#103 - Machiavelli - Devil or Resilience Expert?

Pawel Pietruszewski
Nov 21
4 min read

Updated: 3 days ago

Full of wisdom, insightful, yet despised, why?

Niccolò Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 1513, though it was only published five years after his death. Few historical figures have been as misunderstood or vilified. While we glorify conquerors like Alexander the Great and Napoleon, who left trails of ashes and death, we condemn Machiavelli for simply revealing the mechanisms of power. His name has become synonymous with cynicism and ruthlessness. To call someone "Machiavellian" is a grave insult.

Why do we reject the messenger but embrace the reality he describes? Perhaps it's because we prefer comforting narratives over uncomfortable truths. We celebrate empathy and virtue in our ideals but often ignore how the world truly operates. Machiavelli dares to strip away illusions, and that makes people uneasy. Anything that challenges our image of the empathetic, morally upright human is fiercely attacked and ridiculed. And yet we are part of nature, not better, and maybe only not worse than other species on the planet. [1]

Accepting Reality

Machiavelli argues that effective leadership requires confronting the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. Machiavelli fosters a view that effective action must be rooted in reality, not in fantasies about what we wish were true [2].

He claimed that people are always ready to act wicked if they see some benefit for themselves and can do this without consequences:

In people, bad inclinations generally outweigh good ones; they turn toward the good only when they must.

This pessimistic view over the human nature recurs throughout the book:

People, after all, more readily get over the death of a father than the loss of their fatherland.

This isn't cynicism for its own sake. Machiavelli's point is that leaders cannot base their rule on hopes or ideals alone. They must design systems that align with people’s self-interest, rather than rely on assumed goodwill. His thinking, though centuries old, parallels modern behavioral economics, such as Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s Nudge, which encourages small systemic interventions to influence better outcomes.

Ethics of Responsibility vs. Conviction

Sadkiewicz argues that Machiavelli laid the groundwork for a distinction made four centuries later by Max Weber: the ethics of conviction versus the ethics of responsibility. The former is about intentions; the latter, about results.

For Machiavelli, the true measure of leadership is not what a ruler claims to believe, but what they actually achieve. It is quite easy to talk, much more difficult to walk the talk. The Prince attempts to reconcile this dilemma, standing firmly on the side of realism. And realism, too often, is far from sweet and rosy.

Means vs. Ends: A Common Misunderstanding

One of the greatest misconceptions about Machiavelli is the confusion between means and ends. The Prince does not glorify cruelty or manipulation for its own sake. The primary goal he proposes is just: the stability and success of the state. And to achieve that goal, the ruler must often secure the support of the people rather than the elites:

Whoever comes to power with the support of the nobles finds it harder to hold on to it than someone who gains power through the people.

This is surprisingly democratic thinking for a 16th-century writer.

Yes, Machiavelli advocates the use of deceit or force, but only when the stability of the state is under threat. He praises rulers who achieve difficult goals through realistic, even harsh, means - not because he delights in cruelty, but because he recognizes that reality doesn’t always reward virtue:

Princes who did not feel bound by their own word and who knew how to deceive people’s minds with cunning achieved great things and eventually prevailed over those who ruled with honesty.

It’s a bold statement, but grounded in centuries of political observation. Honesty does not always yield results; realism and focus do. On his journey, the prince must often walk alone:

It is therefore the prince’s duty to watch over himself so that no word ever leaves his mouth that is not full of ... virtues.

He can never say what he really thinks as nobody really wants to hear that:

The common people care only about appearances and only about the outcome of an undertaking.

This observation remains painfully relevant. Most people today tolerate, even support, practices like industrial farming, as long as the industry wraps its operations in the language of empathy and improvement. We still value outcome over truth, optics over ethics.

Machiavelli in the 21st Century

In many ways, our century is even more cunning and performative than Machiavelli’s. Politicians, corporations, and institutions carefully craft narratives to maintain power, often hiding harsher realities behind polished messages.

Appearances shift but human nature remains remarkably stable. There is still much to learn from the insights of our ancestors.

Machiavelli's message might offer us a form of strategic resilience. If we stop expecting reward for our goodness, and focus instead on realistic goals and outcomes, we may find ourselves better equipped to deal with the complexities of modern life. As he writes:

“The nobles want to oppress the people; the people want only not to be oppressed.”

Most of us belong to those “people”, seeking a decent life, not domination. And perhaps what we need are not idealists with lofty promises, but grounded leaders who understand the world as it is, and act with strategic, unsentimental care to protect the common good.

That, perhaps, is what Machiavelli truly wanted his Prince to achieve.