Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Needing some help in my history class debate

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by DeadKennedy, Nov 28, 2023.

  1. DeadKennedy

    DeadKennedy New Member New Member


    1

    1

    0

    Nov 28, 2023
    Male
    Washington, United States  United States
    Coming up in my history class is a debate about whether or not Machiavelli was right when he said that it is better for a leader to be feared than loved if given the choice between the two in his book "The Prince". Personally if given the choice I wouldn't have one absolute leader like a king. But if I had to have a singular king/ruler I would rather have him be a loved leader than a feared leader. I will write a few of my reasons below, I would greatly appreciate it if you could go over some of my points and let me know if they are good or bad. I would also appreciate it if any of you could come up with other points on why it's better for a leader to be loved than feared. If you disagree and say that it is better for a leader to be feared than loved let me know why so I can understand reasons why my classmates might disagree.
    * by the way, most of my points will be referencing chapter 17 of "The Prince" which we read in class.


    Reason #1 Machiavellianism undermines a sense of fairness by having one leader on top who is cruel and pushes others down.

    Reason # 2 By being a feared person in power, (say a CEO) and your strict or cruel you create an unhealthy environment where people will only do the bare minimum to fly under the radar. But if you are a loved person in power and show lenience your workers will work harder and would rather keep you in power over someone cruel.
    TLDR: Happy workers work harder

    Reason #3 Instead of being feared and wielding all the power, isn't it better to share/distribute the power so everybody can be comfortable? It is the morally right thing to do.

    Reason #4 (from my understanding) The Prince is a book about how to grab and maintain power/control. His reason for saying that it is better for a leader to be feared is because he claims that it is safer. I don't feel like this is true though. If you are a leader who is cruel and feared, the first chance most people get, they will turn on you. If you live in a village and your leader is cruel, and someone who is bigger comes along and is loving everyone will turn on the original leader to try and get the nice guy into power.

    Thank you all for your time I appreciate it.
     
    Chris Meitanis likes this.

  2. Chris Meitanis

    Chris Meitanis Member Forum Member


    19

    6

    0

    Dec 13, 2022
    Male , 17 years old
    Athens,Greece  Greece
    If your class is debating what it is best for a RULER given that they exist then:

    A combination of love and fear, creating a feeling of "awe" and making that leader a "god" in the people's eyes would be best. Using fear alone will result in the people banding together and overthrowing the king. Using love alone will probably not satisfy the king's greed and "need" to exercise authority. It is far easier to influence the people using love, since if they love you they will not rebel against you. With love the ruler will be able to have more control over the people's hearts and minds, and creating a totalitarian society would be easier. So generally love is better but both are needed.


    If the debate is about whether a ruler should exist in the first place then:

    Society would not be driven "forward" by the greed, ego and lust for power of a single individual or group of people, it will progress by the people as a whole, who will be driven by the need for improvement and self fulfillment. There will be no exploitation since there will be no hierarchical structure to society, and the people will commonly own the means of production, therefore there will be no capitalist to steal the workers' "surplus value". Efficiency will improve along with working conditions, while working hours will decrease, since production is not driven by individual profit in spite of others and the environment. There will be no state oppression and individual rights will not be able to be suppressed due to "majority rulings". For example if I am gay the "majority" will not be able to have a say in my personal life, if I can have kids and if I can get married, through the state because the state will not exist. Everything will be determined by the will of the people. Every single person will vote on policies for example. Not like today that people vote for other people who make all the decisions, without really consulting anyone about it. Thus everything will be organized in such a way that it will suit the needs of the people, and not a few wealthy politicians and business people who get rich off of the dead bodies of the proletariat.

    Hope I helped
     
  3. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,425

    121

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    IMO the problem is around the definition of what is a leader. It sounds like they define a leader as a person in power like a politician or a CEO. So per definition, a leader has to be authoritarian to keep people under control. It's a class war, the ruling class against the working class. If that's their definition of a leader, then they're right to say it is better to be feared than loved, because people obey better under fear.

    But in an anarchist point of view, a leader is not a ruler but more like a motivator in a collective effort. In this case they're wrong to think it is better to be feared because the anarchist leader does not want to force people to do anything.

    upload_2024-1-8_16-34-34.png
     
    Ibra, aint ashamed and Starfighter like this.
  4. aint ashamed

    aint ashamed Experienced Member Experienced member


    599

    266

    4

    Aug 22, 2010
    Male
     United States
    Capitalism/Corporate Greed Fight This Utopian Concept
    Tooth And Nail. Shame, Some Things Never Change.
    :a: aint ashamed :antifa:
     

23 members have read this thread this month

  1. DeadKennedy
  2. Ciberbitch
  3. Frito
  4. Mitchbits
  5. Peter Scott
  6. Chris Meitanis
  7. TreyofToday
  8. Starfighter
  9. Blasfemia
  10. Charger Bullet
  11. Rune
  12. Osminogahhh
  13. Spike one of many
  14. aint ashamed
  15. pedrodalion
  16. egil
  17. Kevin101
  18. ungovernable
  19. Ibra
  20. BlackMarket
  21. vandamnage
  22. randoodle46
  23. Maddox
Loading...