-spanish.

>>22571919
>being this literal
In a corporate environment if you’re going to fire troublemakers you do it all at once. Man, if only the great thinkers of this board ever actually left their parents’ basements, just imagine