Hello reddit,
I'll get straight to the point, if we're operating under the definition that Machiavellianism is The doctrine that any means, however lawless or unscrupulous, may be justifiably employed, in order to establish and maintain order and stability within a state.
Then, Was Machiavelli truly a machiavellian? Was he a hero or a villain? Was "The Prince" simply an attempt to return to Florence or was it a true representation of his ideology? What is the general consensus on "Discourses on Livy"?
Currently discussing this with a friend and I'm curious to hear what some of you believe!
Edit: Made a new account as i'm sure many of you would view this as a useless question.
Althusser is probably the best authority on this. According to him, seeing The Prince in the context of Machiavelli's other writings and his life, Machiavelli did not approve of the style of rulership laid out in it. Considering his other writings, interpreting Machiavelli as a republican certainly makes sense. So, The Prince should be understood as a kind of criticism by brutal honesty. Machiavelli laying out what exactly it takes to be a successful tyrant without any of the excuses or justifications found in other works on the same topic, but then leaving it to the reader to draw conclusions about the morality of such a rule. Althusser's book on Machiavelli is "Machiavelli and us". This is also a fairly common question on /r/askphilosophy, you can search there for more answers.