There are many who read The Prince as a work of satire. Even so, the comparison still holds.

There's an alternate reading of The Prince as a pro-democratic piece - throughout the entire work, Machiavelli reminds the titular Prince that the strongest cities, in terms of power, were those that were governed democratically, where all men of the city felt that they were defending, not just a prince, but an institution they were a part of. Almost all of his infamous pieces of advice are prefaced with "this is the second best answer, and only if you absolutely must hold on to as much personal power as you can."

EDIT: grammar, is -> are

This is my preferred reading as well - the dude is pro-democracy _specifically because_ he knows what the right move is for a king, and it sucks for everyone else.

He wrote the book as much as a warning as as a reason for the prince to invite him back to Florence.

Author here— I’m still not sure if this post is satire. You can read it both ways, and I think it works.

I think it may be your sincere ambivalence that makes your article so great.

Also, unfortunately, I can assure you that your astute perception is exactly how (some parts of) the world works, especially at senior executive levels. There are complex, interlocking systems of “make me look good - take down that guy - do what’s good for us, not what’s good for the company” that can make this mentality legitimately powerful. At the C-level, correct but slightly misphrased statements can create a fired-in-90-days failure (literally the difference between “but” and “yes, and”). It’s _insane_.

Anyway, you’re doing gods work here lmao

I recall someone in college pointing out that many people who take the Business Ethics course treat it as a work of satire.

Boy were they right about that.