My Hypothesis—GracchusBabeuf

  1. The term “Machiavellian”
  2. The term “Machiavellian” is inaccurate.
  3. The term “Machiavellian” is an unfair interpretation of Machiavelli’s writings.
  4. The term “Machiavellian” unfairly slanders Niccolò Machiavelli as an evil person.
  5. The characteristics of “Machiavellianism” unfairly slander and do not accurate reflect the morals of Niccolò Machiavelli.
  6. The modern term “Machiavellian” over-simplifies and unfairly equates Machiavelli’s amoral political analysis with an explicit preference for immoral behavior.

About gracchusbabeuf

French journalist for "Le tribun du peuple".
This entry was posted in GracchusBabeuf, My Hypothesis. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to My Hypothesis—GracchusBabeuf

  1. davidbdale says:

    Thank you for a fascinating and refreshing topic. I look forward to interfering!

    For starters, we’re going to have to focus very closely on what sort of word “Machiavellian” is, what it describes, whether it applies to Machiavelli.

    Was Jesus a Christian? Buddha a Buddhist? Was Plato Platonic?

    Did Joseph McCarthy practice McCarthyism? [“McCarthyism is the practice of making false or unfounded accusations of subversion and treason, especially when related to anarchism, communism . . . . “]

    Jeffersonian? Dickensian? Orwellian? Kafkaesque? To what degree would Jefferson, Dickens, Orwell, Kafka have been well-described as personifications of their philosophies or styles?

    Are people described as Machiavellian?
    Or is it behavior that is Machiavellian?

    Is a Machiavellian a person who “acts like Machiavelli” or a person who acts “in ways described by Machiavelli”?

    Most of the way through your series of 6 claims, you aim toward a simple conclusion: that it’s unfair to ascribe “Machiavellian” behavior to the man Machiavelli. I was sure you were going there.

    What you’re ultimately claiming is less personal, more academic, isn’t it?: that when Machiavelli OUTLINES (not necessarily ENDORSES) AMORAL behavior calculated solely to achieve political advantage, he’s NOT promoting IMMORALITY. Immoral behavior, in other words, is not a goal, anymore than Amoral behavior is a goal. The goal is political advantage, power, leverage. If it can be accomplished through moral behavior as well as through immoral behavior, whichever works better is the clear POLITICAL choice. In other words, morality is irrelevant in politics.

    What you meant?


  2. davidbdale says:

    One more. Are you a Babeufian? A Babeufianist? Is your behavior Babeufian?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s