Learn to keep people dependent on you. By making people dependent on you, you gain extra arms on your cause, and in the long run gain power. As Machiavelli mentioned in The Prince,:
[B]y arming [your subjects], those arms become yours, those men who were distrusted become faithful, and those who were faithful are kept so, and your subjects become your adherents.
Perhaps one good example is Charlie Wilson’s life. It was the late 1970s. The USSR invaded Afghanistan and many Afghans, including the Afghan resistance called Mujahideen, fled out of Afghanistan or were killed. They lacked sophisticated weaponry, which enabled the onslaught of USSR forces, and the loss of countless lives. The Cold war was still at hand and both the United States and USSR were both bent on winning. And this is where Charlie Wilson, a member of the US House of Representatives, entered the picture.
Charlie Wilson made a pitch to fund the CIA’s covert operations of supplying the Mujahideen weaponries sophisticated enough to make a good stand against the Soviets, at the very least. By making the Afghans dependent on the United States’ support, Charlie Wilson made a new ally out of a seemingly weak force, which eventually served to benefit the United States as the Cold War progressed. Eventually, the Soviets withdrew its forces in Afghanistan, and the USSR crumbled some years later.
You are not limited as well as to make dependent the weak. You can also make dependent the powerful, influential people as well. Michelangelo, for example, made Pope Julius II dependent on him, where the latter, though obviously irritated at the slow pace of Michelangelo’s magnum opus, had no choice but to continue on depending on his services to see the completion of the Sistine chapel frescoes. Michelangelo can always have a new patron, but Pope Julius II can never replace Michelangelo. Make yourself like Michelangelo to Pope Julius II, the same way as the US to the Afghan Resistance. Make yourself ‘irreplaceable’, so that while others depend on you, you sustain power. Your ability to sustain other people’s dependence on you places you in a unique and powerful position to demand and expect things and favors in return for your virtue (reliability), ultimately giving you control over your “dependents,” while rendering you indispensable to them.
Of course, one has to sustain this kind of relationship in order to sustain power. Going back to the Charlie Wilson story, after the troop pull-out of the soviets in Afghanistan in the late-1980s, the United States pulled-out its resources as well in Afghanistan. Humanitarian aid was not given, despite calls of Charlie Wilson on giving such aid to Afghanistan. Think about this: if the United States were able to give such support to the Afghans in the late 1980s, and have sustained the dependence of Afghanistan to the US, would there be a rise of the group called Taliban?
---
Ian Christian Ver P. Cadeliña
PS: If interested to learn more about the life of Charlie Wilson, consider watching the released movie about him, entitled "Charlie Wilson's War".
27 comments:
This law is another example of how to manipulate your subjects. Making them feel they depend on you increases your influence on them, and they will want to keep supporting you. Thus you extend and gain more power. and through extending your influences to the powerful, they too will support you.
True.
Let me just add that when you learn to keep your subjects dependent on you, you in turn become dependent on them as well.
For example, while your subjects depend on you for their survival, you depend on your subject's helping hands in your bigger cause.
-Ian Cadelina
When something is given to you, you are expected to do something in return. If given as a gift, you are expected to respond as a sense of gratitude. Arming people and letting them do your dirty job is exceptionally ingenious. First, it is like you being in many places at one time. Second, you can save time and effort. Third, you do not endanger yourself out in the open.
Remember the old saying, "Give someone a fish and he can eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he can eat for a lifetime." Thus to achieve this power, you must not teach anything that would detach people from you. You simply provide. In doing so, you hit two targets. You help them and leave them at your disposal.
Dexter Tanengsy, Hi18-N
@janine santiago's comment:
Well, I reread your comment and I actually made a little mistake.
Definitely you can manipulate your subjects to create their dependence on you but law highlights the fact that you can rather exploit your subjects' own needs instead.
Or, on the other hand, make yourself the needed one, something like "you are the only hope".
---
@dexter tanengsy
You are actually correct. Instead of teaching the people to fish, you provide fish.
-Ian Cadelina
Hi18-N
applying this law is a good way to show off or utilize your talents and/or abilities. by showing people whatever makes you special, you will become irreplaceable to them. be original, unique, and one-of-a-kind but also be sure that whatever you can do will benefit others or will answer their needs and/or wants.
This law is clearly emphasizing the need to be one thing: to be an asset. Provide something that no one else can duplicate. Or rather, be something that everyone needs. In doing so, you call the shots. You control everyone, just as long as it remains that they need you more than you need them. In a form of monopoly, you must make sure that no one else can provide or be like you.
Traders can prove to follow this law when it comes to rare items or when it comes to trading food during times of scarcity. The demand will always be high if you provide something everyone wants.
Being a vital asset to others also ensures your safety and survival. If you make others dependent on you, you’re pretty much set. It’s all a matter of keeping it that way, and always keeping the “customers” happy.
Marian Janelle C. Aliwalas
HI 18 N
For me Law 11 tells us that one must make himself indispensable. Make people see something in you that would be invaluable to them, that way, they'll be pulled to become allies with you, which you could use to your advantage. Making yourself indispensable gives you power, so I think that this is a very good law.
Trixie Cruz
Hi18 O
It is a very effective law in gaining a vast amount of power. Based on other people's comments, I see similar ideas such "manipulation, indespensabilty, dependence". These are key in having control over people.
I would thus like to present an arugment to this law. Though it is effective in gaining control, it is not effective in keeping control. When people are dependent on you it hinders their growth. They will only grow to the amount that you will let them.
When your dominance over people becomes greater, so the does the need to develop and grow. This basically places all the burden on the person who is controlling, if that person cannot keep up, then the whole ship sinks.
The rise of the persian empire is a good example of this. They were able to keep a vast amount of people dependent on them. This empire grew in numbers but never truly developed. Contrasting the persians would be the Greeks. You would be able to say "The Greeks", but that would mean Sparta, Athens, Corinth etc. They were one machine that had parts independent of each other. After the Persian war, Athens became the super power and others became dependent on them and thus began the decline of the Greek civilization.
A more current example would be all of us college students. Imagine if we were dependent on our parents all our lives, yes they would have more power over us, but it will hinder us from fully developing.
It is important that we find a way to have power over people even though they are not dependent on us. We not only look for quantity but quality of power. That is why the Persian aren't as glorified as the Greeks. The Greek civilization was able to give more to humanity with their independent nations.
Look at us, we will soon be fully independent from our parents, they would not have the same dominating control over us, but for some reason we will still respect them and obey them after that.
Niko Falcon
Hi18-N
Isn't it a bit dangerous that your people are so dependent on you? What if you die or you were taken in battle? You would easily lose to your enemy because it's like cutting off the "resources" of your army. They can't stand on their own.
Alex Salaveria
HI18-N
By having people feel that you're important and that they need you is a source of power. But if these people won't learn to be independent and grow to be weak, what kind of power would you have? Power only over the weak. It would not be power that is of quality.
Power-tripping = drug pushing?
In a sense, yeah. Keep them coming back for more. Shower them with the *good stuff and watch them go into withdrawal. When this happens, show up with what they need, whilst holding a leash behind your back. Tethered, they could only comply with your every whim, or shiver in a dark corner.
It makes sense, feeding their demand with your supply. The only worst-case scenario I foresee is when your supply runs out, and your minions turn on you.
NB: I'm not sppeaking from experience, by the way. :))
Angge raises a pretty good point here. I agree to her comment that you'd only have power over the weak. But isn't this what a powerful person would want? To have power over those who are feeble and to keep them weak? Because if they become independent, then they must have some sort of power, and might even contest the ruler's control, right?
Marie Dacquel HI18-O
Janine's right it is another example how to manipulate your subjects.
As i commented on law 8, bait is something that cannot be (most of the time) insisted.
By being able to keep people dependent on you, they will know that there's no progress without you, or is it.
-Miriam R. Reyes
Hi 18-O
Making people dependent on you is similar to manipulating people for you own benefits. Yes it is a useful tactic, but like other tactics, it does not work 100% of the time.
Yet there is a difference in manipulating people and making them dependent on you. Manipulating people would mean you divert their attention so that you have the advantage in battle. On the other hand, making people dependent on you would mean providing them with certain needs so that they would become your allies in battle.
If you would ask me, I would prefer this law over the law on manipulating people as it helps for you in gaining allies.
Duey T. Guison
Hi18N
Angge really does have a point here. To me, it seems that keeping people dependent on you doesn't really offer you any benefit beyond the satisfaction of being wanted and needed. Why succumb to the wrath of leeches? Who knows, their wrath may be the only thing that's been keeping you from moving forward. With so much people to supply for, don't you think you're shifting your focus on the development of others instead of that of your own?
I find that this law's easily short-lived. The others have also mentioned the importance of being an asset in following this law. However, we all know very well that assets depreciate over time. There will come a time that the quantity of 'demand' shall overwhelm the quantity of 'supply'. Shortage will always have its time. What of you, then?
It's not too late!
Related to law 19 in which Ivan the great showed the Russians that they needed him which caused them to get him back as their leader even though it means having a dictatorial government. It is good to keep people dependent on you because they have no choice but to do your will.
Alan Mamonluk
Hi18-O
I agree with what Alex said. It is nice to have people depending on you, because that way, you will be able to control them and let them follow whatever you will. But then again, as what Alex have mentioned, during a battle, how will it go? If people are too dependent on the leader, if he dies, his army will lose. I guess, you should keep your people dependent on you but not to the extent that they could no longer function without you. You may choose that way, or you may choose another way to get their obedience.
Joan Medalla
Hi18 N
This is a good example of how to use the need of your people to your advantage. By letting them depend on you so much, you in turn have them in the palm of your hands because they depend on you to keep them going.
Carlo Emmanuel F. de Guzman
Hi 18 - O
I agree with this law. Not only will your dependents be loyal to you, they will protect you too.
Be wary though, once people find another source of dependency, they might turn away from you.
Eric Andres
HI 18 Section N
This reminds me of what our LS11 guest speaker said for his final words. To be an effective leader, it's ultimately important that you make yourself indispensible and irreplaceable. It's best to make sure that you're that man who can handle the job, and yes it's better to have people depending on you. Personally, I'd rather have people depend on me than to have myself dependent on others. It's difficult being the one depending on someone else because it leaves you with little room to move. A lot of things rely on what that other person does. And, you don't even know what he'll be doing. Anything can happen. Unlike if you're the one being depended upon, you've more freedom to act however you want and you've a sense of security because you control the situation itself.
Err... But I think I may be deviating from the original point of this entry. Whichever the case may be though, my final word on this is that yes, it is ultimately better to have people dependent on you because then it means that you control the wheel of both your fates.
Jennifer Stacy Tan
Hi18 N
@Eric
Yes we must be wary of that. Given that likelihood, as I said earlier, we have to find a way to make ourselves indispensable.
Jennifer Stacy Tan
Hi18 N
Agreed........
One must find away to become the clever chess player rather than the sturdy pawn.
Very true. See how a government can control the inward and outward flow of things in a country? They have ruled greatly in every aspect of the land (may it be right or wrong). This resulted from the millions of people depending on them solely. BUT, when the people depend on you, this indicates a great responsibility to handle. Of course, you could be blamed of not taking good care of your actions and making the right decisions. Afterwards, there would be rallies and revolutionizing men against your leadership. This would cause the start of the fractures of the society.
:Joanne ATienza N
:Joanne Atienza
@Angge:
You raised a pretty good point on this law, but again, try to see the "spirit of the law". The law is actually stated in such a way that you should make others dependent on you--make yourself indispensable, as what others may have said here.
No, the law is not limited to making the weak dependent on you. Like what I have said in the essay, the pope--who was, and still is, definitely a powerful personality--was made dependent to a mere artist (Michelangelo).
---
PS: Get the big picture here guys. The 48 laws of power are not laws per se, they are more of guidelines as to how to obtain power. Learn how to play with them, and play with them with moderation and timing. And all will be well.
@Marcy:
That's when the creativity of the power-wielder should enter the theater. Create a need, or a false-need if necessary, or fulfill a need that has not yet been filled. :)
At the end of the day, the law's effectiveness depend on the leader's ability to use all the 48 laws of power properly, and with right timing.
@ Angge
Again, you raised a good point
But if people are dependent on you; it doesn't make them TOTALLY weak. People can still be strong whilst being dependent on someone/something.
Okay, it's a little hard to explain so I'll give an example:
When someone is, say, hooked on video games; the video games have power over that someone. But, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are incapable of getting good grades or excelling at things (although being addicted to video games can pull you down). That someone is just weak at one certain aspect---and that is being dependent on video games. It doesn't make them weak altogether, thus, someone wielding power over them can still find good use of them.
________________
Patrick Reyes, O
Actually Patrick, you are right about what you just said. Come to think about it, if you are to make yourself independent (per se), that would make you something like that of a fortress.
Take a good peek at the first law written in this blog (yes, the one with NUMEROUS COMMENTS IN IT). :))
Post a Comment