One of my main takeaways from this piece is that in order to establish new ideologies, there has to be some level of violence, or threat of violence, involved.
Machiavelli starts off by addressing the fact that people that are used to governing themselves and living by their own laws are going to be unwilling to adapt to new regimes of power. Even if there is success in establishing this new realm of thinking/governing, its preservation won’t last as it will not be long before the people begin to revolt to recover this sense of self agency. He also claims that there is nothing more difficult, unlikely to succeed, and dangerous than trying to initiate a new order. He argues that this is a result of never having actual support–claiming that the population consists of people who are either against the new order in totality or are ‘lukewarm supporters’. This type of resistance is one of the claims Machiavelli uses to justify violent reformation.
Later in his argument, Machiavelli states that most new establishments will either accomplish nothing or fail unless
“…they can depend on their own strength and are able to use force…”. He believes that unless people are forced there is no way to ensure the movement’s success, no matter how skilled the person in persuasion.
I do not agree with this article. Even though it may work to use violence to develop a new regime, this new power will not last under fear. If people are discontent, there will be rebellion and thus bloodshed. Force is not the most efficient way to establish a new concept, and it should not and would not be used by a truly effective leader.
In addition to the points you mentioned, I think another interesting thing talked about in terms of new regimes was Machiavelli’s point on their lack of roots. A new regime is quick to dissolve because of the points you addresses, but also fundamentally because they don’t have a strong history or tradition for people to stand upon. This lacking of roots to ground them makes the newer bodies of government weak in the early years.
I agree with this comment but also find it interesting that Machiavelli mentioned ideas of liberalism, which traditionally does not mesh well with proponents of violence and threats. However, it is highly plausible that Machiavelli did not see the contradictions that we would see today as that word is very ambiguous and ever-changing.
I agree with you, and it made me think about when is the stoping point for a leader among a community. How much fear/power must be granted before the community takes action?