On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 00:17:07 -0800 (PST) Chuck Grimes <cgrimes at tsoft.com>
writes:
>
> "Then you would agree that Machiavelli's advice to the Prince was a
> treatise on moral virtue?"
>
> This is actually a standard interpretation, but not because its
> advocatres think that self interest is a form of morality.
>
> jks
> ------------
>
> JKS, you are showing some ironic deficiency here. But, yes, exactly,
> that was the point. Virtue was defined in terms of power and
> self-interest, and not moral rectitude. However, the Prince and the
> Discourses are very cagey and are littered with what appear to be
> completely counter intuitive arguments on how to produce a crude sort
> of justice through balancing conflicting interests.
>
> I think M's ouster, banishment and exile, under tyranny managed to
> illuminate more sharply how a just society might be built. The
> construction does not start with a moral code in advance of existing
> conditions. It starts with the well understood, lowest common
> denominator, each against all. How do you get to some form of just
> and
> well ordered society, if that is where you begin?
>
> The more often I go back to M, the more I become convinced that his
> writing has a kind of symmetry. Instead of reading it as if you were
> the Prince, you read it as the common, powerless slob you are. This
> effects an inversion, turning the pyramid up side down so that
> instead
> of advocating for a Prince at the top, you can read it as advocating
> for the people at the bottom. Like any interpretative game, you
> never
> know if it is an accurate view of the work, but in this case it seems
> to work.
That BTW seems to be the way that many people read *The Prince* back in the 18th century. I seem to remember Rousseau describing it as a bible for republicans. Marx as I recall also had kind words for Machiavelli. In the 20th century Gramsci chose to title one of his books The Modern Prince so apparently this way of reading Machiavelli has a fairly long and distinguished history.
>
> Take as an example the admonition the it is a civic virtue to show a
> certain cruelty, including the carrying out of executions.
>
> After Seattle I thought about this in relation to the cops and local
> government. Seattle government was frightened. I suspect the Feds got
> frightened too. It occurred to me, that it is good that the state
> fear
> the people and that the people, on occasion perform acts of cruelty
> and violence toward government. It is necessary, to remind the
> government, that its work and duty is to servicing the needs of the
> people, and not merely those few who command wealth. Government
> officials understand fear because they are well practiced in its
> application. Because of this, it only takes a little of the same
> turned on them, as individuals, to get their attention. Sometimes,
> voting them out is enough. Sometimes it takes a little more: an
> insurrection, a riot, a violent and prolonged confrontation is
> required, the threat of civil anarchy.
>
> This idea seems to be completely contra to a democratic spirit for
> the
> production of a civil society. But it is actually the very core of
> maintaining an open and democratic society. It is therefore a civic
> virtue that government be made to fear the people.
Actually quite a Jeffersonian sentiment. Jefferson at times wrote of the necessity for periodic insurrections in order to maintain the health of civil society.
>
> Here is a passage from The Prince (Cruelty and Clemency, Everyman,
> Knopf NY, p76). Turn this around to apply to government, rather
> than the people:
>
> "...this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are
> ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetus, and as long as you
> succeed, they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood,
> property, life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far
> distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that
> prince
> who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other
> precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by
> payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be
> earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be
> relied
> upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than
> one who is feared, for love is preserved by link of obligation which,
> owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for
> their
> advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which
> never
> fails."
>
> Whatever can be said for the benefit to the people, for instilling
> fear and intimidation in government, can be multiplied many times
> over
> to apply to the infrastructure of capital and its managerial castes,
> i.e. the workplace.
>
> I think that Yoshie was correct in her quote to the effect that calls
> for product boycotts must come from below. This is because such a
> call
> expresses the material interest of those people directly involved.
> The
> oldest example I can think of comes from CORE who was picketing a
> restaurant chain in LA, 1962--my first picket line--just before us
> white kids got purged. The picket was on behalf of the mostly black
> dishwashers, bus boys, and waitresses who called for the pickets
> because they couldn't picket without loosing their jobs.
>
> On a much grander scale, there was the ANC call for a divestment in
> South Africa. So, sometimes, it is wise, no matter how outraged
> I might be about some issue, to wait for those whose interest is
> materially involved to come up with the answer of how to think about
> an issue and what to do. The effect will enhance their power. Where
> as
> if I just decide x, y, or z is a moral outrage, yet is not of
> material
> interest to me, then I can harm the potential power of those who are
> materially effected by the issue if I advocate on their behalf.
>
> I realize this sounds completely illogical, but I am talking about
> existing conditions, and not just a theoretical position. If this is
> taken
> as a logical argument, it can be easily taken apart since it is ripe
> with contradictions.
>
> Chuck Grimes
________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.