Honest Machiavellianism

[Zephyrus055]

Throughout history we can frequently find layers of moral whipped cream coating on top of a surface of truly Machiavellian motives among those who exercise power in a political entity. A good example is the US war with Iraq that has continually been justified by "spreading democracy," when clearly there are more ulterior motives behind it. Though this was not cleverly pulled, there are much more successful examples in history.

I think we can agree that the layers of whipped cream over the surface seems to make it easier to win support for a selfish exercise of power. But lately I have been wondering what would happen if a politician was suddenly honest, and publically said things like "I am going to fire bomb x to break the morale of the enemy, and consequently eliminate their will to resist and allow us to continue exploiting their resources and labor." Do you think that people would be like "WHAT THE FUCK!? REVOLUTION!" Or do you think they might appreciate their president's honesty, and his power would actually be boosted? Or do you think it wouldn't have any significant effect at all?

Another thing I am curious about is this. Do you think that practical and Machiavellian considerations are made the most among those with power in a political entity? Or are they mostly moral considerations? Or does it vary between political entities based on their cultural and political background (some political entities are mostly practical, some are mostly moral)?

[Ferrus]

Humanity cannot live by Machiavellianism alone. This was Hobbes's crucial insight. If you want a world where anyone stronger than you can dash out your brains with a well sharpened lump of flint, by all means pursue 'honest Machiavellianism'. Else, one must accept that in order to have what amounts to an economically and socially feasible society - one in which misery is reduced for almost all - then there needs to be a moral code. A moral code that has of course no foundation except one's collective, and thus individual, well-being.

You accept the capitalist method of economics, right? This in itself is a form of this practical morality. In a truly Machiavellian society property rights would be non-existant and 'property' would have no more meaning than those items which you are able to keep by force without someone stealing it. We have societal control so as to be to the benefit of everyone. I don't see why this eminent domain - the essential presupposition of law and government for private property - cannot by its very nature be extended to the gestalt control in certain specific structural ways (C.f. Stiglitz Globalization and its Discontents).

In essence therefore you seem to suggesting that there is a false dichtonomy between 'Machiavellianism' - or rather self-interest - and morality which is eminently false. The US wanted to spread democracy to the Middle East because it was in its interest to do so - arguably (but then asymmetry of information means it is impossible to always act with self interest) and because it was 'moral'. Note - the hegemonic strength of the practical morality, which causes it to be (usefully) raised to the level of a priori morality among the general population serves to ensure it takes a life of its own, and thus the government itself must act in such a fashion, so not as to precipitate social collapse.

[Thevenin]

"Never rob a man of his illusions." Someone famous said this, or something like it--probably Shakespeare, it usually is. Few want honesty. It's hard to live with. Here, in the states, many say they want "small government." They don't. They only want the programs that benefit other people cut. Machiavellianism and honesty don't mix.

[Zephyrus055]

Humanity cannot live by Machiavellianism alone. This was Hobbes crucial insight. If you want a world where anyone stronger than you can dash out your brains with a well sharpened lump of flint, by all means pursue 'honest Machiavellianism'. Else, one must accept that in order to have what amounts to an economically and socially feasible society - one in which misery is reduced for almost all - then there needs to be a moral code. A moral code that has of course no foundation except one's collective, and thus individual, well-being.

You accept the capitalist method of economics, right? This in itself is a form of this practical morality. In a truly Machiavellian society property rights would be meaningly and 'property' would have no more meaning than those items which you are able to keep by force without someone stealing it. We have societal control so as to be to the benefit of everyone. I don't see why this eminent domain - the essential presupposition of law and government for private property - cannot by its very nature be extended to the gestalt control in certain specific structural ways (C.f. Stiglitz Globalization and its Discontents).
Fair enough, but this isn't quite what I was getting at. By Machiavellianism I meant achieving the desired outcome with strictly practical considerations, although this does not dismiss using layers of a moral conversation to make a questionable action less odious. It is synonymous with real politik. Intentionally giving precedence to moral or value considerations above practical ones are simply often times costly in the pursuit of a practical goal. In other words, the ends justify the means. I think this definition is the most fair to Machiavelli's discussion in The Prince, and that ruthless competition, even at a micro level, or the active use of deceit, does not accurately represent what he says. The reason is that deception and hyper competition are fixed methods for every situation, and sometimes (actually I would argue most), they are not the most appropriate or strategic response to a situation.

And so, having a set of social rules that people agree to has a strategic value. A cooperative outcome is sometimes the most strategic outcome, and cooperation requires each party to abide to a set of rules. However, this is not in itself morality. Morality transcends these rules in to some sort of objective truth, asserting that they exist in some sort of metaphysical reality. However, I suppose you could argue that morality is important strictly because it justifies these rules even when it may be strategically beneficial for a member of that party to break it, and thus ensuring a higher percentage of cooperation among members of that mutually beneficial relationship.

When operating on a strictly Machiavellian or strategic plane, morals have to be dismissed, because their absolute essence is often costly for reaching practical outcomes, and they are outside empirical limits. However, this is not so with rules. They may be broken, adhered, created, adapted, and eliminated based on the strategic calculations of the situation considered, with the response of all other parties also considered (which also makes breaking the rules costly in most situations).

So in perhaps a more clear way of stating my question, perhaps it's best to ask what would happen if a political leader made his conversation with his public a strategic one, rather than a moral or value one? "We need to do x, because it will benefit us in the long-run," as opposed to "We must do x because it is the right thing to do."

[immortalmack]

Another thing I am curious about is this. Do you think that practical and Machiavellian considerations are made the most among those with power in a political entity? Or are they mostly moral considerations? Or does it vary between political entities based on their cultural and political background (some political entities are mostly practical, some are mostly moral)?
Yes those with power practice Machevelli because the West is in control and most of the West is European which Machevelli was ......so eh!


Humanity cannot live by Machiavellianism alone.
I disagree Ferrus. Machevelli politics is why this world looks the way it does. Also with a healthy mix of de Toqueville. (Think Otto von Bismarck and Africa)


"Never rob a man of his illusions." Someone famous said this, or something like it--probably Shakespeare, it usually is. Few want honesty. It's hard to live with. Here, in the states, many say they want "small government." They don't. They only want the programs that benefit other people cut. Machiavellianism and honesty don't mix.
I was gonna disagree but you're right. Although when it comes to world politics Machiavelli is the Age. (Think US and Frances' beef over Iraq)



So in perhaps a more clear way of stating my question, perhaps it's best to ask what would happen if a political leader made his conversation with his public a strategic one, rather than a moral or value one? "We need to do x, because it will benefit us in the long-run," as opposed to "We must do x because it is the right thing to do."

I don't have political power but i've tried this and it does'nt work. People always put personal human (Judeo Christian) in the way the view the world and they are lost! Personally you cannot justify running out of food, so you attack the weakest person on the block to get some. but this is what happens everyday in the world. Do you think that the West and Africa are on equal footing when it comes to deals. It's Neo-Colonialism. If you don't let our companies harvest your natural resources we will; try a coup; political pressure from "the World Body" or just flat out pay for mercenaries to deal with you.

[Ferrus]

I disagree Ferrus. Machevelli politics is why this world looks the way it does. Also with a healthy mix of de Toqueville. (Think Otto von Bismarck and Africa)
Machiavellian politics forms a layer of human interaction on the small and large scale but only that. To suggest we all act as atoms pursuing our own interests above all else is a gross simplification.

Humans as organisms are vastly more complex. Whilst we tend towards the illusion of self-determination, free will and our power over nature we are nevertheless driven by biologically determined instincts which cause us to act in irrational ways often against our interest. Our psychology plays a role to - our actions are more often than not determined by our socialisation. Think - when we talk of pursuing our own interests, what exactly do we mean by interest? Beyond basic human needs such as food, water and shelter and such answer we give will be determined by the social enviroment we grew up in.

Clearly the pursuit of morality against rational 'realpolitik' is never going to work - but equally realpolitik would never exist without an irrational social 'game' - which is in essence all morality is - which determines our interests in the first place.

So I shall think Otto Bismarck. Let's start with Bismarck: he was ruthless in taking advantage of the system of states and nations which had evolved, indeed. But if not for these constructed identities, if not for constructed morality which is what engeneders such countries and makes people prepared to fight for them, they would be unmeaningful. The reality between various states is much closer to a Hobbesian state of nature, I would agree, hence why realpolitik applies far more on that level. Even there however it becomes clear that forming associations and modi operandi (so as to avoid, for example, the prisoners dillemma) so as to be of benefit to all. Hence extradition treaties, hence international alliances, et al.


although this does not dismiss using layers of a moral conversation to make a questionable action less odious
Why is any action 'questionable' or 'odious' in the first place? Most such things are just that because they threaten sociteal co-operation and harmony. Murder is questionable and odious because we see in the murder of someone else our own murder, and the fear and paranoia that comes from that. Morality is basically practical, when it is not it is merely because our emotions have hi-jacked our reason. Even the religious zealot is basically letting his emotions get the better of his rational faculties - and therein lies the heart of any attempts to irrationally create transcendent moralism. Is it possible for whole societies and even individuals to transcend this? Not without scrapping millions of years worth of evolved hardware in our brains. And even sociopaths are driven by internal emotions and neurological structures beyond their control. It is the typical conceit of the Western world after the enlightenment that somehow it is possible to all become paragons of rationality, when clearly this is nonsense. I could go on but the point seems obvious enough to anyone who chooses to think a little.


So in perhaps a more clear way of stating my question, perhaps it's best to ask what would happen if a political leader made his conversation with his public a strategic one, rather than a moral or value one? "We need to do x, because it will benefit us in the long-run," as opposed to "We must do x because it is the right thing to do."It wouldn't work for this reason. It would benefit 'us'. Who? You mean a small interest group, a nation or the world? Ultimately it is no more rational for one group to be benefitted over the other, as all are social constructs, including, and especially, the nation. Trying to pitch a totally rational appeal here is impossible because it would always lead to the questioning the very rational foundation of any of the identities involves. Secondly it would call into question the very power and authority of the politician if rationalise too much. Why do toiling workers 'rationally' give power to these people when, really, were they to simply stop working, they could bring the system down? Because they are bound up in irrational social webs.

[mgb]

Isn't the thread title kind of an oxymoron?

Wouldn't a Machiavellian plan be somewhat underhanded to start with, only revealing itself once it was too late to alter the course of events?

I think what you are looking for Zephyrus, is a straightforward dictator, which is hardly Machiavellian at all.

[Zephyrus055]

Isn't the thread title kind of an oxymoron?

Wouldn't a Machiavellian plan be somewhat underhanded to start with, only revealing itself once it was too late to alter the course of events?

I think what you are looking for Zephyrus, is a straightforward dictator, which is hardly Machiavellian at all.
If you consider Machiavellianism to be based on lies and deceit, then you are right. But this concern already came up, and it is not the definition I used. For one, I do not think it fairly represents Machiavelli's points in The Prince. Second, Machiavelli's points lead to perceiving and making decisions on a strategic plane. A fixed method of deceit is anti-strategic, because in many circumstances it is not the optimal strategy. A real Machiavellian would pursue what ever strategy is the most effective and appropriate to a situation, whether it is cooperation or ruthless exploitation.

One way to look at it is the strategic value of being honest about your intentions, even if they are calculating and ruthless. I am wondering if it is a generally unstrategic thing to do - that the response from the public would be substantially worse than cooking up bull shit lies.

[mgb]

If you consider Machiavellianism to be based on lies and deceit, then you are right. But this concern already came up, and it is not the definition I used. For one, I do not think it fairly represents Machiavelli's points in The Prince. Second, Machiavelli's points lead to perceiving and making decisions on a strategic plane. A fixed method of deceit is anti-strategic, because in many circumstances it is not the optimal strategy. A real Machiavellian would pursue what ever strategy is the most effective and appropriate to a situation, whether it is cooperation or ruthless exploitation.

One way to look at it is the strategic value of being honest about your intentions, even if they are calculating and ruthless. I am wondering if it is a generally unstrategic thing to do - that the response from the public would be substantially worse than cooking up bull shit lies.

If you are being calculating and ruthless it's always counter strategic to be honest about it.