Why You Should Read Machiavelli in 2025
Why we must embrace the dark
When you hear the name today, there are a number of connotations that immediately come to your mind. But what are these connotations? More importantly, are they an accurate reflection of what Machiavelli thought and wrote about in works such as The Prince and The Discourses?
Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that’s probably not the case. You see, despite being one of the most infamous figures in political philosophy, Machiavelli remains one of the most misrepresented and misunderstood.
You’ve no doubt seen a number of quotes from Machiavelli spread over a portrait of him on the internet, often out of context and applied in a way that Machiavelli never intended his words to be. In an age of , many people will quote The Prince as though it were some kind of manifesto for the everyday person to get ahead in life through cunning and manipulation of those around them.
As I shall explain, these ideas that people often associate with Machiavelli are not true at all, and Machiavelli serves as an incredibly powerful thinker whose writings are extremely important for us to understand the politics and morality of the state.
The historical context of The Prince
For starters, something that should be incredibly obvious when reading The Prince, but for some reason escapes many people, is that it is a book that was written first and foremost for politicians and those already in a position of power. As soon as you open the book, you will find that it was dedicated to , a prominent ruler of the Republic of Florence. Machiavelli viewed him as a man suitable to lead Italy.
The rules and ideas set forth in The Prince are, therefore, a pragmatic guide if you like, a guide that enables rulers to hold onto their power and explains the best ways in which you can govern a state. Principally, Machiavelli states that he is not going to write about republics; instead, he chooses to concern himself with the different kinds of principalities that he sets out at the beginning.
Machiavelli wrote The Prince rather brilliantly as it is very easy to follow and understand. It’s not full of abstract language or discussions around metaphysics; it is, as stated, a pragmatic guide for how rulers should act if they wish to hold onto their power.
In these early sections Machiavelli does lay out some of the slight differences through which some princes/rulers come to be in control of their principalities. He explains that these differences are between those who come into power by fortune and those by skill. He actually brings up the example of as a great ruler who worked hard to make sure that his leadership came with strong foundations.
The discussions surrounding military power are noteworthy, but also very interesting in the context of advising rulers on how to hold on to power. For Machiavelli, a strong military is a prerequisite for having a strong state. It’s also at this point where he makes the point that for a state to be strong, it has to rely on a trained, homegrown military rather than relying on mercenaries, which tend to be unreliable.
For Machiavelli, one of the worst things a stateperson can do is neglect the art of war, and this is where I think he provides a really good insight into the politics of today. In Britain for example, there has been considerable controversy surrounding the Labour government and its decision to while at the same time implementing cuts to disability benefits and other austerity measures.
People on the left will also point to the massive . and wonder why it doesn’t spend anywhere near as much money on other things that may be more useful for people, such as having a healthcare system like the NHS.
Now, I am not a fan of the measures taken by the Labour government or of US military policy (I read communist literature for fun), but from a Machiavellian perspective, all of this makes perfect sense. The US is the most powerful country in the world for a very good reason, and that is primarily due to its imperialism and military dominance on the world stage.
There can be no doubt that if the US were to neglect its foreign policy and military spending, it would not hold such power in the world as it does. Again, from Machiavelli’s perspective, it all makes perfect sense. Putting effort into building a strong military is a pragmatic way of making sure you have a strong state, even if it comes at the expense of welfare spending.
The character of the prince
When it comes to the characteristics of the prince laid out by Machiavelli, this is where we get to the most infamous aspect of his writings and the kind which are most represented by people who take them out of context. He explains that those in power should employ characteristics such as deception in order to maintain power and strength in the state. Let’s read the following quotes from The Prince together:
“It is much safer to be feared than loved because (…) love is preserved by the 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.”
“Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires.”
“Never attempt to win by force what can be won by deception.”
From the above quotes, we see how on the face of things, Machiavelli advocated people to be what would often be considered quite evil and unpleasant if they are to get ahead. However, it is important to note that as stated, Machiavelli was giving advice for leaders, politicians, and those in positions of power.
I actually think that this is where Machiavelli’s insight into politics and morality is most powerful and provides the most insight. He recognises that both politicians and the state are not bound by the same moral rules as the general population.
A government has to act in certain ways in order to maintain its power. Governments are violent by nature. They function by using violence to enforce their rule over a given geographical area. If a person breaks the law, the state will use violence in order to detain that person so they don’t continue to do so.
This is actually one of the chief criticisms that leftist philosophers in later centuries would make, such as or . Stirner was actually the philosopher who gave one of in political philosophy, saying that “the state calls its own violence law and that of the individual crime.”
If a state doesn’t use violence to enforce its rule, it will inevitably collapse, given that this is the only means by which you can compel a number of people to follow a set of rules or laws that they would otherwise choose not to. Likewise, it follows that in order for a statesperson to legitimise their power and the strength of a state, they will have to deceive people and lie, often to those they are supposed to serve.
A common trope that we see when people are criticising politicians is that they often lie or, more specifically, they lie in order to get elected and soon abandon popular policies that won people over in the first place. This is a criticism that has been frequently made of current .
During his campaign to become leader of the Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn stepped down, Starmer ran a campaign promising to embrace Corbyn’s policies and saying that Labour would . Once he got into power, however, he soon rejected these policies and dragged Labour further to the right than it has ever been.
Now, this was obviously horrifically dishonest; however, it did serve to consolidate his power. He is now Prime Minister, and his right-wing faction of the Labour Party is in power, and the left, whom they have fought so hard to destroy, no longer hold any sway over party policy. Starmer made use of deception in order to solidify his power and strength in the state, as Machiavelli talked about.
Moving on from this, one of the most important aspects of the desired character of the prince that Machiavelli describes is the quoted passage about the importance of being feared. This, again is something that we see constantly used by politicians and the state.
The use of overt violence by the state is one of the most obvious and effective ways of instilling fear in the population. Attacking peaceful protestors disproportionate ways than warranted will discourage people from acting out in the same. Having strong penalties for crimes, such as the death penalty, is often used as an example of a deterrent for committing certain serious crimes.
By attacking and putting down dissent, politicians and the state make their subjects live in fear of speaking out or acting against the state. Just look at in Nazi Germany as an example of this. People literally feared so much as even speaking negatively about the Nazis as there would be horrific consequences for such innocuous acts.
Conclusion
Wrapping things up then, I think that there can be no doubt that Machiavelli and his writings still hold incredible weight. His analysis of the nature of the state and why politicians must act in certain ways if they are to hold onto their power still rings true centuries later.
The simple fact of the matter and the core of Machiavelli’s analysis is that what is moral for the prince is not necessarily moral for the subject. An ordinary person doesn’t need to lie, use deception, or even force to get ahead in life but a politician must know how and when to do these things to consolidate power.
Rather than disregarding Machiavelli as a monster whose writings promote villainy and evil, we should instead embrace him, for through studying his work, we understand the true nature of politicians and the state. We understand why they act the way they do, and we then begin to understand what needs to be changed.
