What Machiavelli's The Prince Teaches Us About Power and Conspiracies

Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince has been quoted, misquoted, and referenced, often out of context, for more than 500 years. It's one of those books that everyone knows and almost no one reads. To be "Machiavellian" is to be cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous--according to the dictionary on my Mac--and vague outlines of Machiavelli's ideas are frequently invoked in discussions of business and politics to justify a cynical, power-hungry approach. But did Machiavelli really advocate for a “win at any cost,” "it's all about me" mentality? Is he the patron saint of amoral strategists everywhere?

Not quite. The Prince is more nuanced than the reputation that precedes it, and many of the ideas often attributed to Machiavelli are oversimplified or outright misunderstood. Here are some key ways The Prince is misrepresented, and what Machiavelli was actually getting at.

Machiavelli Was Not Amoral

Contrary to popular belief, Machiavelli wasn’t amoral. While he certainly advocated for pragmatism in ways that we may find problematic, he also recommended that rulers cultivate the appearance of virtue. Why? Because public perception is crucial to maintaining power. To Machiavelli, a leader’s power is enhanced by a reputation for justice and wisdom. Acting virtuously when possible is ideal, but when virtue and survival conflict, Machiavelli advises choosing survival. He’s not promoting amorality for its own sake; he’s promoting resilience in the ruthless world he was born into.

“And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.” ― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

Misreading “The Ends Justify the Means”

“The ends justify the means” is the go-to soundbite used to encapsulate Machiavelli's thinking, but it oversimplifies his perspective. In The Prince, Machiavelli indeed suggests that outcomes sometimes require difficult choices, but he didn't advocate reckless cruelty or unchecked ambition. His approach is cautious, advising leaders to take extreme measures only when absolutely necessary. For Machiavelli, “the means” should be proportionate, and a ruler’s actions should be justified by more than mere self-interest.

Deception as a Defensive Tactic, Not a Core Strategy

One of the most persistent myths about The Prince is that it advocates deceit as a core strategy. Machiavelli certainly discusses deception, but mainly as a tool to be used carefully and defensively. He acknowledges that a ruler might sometimes need to “play the fox,” but he’s wary of over-relying on deceit, as it often backfires. A reputation for integrity, he notes, generally strengthens a leader’s position far more than a reputation for trickery.

Not Cynical, Realistic

Machiavelli’s view of human nature is sometimes painted as dark or cynical. But Machiavelli isn’t assuming the worst about people; rather, he accepts that humans have both positive and negative potential. He writes that leaders should be prepared for loyalty and betrayal alike, suggesting a mindset of realistic expectations, not inherent cynicism. His observations aren’t bleak predictions about human nature, they’re guidelines for navigating leadership’s complexities.

Power Is Not an End in Itself

Another misconception is that Machiavelli advocates for the pursuit of power purely for the sake of power. In reality, Machiavelli emphasizes that stability and effective governance are a ruler’s ultimate goals. Power, in his eyes, is a means to an end, ideally used to unify and strengthen the state rather than to aggrandize the ruler’s ego. For Machiavelli, the ruler’s personal ambitions must take a back seat to the needs of the state.

The Prince Doesn’t Represent All of Machiavelli’s Ideas

It’s also worth noting that The Prince is not Machiavelli’s only work, nor is it his definitive philosophy. In Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli expressed strong support for republican governance, showing a preference for a system where power is distributed rather than centralized. In The Prince, he’s offering strategic advice for specific circumstances—not laying out his complete moral worldview.

Machiavelli on Conspiracies: A Lesson for Modern “CTers”

Perhaps surprisingly, The Prince actually serves as a critique of the massive conspiracy theories that some readers believe it validates. Machiavelli argues that it’s those outside of power, the “weak,” who are more likely to conspire in secret to disrupt authority. He notes that the powerful have less incentive to hide their actions; they normally prefer to rule openly, seeking to inspire a mix of love and fear in their followers. When authority is visible, it stabilizes the leader's authority. Massive, hidden conspiracies, are not an ideal for maintaining power, but they are sometimes the only means open to those who are excluded, disenfranchised, or persecuted; particularly in despotic states.

Machiavelli also cautions rulers against becoming obsessed with rooting out conspiracies, as this can be destabilizing and may create an atmosphere of paranoia. He suggests instead that maintaining a strong, open presence reduces the risk of conspiracy more effectively than chasing after shadows.

“He who becomes a Prince through the favour of the people should always keep on good terms with them; which it is easy for him to do, since all they ask is not to be oppressed.”― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

Real Learning Requires the Pursuit of Truth

When we reduce The Prince to a handbook for cold-blooded scheming, we miss the depth of Machiavelli’s insights. His work isn’t about promoting cruelty, ruthlessness, or deceit for their own sake; it’s about navigating power dynamics realistically and, at times, reluctantly. The primary message of The Prince isn’t that leaders should be heartless, it’s that they should be wise enough to recognize the stakes, anticipate challenges, and make choices based on a calculated understanding of human nature and the needs of the state.

So, next time someone invokes Machiavelli to justify ruthlessness or selfishness, don't blindly accept that they know what they are talking about. Machiavelli understood that effective leadership required balancing many things, pragmatically, and rulers have duties that should supersede their desires.

The Prince, like many foundational works, deserves re-examination, rather than taking it for granted. This allows us to reclaim Machiavelli’s legacy from simplistic misinterpretations and learn more about the value of stability, clarity, and measured action over chaos and naked ambition.