Guicciardini e Machiavelli: sulle virtù del politico.

Second lesson of our "Laboratore sul potere". Today we will see two Italian intellectual philosophers. We will see the political thinker of Guicciardini and Machiavelli. They are two superfluous thinkers, two very clever intellectuals, and in the case of Machiavelli, we will talk about the Italian philosopher, Italian culture, who is more studied and known in the world. Machiavelli and Gransi are the two Italian philosophers more learned and studied in the world, from the American university to those in Brazil, to those in India, to China. Machiavelli, in a particular way, in the last decade, with the subject of the prince, the state and the power, is studied, again, by the Americans, the Indians and the Chinese. So the political philosophy courses, political studies, political science in the world, but Machiavelli is one of the most learned and studied authors. I told you in the first lesson about power, that power is this ability to influence, the behavior, to influence the actions of the people, the subjects or the citizens, or the consumers, if we talk about economic power. Well, in the four hundred and five hundred, politics is deeply rooted in the field of philosophy, not that in the Middle Ages there was no political philosophy, not that Augustine, in terms of the patriotic, or Tomaso, in the Middle Ages, the scholastic, did not face the subject of politics, but the subject of politics after the scroll of Rome, the patriotic, or the subject of politics in the Middle Ages, the scholastic, was not necessarily at the center of the philosophical speculation, it was a connected aspect to God. So politics was, let's say, a bigger umbrella, that of theology. Instead, in the four hundred and five hundred, politics returns to being an autonomous discipline, even with Machiavelli and Wichardini and Hobbes, who later see themselves as scientists, with Machiavelli and Hobbes, who want to become a scientist, who study power, who study political bodies. So, political philosophy returns to occupying a central role in philosophy, in speculation, a little as if it had occupied an important role in the Greek world, in a particularly platonic way, a deeply political philosophy. Let's start with Wichardini. Wichardini is an Italian philosopher, who was born in 1483 and will die in 1540. He is remembered by an opera, which is entitled "Political and Civil Remembrance". In this opera entitled "Political and Civil Remembrance", Wichardini analyzes the active commitment of man. He analyzes and analyzes the active commitment of man in history, in the political community. So, man is more than ever a political animal, as he already supported Aristoteles. According to Plato and Aristoteles, man is sociable, he is a political animal, he is in line with other men. Wichardini and Machiavelli are from this political man. There is a man who is subject to active commitment in the historical reality, in the political reality, in the community. The analysis of this man, politically active, of Wichardini is a realistic analysis, that of what you are doing as a laborer. He is not an utopian man, he is not a man who is committed to imagining better worlds, perfect government forms. The political commitment for Wichardini must be the teaching of the political realism. The political commitment must be done with the calculation, with the real analysis of the story. So, a man who lives in the teaching of realism, an operatic man, who must try to correct the events. He must correct the events even in a strong way. Even when these events can seem almost unchangeable, that is why the good politician will tell us, they are always present, these authors are like a macro teaching, he must have faith, because faith is political, it produces ostinence, a good politician must have faith in what he does, because to relate to reality, he needs strength, ostinence, he needs perseverance, for Wichardini a good politician is not the person who renounces the first difficulty, the first negative outcome will come to an end. If one, a political goal, must persevere, have faith, to change the battle around the possible change of energy development to improve and save the planet, perhaps we must not read it, at least I don't do it, I do it in a utopian way, but in a realistic way. There is a real problem, the climate, the climate change, the planet, the ecosystems that implode, how to change the course of events, having faith in the work of man, trusting in the fact that man can change the course of events, you can go from Wichardini to us, to the issues of politics. If you do not have faith and perseverance, if the good politician does not put an end to the project, he will not realize it. The faith, the hope, the strength, obviously they cannot do anything when, obviously, the luck is not gone. The issue of Machiavelli and Wichardini of the luck is very strong. What does it mean? It means that in human beings a decisive role is played by the luck. So that time that takes you while you are on the battlefield, that ship that was once a sailor, that natural death, or in fact your driver. When the case, the luck, is reversed, change events, change reality, it is difficult. I explain it, the good politician must be perseverant, he has faith and obstinacy, but when the case is reversed, it is very difficult, obviously, to change the course of events. The luck is pure casualty, the asteroid that will hit you tomorrow. Today we know that there is an asteroid in the river. But to understand that event, that unpredictable, incalculable, casual event, can lead to all, even the most prominent, obstinate politician. Certainly, if you put yourself in the hands of an advisor, shaggurato, megalomaniac, you got advice from a magazine, from a madman, you can't say, "Oh, what misfortune, I lost the war, you gave your army in hand to a person who, in fact, is a megalomaniac, is a very calculating magazine." You shouldn't be angry with the opposite fortune, but with yourself, because you put yourself in the hands of the army, you put yourself in the hands of the Ministry of Economy, as a political advisor, a person who doesn't adapt. It's not that, "Oh, what misfortune, I went to lose the war, or a collapse of the public debt." You chose as the Ministry of Economy a person who doesn't understand anything about financial economy. Therefore, the country in Banca Rotta is not a misfortune, but a bad management. Please. But when it comes to fortune, can you also refer to religion? No, no, no, to casualty, to casual event, which can... The destiny, if it is already providential, is a destiny that comes because it must come. It doesn't talk about fortune as a destiny, but as a casual event. It has come to the largest seabed. Ok, for example, you still do one thing, your rivers, you say, "But these are Machiavelli, I'm already transferring Machiavelli, you have to build good argenies to the river, so when it comes to the full, the river doesn't exist. If it comes to the full, which we have never seen before, your argenies will be turned upside down. But the good sovereign is not the one who is looking at the river without raising the argenies. He raises the argenies, cleans the bed of the river, then, if there is an impregnable flood, the case will be turned upside down. Let's close with the little ones, as we only do some aspects, we can at least introduce Machiavelli, I hope I can do it all. What are the characteristics of the good politician? The characteristics are being hard and sweet at the same time. The wise, the political wise, is the one who doesn't trust everyone, is the one who is not a believer, who trusts everyone. The good politician is the one who trusts few people. The good politician is the one who knows the human nature, who is fragile. The men, tenderness and realism, love Thomas More, Campanella, will never realize what you say, because the men are inclined, inclined to the evil, but the evil doesn't mean that there is evil, but maybe they are inclined to be corrupted, to corrupt, to break the evil. And this is the political evil, corruption. The men are inclined to choose the most comfortable things, the most easy things, to choose not only money, to choose power as well. The good politician is the one who knows that the human nature is inclined to corruption and to evil action. Therefore, the good politician doesn't trust everyone, he trusts the few who need to know. So, choose like you, like your advisers, those few men, excuse me, women, and a male politician, obviously, those few men who can trust you. The wise politician is the one who knows the human inclinations to evil, corruption, to furture, to power. Knowing the human inclination he trusts the few who need to know. Therefore he is inclined to trust the people who trust him. After that, the wise politician is the one who governs with hardness and with sweetness. He is the one who knows to mix debitably. Then, he is the wise politician like the wise politician of a father, of a mother, of a teacher, of a teacher, of a teacher. With the only hardness you are not a good politician. With the only hardness you are not a good politician. The good politician is the one who governs the city, the prince, being severe the right, being hard the right. You have to pretend to be severe, but you also have to know how to be sweet, to know how to mix. But the art of mixing is the most difficult art. Think about it, as we are wrong, not teachers, parents, politicians. A day is a hard day, a day with only sweetness and debitability. You have to know how to mix. The art of mixing is the virtue of the politician. The art of mixing is the virtue of the politician. The art of mixing. So, the politician, now he is still young, but some of you start to look at the politics. Trump, Salvini, Conti, we know what we are talking about. So, these are the things you have to try to apply to them, to see them. Or a great manager, or a great politician, an economic politician. A politician has to appear. Strong and authoritative. But I can't appear. It has to be. Because the appearance in the politician lasts little. If you appear long, what you are not, at the end. You disappear, beautiful. If you are the only appearance, then this is worth for the teacher, for the boss. If you are the only one who governs remember the power division, the one who influences the students, the teacher influences the students, but if you are the only appearance, you are not the only one. Of course, the father, the mother, influences the children when they grow up, the boys, the president, influences the school organization, the manager of the company, or as would say a great manager, you are just a distinctive fucker and you are not really under the thickness. And of course that your art of governing will disappear. It will disappear. Because a good politician can appear for a day, a week, a month. But if you want to govern the city long, you have to know how to be hard and soft, hard, severe and sweet, to know how to mix, to evaluate, to calculate and to be not only appearance. This is an example of political realism. But the Italian political philosopher more obviously famous, the political philosopher who wrote a masterpiece that never ends and of course you know that, but let's say it again, because there is always a student writing with us. Niccolò Machiavelli with "Accessortà". Niccolò Machiavelli is the author of two fundamental political works, because with me you are the only politician who said "this Italian you will do other literary works". The two political works are "The Discourse on the First Decade" by Tito Livio "The Discourse on the First Decade" by Tito Livio with Machiavelli and Tito Livio in the Romanian language who will exalt Rome as a principality and military capabilities during the wars today will be of cavalry and not cavalry. This is a military political work in which military capabilities are exalted of infantry, of Rome, saying that the future of wars will not be cavalry, but infantry with so much artillery. And above all an extremely mercenary work mercenaries who fight for money and not for political fidelity. We don't do that. Then I will link you to the analysis because it is curious. Let's see his political work even if Tito Livio's "The Discourse on the First Decade" is even more dense than his political work and obviously the prince. The prince, as you know, is a kind of mademoiselle for the good ruler for the good prince. The prince is the son of this idea. For Machiavelli politics is a science that has two principles. Historicism and realism. For Machiavelli, politics is based on historicism. To study history, to study history, to understand history, the forms of historical governance, to study them for what they really were. What was the police of Pericles? What was the Roman Triumvirate? What was the Augustean Empire? What was it? The "Signoria dei Medici". Politics is a science that is based first of all on historicism. That is, on the study of history. We look into history the political forms. Even for the present. But how does this study of history come about? This study of history should be effective and objective. I don't have to study the democracy of Pericles as I imagine it to be today. I don't have to study the "Signoria dei Medici" as I imagine it to be a fantasy "Signoria". I don't have to study the Roman Empire thinking of Star Wars. Is that clear? I have to study the Roman Empire, the Triumvirate, the "Signoria" or the Government of the Carthaginians historically for what it was. Historicism. Second point, realism. That is, I have to understand if those political forms studied in an objective way objectively historicized are realizable today. Realizable today. So realism also means I studied the "Polis di Pericle" the Triumvirate of Caesar the Principate of Augusto and the "Signoria" of the "Signoria dei Medici". Which of these forms of government is the best but realizable today? Not the best one. The Asia of Utopia, the New Atlantis, the city of the sun. Which one is the best and realizable? So, among the best which one is realizable? I don't even know. Which one is realizable? Which one is the best? I don't study the history to identify the best in absolute I study the history to identify the best political form that I can analyze. I'll give you an example. What is the best electoral system for Italy? Not at all. For Italy in 2020 what is the best electoral system for all of these problems? We want an electoral system that gives us clear government but that also represents Italians. That is, that Italians who vote are represented. We vote, we want those who vote go there. We make it proportional to the majority. Majority is a turn, two turns. Proportion is a failure. That is, we represent all those who take more than 4, 5, 6, 7, 8% in America. So if you say two votes it doesn't take anything. So a party that comes second in all of the Americans could have zero representatives because the first one who wins takes everything. In Europe there is no such system except with the English with some corrections. American English, as you know, are united and with the English model that is born in the United States. But who would you say? Let's not study the best electoral system for Italy at all. But is it good and achievable for Italy today? What does Machiavelli do? Machiavelli, studying the various political forms that he says for Italy of the 500 the best form of government is the prince. And he imagines a prince who probably understands the Tuscan, a part of the Lazio, of the Marques that pushes himself to the Emilia because Italy is divided in many regional states. There is still a marina that is declining. The prince, in expansion, could be a good form of government. Since the prince is a good form of government he presents the characteristics of the good ruler. I tell you some you have the book I also link the other lesson and then you think about it. The good ruler is the one who seems to govern well. And to govern well means to govern for the interests of the State and not for its own interests even here in the Habits of Politics. I said for the interests of the citizens of the State of the State but Machiavelli and Guicciardini are two theorists of the State reason. The ruler doesn't do the interests of the single citizens or even of all citizens. But he has to do it for the interests of the State because for Machiavelli, if he does the interests of the State then as a consequence there will be the interests of the citizens. If instead I want to do the interests of the citizens I begin to say who I want the interests of these oh no, they support me, I don't do it. The State for Machiavelli comes before the citizens. If I govern for the good of the prince the subjects of the Prince there will be no advantages. The worst principle is the one that governs not for the reason of the Prince but that governs for the reason of himself. Obviously today, boys, in politics whether it's Trump, Macron, Merkel, Conte, Putin they will tell you that they govern for the people, for the voters, for the citizens. You need to understand if it is really so using Machiavelli and Machiavelli at the beginning of politics that governs for the reason of the State. So, for absurdity I am a Democrat they have chosen Brexit an important signal because it means that the majority of the English are Brexit. Then, if Brexit gives you Machiavelli does the interests of the State or not let's open it up. The good ruler is not supposed to have Machiavelli in the electoral list because it is not a democracy, that of Machiavelli. The good ruler is doing the interests of the State. If you do it well and if you do it well, the people will be happy, they will not envy you because most of the power of the rulers are envy because they rule badly. Corrupts, thieves, wrong alliances. Second example, the good ruler is the one who chooses well the allies. Because the ally is the one who gives you something in return. If you deal with the megalomaniac, the stupid, the rancorous the deep war, the cynic you deal with a state with a prince who takes you to war but in this class many of you have seen a son but also in vain, like the troddy-spade the allies in the political sphere if they are pessimists they take you to wars or to the bankrupt and if you are all allies with his help, when he will ask you you should not give him but if he asks you for help for political or military reason if you do not give him, you risk the war against him because he asked you before, now you help me but if you help him with the stupid war you lose the power. And of course the good prince is the one who chooses in an occult way with whom to ally. The alliance between Mussolini and Iter is a disaster in Italy obviously I chose the wrong alliance in the first world war the government in charge of the german-Austrian we ally with the french-English and so we win the war the allies are decisive this person has two things very quickly the good government the good ruler is the one who obviously tries to govern the fortune fortune is involved but the good ruler is the one who prepares the good fortune he does everything because the fortune is good for example, the first one you try to govern well choose good allies you try to prepare the defense you try to go against the fortune if you go wrong you are prepared then maybe it's not enough but do not make the "chicala" that all the summer you do not let them play and then you go to the "chicala" it's clear so, fourth the good prince is strong as a lion and stubborn as a wolf stubborn as a wolf and strong as a lion and the intelligence that guides the strength without the strength obviously is a wolf but the strength without the intelligence is blind if you have only the strength without the intelligence if you are blind enter and crush everything if a giant, a colossus, a stupid fighter it's clear if instead you are only smart you lack the strength, it can be weak but with the intelligence of the strength you lack the intelligence the prince, if he does not have the intelligence the politicians of today and yesterday fall because they lack lack of intelligence I close with a second the end of the justice the means calm down but those who have this sentence have not said it but say that the good politician is with him who knows how to choose the best means to make his own ends if the means is religion the army, the war and so the good politician is the one who attacks before being attacked the good politician is the one who knows how to use religion for advantage this politician is like what does it mean? it means that the prince does not make himself conditioned by religion but the prince is the one who uses religion to make himself conditioned the prince knows that religion can be a tool to govern and it uses religion it does not make itself useful but if it seems beautiful the religion of politics is the religion of religion this is an author of "Laica Politics" as we have to understand it