Furthermore, Castro has taken a significant amount of actions that are similar to those of Machiavelli’s “tips” in his book. Castro enchanted his subjects with promises of countless wealth in a future that never arrived; new restrictions were forced on consumption, new sacrifices required, greater amounts of “discipline” demanded. Taking shrewd actions are more important to Castro than keeping his promises to the people, which is exactly what Machiavelli stated in his book, "...one sees from the experience of our times that the princes who have accomplished great deeds are those who have little for keeping their promises and who have known how to manipulate the minds of men by shrewdness; and in the end they have surpassed those who laid their foundation upon honesty". (3) Castro kept very little, if any, of his promises and was still able to have full control over his people. The whole point of Machiavelli pointing out that promises shouldn’t always be kept was to prove that you can be a successful and effective leader as long as you are able to manipulate the people to think you keep your promises. Castro was very well at doing so, and is able to substantiate that this trait from Machiavelli’s principles is what help keep an effective reign. The choice of army a state must build, is another example of a lesson that Castro “borrowed” from Machiavelli. Machiavelli stated that a greedy army is never sufficient, as well as efficient for the state. Likewise, Castro built an army that followed all the beliefs Castro had dictated and was able to control his people past “normal”, to the point where he could “brain wash” them into thinking anything he believed in. (4) In addition, Machiavelli always repeated and emphasized
the need to imitate the fox and the lion. Castro specialized in this belief by always being ferocious for his enemies and critics. He was able to use his army to give him more power and to keep his people standing right behind him, and supporting him. Machiavelli’s principles can be seen in the way Castro controls Cuba. The qualities Machiavelli states about army are very relevant to the way Castro rules and show how these traits are what create and obtain effectiveness in a leader. These similarities have been applicable to the categorization of Fidel Castro as the “New-Era Machiavellian Prince”. However, the most important of Machiavelli’s influence lies in Castro’s ability to absolutely excel in engaging his physical, political, and psychological control over the Cuban People. In addition, he snatched every business that was previously under the American influence and then was able to strengthen connections with the Soviet régime. In the end, all his actions are justified by the means of Castro attaining power in every single way possible to chase a grander goal. Almost all of Castro’s actions are clear to exemplify the nature of Machiavelli’s tactics. He cared little of the people seeing him as “unfaithful” and did whatever it took to have a successful government. All the traits Castro obtains are relatable to those seen in The Prince and he is a perfect example of an effective leader with Machiavellian traits. He was able to control and carry out his government with the tactics that Machiavelli wrote about in his book. Fidel Castro was a ruthless leader and because of his selfish thinking, he was able to lead Cuba as a true effective Machiavellian Leader.
1) Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. N.p.: Antonio Blado d'Asola, 1532. Ch.17. Print. 2) "The Bay of Pigs." JFK Presidential Library & Museum. N.p., n.d. Web. 3) "Babalu Blog: The Only Promise Fidel Castro Ever Kept." Babalu Blog: The Only Promise Fidel Castro Ever Kept. N.p., 6 June 2007. Web. <http://www.babalublog.com/archives/005506.html>. 4) Rasco, José Ignacio. 1999. “Semblanza de Fidel Castro.” In Efrén Córdova, Ed., 40 Años de Revolución: El Legado de Castro. Miami: Ediciones Universal, 411-444.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.…
- 514 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
This is a significant analysis of Niccolo Machiavelli’s book The Prince. This book explores multiple concepts on leadership and governance for a Prince to legislate on his road to success. Therefore, I will bring a compelling conclusion on how Russian President Vladimir Putin is a modern Machiavelli. To get a full understanding towards Niccolo Machiavelli’s political theory, we must first examine what’s managed to inspire his view of an ideal government. In the book, The Prince, Machiavelli introduces insightful claims on how the Roman Empire’s legitimacy brought a secure and stable society. In fact, presenting the Roman Empire’s platform helped the reader to thoroughly understand Machiavelli’s political theory regarding governance and the…
- 230 Words
- 1 Page
Good Essays -
When utilizing the rhetorical strategy of comparing and contrasting in relationship to literature, a number of pieces of can qualify. In particular, the idea of leadership is arguably one of the most written about topics with regard to comparing and contrasting. Throughout history, it can be argued that the majority of successful societies have been based upon effective divisions of leadership. Accordingly, in their pieces of literature, The Tao-te Ching and The Qualities of the Prince, Lao-tzu and Machiavelli have sought to convey a more complete and concrete understanding of their respective definitions and duties of a ruler (leadership). The theme of political leaders and their intricate relationship with society indeed validate itself within both texts. However, both Lao-tzu and Machiavelli approach this issue from almost entirely opposite positions, though sharing minute similarities. Lao-tzu appears to focus the majority of his attention on letting problems or situations take their course, and consequently good would prevail. On the contrary, Machiavelli advocates the necessity for a successful leader, or prince, to take control of his deeds, and the skills or qualities necessary to maintain power. Since both writers propose a question as to what is in essence the same dilemma, effective leadership, it becomes almost natural literary etiquette to contrast the two in an effort to better understand what qualities a prosperous leader must possess. Despite each author’s contrasting approaches to rhetoric, they agree that a ruler should avoid being hated and despised, but disagree in areas such as government involvement in citizens’ everyday lives.…
- 1508 Words
- 7 Pages
Better Essays -
Napoleon Bonaparte is a well known political leader of the modern world. His conquests into other European countries and his military knowledge make him the historical legend that he has come to be. He made himself emperor of France and ended the French Revolution. Bonaparte’s successes in France cause him to be revered as a great leader who exemplifies Niccolò Machiavelli’s beliefs regarding the leadership of a country. Machiavelli offers advice to political leaders in his novel, The Prince, which is proven relevant through Napoleon’s ability to be war-minded, feared, and a good leader.…
- 174 Words
- 1 Page
Good Essays -
The understanding of human nature and the effects it has on the individual and society has been a serious topic in the philosophical world. Nicolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes were well known for their crucial roles in forming the foundation of political philosophy. While reading through Machiavelli’s The Prince and Hobbes’ Leviathan, both introduced a common focus on political theory even though living approximately 100 years apart. While learning about these two philosophers and their proposed theories, I noticed an innate relationship in the discussion of society’s human nature. Machiavelli ([1532] 2006) in The Prince theorizes the qualities that a dominant leader should have to gain and maintain power.…
- 292 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Lao-Tzu was an ancient Chinese philosopher during the 6th century. Conversely, Machiavelli was an Italian historian, author, diplomat, philosopher, and politician that lived almost two thousand years later during the Renaissance. Although both are from completely different times and cultures; neither would disagree that leadership is essential in the success or failure of society. After all, at its simplistic core government is just a hierarchy of leadership that exist to serve its fellow citizens. When utilized correctly, government and effective leadership can be the difference between societal paradise and peril. The question then in lies what is the correct way. This is the question in which these authors diverging opinions and philosophies are strongly rooted. Additionally this is the question that is independent and based on one factor, each author’s view of human nature.…
- 281 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
The Prince was written by Niccolò Machiavelli while he was in exile. In his efforts to return to politics, Machiavelli wrote the Prince in order to exert the true nature of a successful leader, and once again be in the good graces of the Medici’s who were rising to power in Italy. The Prince reveals what Machiavelli views to be a successful leader. The Prince also reveals how Machiavelli views the nature of humans and how that effects how a dictator/leader should rule. Machiavelli believes human beings are selfish, greedy, easily manipulated, and incapable of self-governing as it often ends in their own demise. “[F]or men change their rulers willingly, hoping to better themselves, and this hope induces them to take up arms against him who rules: wherein they are deceived, because they afterwards find by experience they have gone from bad to worse” (Machiavelli 201). Human selfishness inhibits the individual’s ability to make rational long-term decisions thus deeming them incapable of self-governing. If given the people the right to make their own decisions, their greed ill cloud their judgment and cause them to make decisions that may not be in their best interest. If the society is not capable of self-governing they will need a strong leader and Machiavelli has the recipe for the perfect…
- 1869 Words
- 8 Pages
Better Essays -
In the fourteenth century, the humanist philosopher Francesco Petrarch wrote a letter entitled How a Ruler Ought to Govern His Sate. Nearly a century later, another philosopher by the name of Niccolo Machiavelli wrote a book about governing, The Prince. The two documents show many similarities in content and theme. While the two wrote in similar subject matter, it is clear that these philosophers possess distinctly different viewpoints on how a ruler should govern. In Petrarch’s How a Ruler Ought to Govern His Sate and Machiavelli’s The Prince, both philosophers possess different opinions on how a ruler ought to govern. In particular Machiavelli pays specific attention to the importance of appearing like a good ruler. There is much evidence to support this in the readings.…
- 820 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
The Renaissance and the Middle Ages had very different values, which affected how their leaders ruled. Machiavelli and Henry V had many differences, but also had common ground. Although neither was a better leader than the other, their times definitely influenced how they used their power. Machiavelli was more prone to intimidation, by invoking fear within his people, while Henry looked to be loved. Henry was not one to use deceit either, while Machiavelli felt that the ends justified the means. Clearly, these two leaders were very different, and their religious views emphasize this discrepancy.…
- 734 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of the Prince” gives the idea of what makes an all around good ruler. He wrote guidelines touching several topics such as war, reputation, generosity, mercy, and cruelty. All of these topics preach words on how to avoid being hated but still keep power.…
- 433 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Nicolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, is, by far, one of the most widely known and read books about politics in the last 500 hundred years, as well as an extremely innovative book, being one of the first books of the modern political philosophy.…
- 676 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
The Prince, written by Niccolo Machiavelli, is an informative gateway into his philosophies of what made a perfect government in a time where princedoms and monarchies were the primary form of government. In today’s societies, many people believe that since his work is an analysis of monarchies, that it no longer holds value in comparison to democracy. However, ‘prince’ and ‘political leader’ can be interchanged, despite respective differences of the current and past influence that these figures possess. Many themes discussed in The Prince are still highly relevant today, including characteristics of a strong leader, righteousness of actions, and military structure. Machiavelli addressed many themes such as the characteristics that a prince…
- 643 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Throughout history there have been numerous varieties of governments and leaders. Each administers differently and their expectations for themselves and their citizens vary. Niccolo Machiavelli described his ideal government and nature of mankind in his writings The Prince; his beliefs can be seen in today’s society. He believes that mankind is willing to be deceived and that they are more concerned with property rather than relationships. Additionally, he believes that a ruler is better to be feared than loved and must be willing to do whatever it takes to maintain control over the people and the country.…
- 575 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
According to him, “Love endures by a bond which men, being scoundrels, may break whenever it serves their advantage to do so; but fear is supported by the dread of pain, which is ever present,” (Machiavelli, Chapter 17). For him, people are (generally) only interested with themselves. They will be happy and content as long as there are no horrible and untoward events that will happen to them. Thus, in times of strife and adversity, people may become dishonest and selfish even if they were not back when they were prosperous (Chapter 25, on Virtue and Fortuna). Goodwill can be achieved when trust has been established between two parties. This can be achieved by receiving services from another person. This can also be seen as loyalty, which is vital in a Machiavellian setting. However, loyalty and goodwill are fleeting. Also, according to Machiavelli, most people (the common people) are content with the status quo, and that ambitious people are those who have experienced power at some point in their lives. This can be Machiavellian leadership’s shortcomings as it largely depends on human relationships and…
- 1052 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
Citizens rely on their leaders to solve problems in a quick and easy way. They will then label a leader good or bad based on the conclusion of the problem they were faced with instead of allowing the leader to earn or downgrade to a title. Leaders should be labeled properly with their characteristics, they demonstrate while leading. The traits of virtue, fortune, and power politics play a powerful role in how effective of a leader someone is. If a leader misuse these traits then he will not be as effective of a leader.…
- 741 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays