Plato's society

[CELMX]

I was reading a book on philosophy, and I came across this. I don't really understand it, so could ya help me out?


Plato sees the human individual as made up of three conflicting elements: passion, intellect, and will. And he deems it essential for the intellect to be in control, governing passions through the will. From this appraisal of persons, he extrapolates a corresponding view of society as a whole. In his ideal society, an intermediate police class, which he calls the auxiliaries, would keep the masses in order under the direction of a philosophically aware governing class, who would act as the guardians of society as a whole. Put like this, it sounds not unlike a description of the communist societies of the 20th century; and it was indeed to be the case that Plato's political ideas had an immense influence down the centuries, and not least on the utopian totalitarian philosophies of Left and Right that characterized the 20th century.

First of all, what are the "communist societies" of the 20th century that sounds like Plato's ideal society?

And I don't understand what utopian totalitarianism is...
And when the author says "Left" and "Right", does he mean fascism and well, leftism, as in libertarian, anarchism, communism?

Thankssssss!:)

[NecroCommie]

Pfft! Plato was a pseudo philosophist on 21st century terms. No dubt a bright fellow, but his thoughts have no place in the modern world. Also, this review of his thoughts is the most blatant display of bourgeois bias I have ever witnessed in a philosophy related... book?

Plato's state consisted of an intellectual elite, übermensch if you will, who were hand picked from children as the most bright, strong and fit to lead individuals. These children were then grown to lead "lesser" men. The problem with all this is that it's utopian to the extreme. And this time I mean utopian as in "wouldn't this be nice, lets try this", while ignoring all the laws that govern human behaviour and materialist evolution of society. Plato also stated that the only ones fit to lead are the ones who do not want to lead, which answers to a wrong question in the first place. He also supported shameless violence when dealing with dissidents.

The quotation you gave mentioned utopian society as in: "not capitalist". Which leads me to wonder if the author was a capitalist himself, and whether he even superficially tried to reach "universal objectivism" so much prized among bourgeois philosophers. In short: Plato did not have a correct view on the society and state, the author of that quote fares no better, and the quote has a downright false idea of a "utopian left society of 20th century"

You can believe that if you want, but if you do, I'd consider how much of a communist I would be.

[spiltteeth]

Plato's society is a prescription for a death camp.

[CELMX]

yeah, now that I think of it, it sounds more dystopian than utopian...

btw, the book is by Bryan Magee, he seems pretty legit, plus he joined the Social Democratic Party...if that means anything

[YKTMX]

Plato's society is a prescription for a death camp.

Hmm. A bit hasty, that.


You can believe that if you want, but if you do, I'd consider how much of a communist I would be.

The poster only asked a question. Why don't we leave the hysterical denunciations to a bit later? I wonder if you considered that you sounded like a bit like the "intellectual masters" the idea of which you were dismissing.

-----------------------------------------------

The thing with Plato is that his whole conceptual apparatus and weltanschauung reflects an age that is completely alien to us - the age of "natural slavery", the "Forms" etc. So any reading of Plato is done through eyes (our own) that are entirely unfit for the job on one level. This means that the "meaning of Plato" is, to give way to the poststructuralists in this respect, discursively constructed. That is to say that is a site for intellectual (not confined to professional academics, I must say) dispute and argumentation.

Our Idea of what Plato means is rendered through the way we choose to read him. In this way, we can see why Plato accords so many different reactions, from Popper's liberal critique to the Badiou/Zizekian attempts to revitalize the "idea of communism" through a return to Hegel.

There are a couple of things we need to reject in Platonic philosophy outright. First of all, the idea of History moving in a "circular" motion - through democracy, into oligarchy, into tyranny, into anarchy, back to democracy etc, etc. - is defunct. The materialist conception of History, as well as intellectual developments before it, in Spinoza for example, has fairly and squarely debunked that. Although, I should say that if certain conceptions of historical materialism see history as a "linear progression" through "empty time and space", then that itself is inadequate.

Second of all, the notion, central to the Republic, that "labour" is ill-suited to a civilized and self-reflective existence is explicitly reactionary, and has been a mainstay of reactionary attacks on forms of democratic praxis since forever. Labour is, as Marx has shown, not something "extrinsic" to self-reflexivity and the "human essence", but absolutely central and inseperable from it. Labour, at least in its unalienated form, is the ultimate expression of self-reflective praxis.

If we're going to rescue something from Plato, and the classical Greek tradition more generally, it should be this. Societies preceed the individuals they produce. The most banal and easily debunked fallacy of bourgeois theory is that there is some pristine unit called the "individual" that exists as a form independent of any social or historical context.

Plato's point in the Republic, an objectionable book in lots of ways, is that the "individual" can only flourish within and alongside a functioning social reality that is suited to it. Now, Plato's description of what this society might look like is, from our perspective, deeply flawed. But what we need to defend in Plato against his bourgeois liberal critics, and, I may say, the "analytic" Marxists, is this "holistic" methodological approach that asserts the primacy of the social over the individual and studies individuals as products inseperable from a given social order.

[CELMX]

There are a couple of things we need to reject in Platonic philosophy outright. First of all, the idea of History moving in a "circular" motion - through democracy, into oligarchy, into tyranny, into anarchy, back to democracy etc, etc. - is defunct. The materialist conception of History, as well as intellectual developments before it, in Spinoza for example, has fairly and squarely debunked that. Although, I should say that if certain conceptions of historical materialism see history as a "linear progression" through "empty time and space", then that itself is inadequate.


So, what do you think history is like if it isn't as you mentioned above?
(I don't agree with the circular one, but the linear progression one...?)


Plato's point in the Republic, an objectionable book in lots of ways, is that the "individual" can only flourish within and alongside a functioning social reality that is suited to it. Now, Plato's description of what this society might look like is, from our perspective, deeply flawed. But what we need to defend in Plato against his bourgeois liberal critics, and, I may say, the "analytic" Marxists, is this "holistic" methodological approach that asserts the primacy of the social over the individual and studies individuals as products inseperable from a given social order.

I haven't read the Republic yet...gotta go get me that book.:)
I'm kind of new to this philosophy stuff, which is why I read the book on the introduction of different philosophers as I mentioned in my previous posts.

[NecroCommie]

The poster only asked a question. Why don't we leave the hysterical denunciations to a bit later? I wonder if you considered that you sounded like a bit like the "intellectual masters" the idea of which you were dismissing.
What I sound like is in the ear of the beholder, but even you cannot deny that Plato's republic has little to do with communism.

[YKTMX]

So, what do you think history is like if it isn't as you mentioned above?
(I don't agree with the circular one, but the linear progression one...?)


Well, to quote someone, "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle". In other words, history is the story of "material" development, but development itself is a product of the struggle of the classes within the "labour process". History, I would say, proceeds dialectically. It is "moved" by the opposition of the classes constituted in a mode of production - slave and slave owner, serf and lord, worker and capitalist.

It doesn't move in a "linear" fashion because the development of the class struggle itself proceeds unevenly and in a non-linear fashion. That is, there are victories for the proletariat (1917, 1968) that suggest the coming society, but these are beaten back, only to return in new forms and be resisted by the capitalist class in new forms.

[YKTMX]

What I sound like is in the ear of the beholder, but even you cannot deny that Plato's republic has little to do with communism.

Well, the condition of the Guardians is communist - in the sense that they own no property, have "free sexual relations" etc. This idea - the idea that Virtue is a product of the lack of economic activity - is a central one to the socialist tradition.

If you're saying that structure of the society described in the Republic is "undesirable" as a formula for communism today, then I would agree. But that doesn't mean that Plato's works are not without value for socialist forms of thought.

[CELMX]

Well, to quote someone, "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle". In other words, history is the story of "material" development, but development itself is a product of the struggle of the classes within the "labour process". History, I would say, proceeds dialectically. It is "moved" by the opposition of the classes constituted in a mode of production - slave and slave owner, serf and lord, worker and capitalist.

It doesn't move in a "linear" fashion because the development of the class struggle itself proceeds unevenly and in a non-linear fashion. That is, there are victories for the proletariat (1917, 1968) that suggest the coming society, but these are beaten back, only to return in new forms and be resisted by the capitalist class in new forms.

Wait, that doesn't make sense. If history is "the product of struggle of the classes," then you are saying that once we achieve the highest state of society, communism, history would end because there would be no more class struggle?

[Dean]

First of all, what are the "communist societies" of the 20th century that sounds like Plato's ideal society?

And I don't understand what utopian totalitarianism is...
And when the author says "Left" and "Right", does he mean fascism and well, leftism, as in libertarian, anarchism, communism?

Thankssssss!:)

What the hell were you reading? Sounds like some tripe out of a textbook.

[YKTMX]

Wait, that doesn't make sense. If history is "the product of struggle of the classes," then you are saying that once we achieve the highest state of society, communism, history would end because there would be no more class struggle?

Well, you've noticed a real problem, yes. Of course, Marx says that history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle. That doesn't neccessarily preclude there being a form of society, located in real human history, that doesn't have class struggle. Marx's point is mainly empirical, in other words.

But the question over whether communist society would mark an "end" to History, or even a new beginning of History - a new "phase" in human history - is a difficult one to answer.

Generally, I'm of the opinion that any talk of an "end to History" is open to reactionary interpretations. So I prefer the idea that classless society would mark a "new History", in much the same way that the arrival of classes (the move away from primitive communism, in other words) brought a "new History".

[rhys]

Magee's standard bourgeois crap seems of no interest: the usual falsification of anything that threatens his stocks.

I've always thought Plato was a wonderful example of the freezing effects of an expoiting society on thought. He and his class were totally dependent on slaves: they were 'above' physical work, so they never developed experimental science - it was all deductive. What's more, they were inevitably terrified of change, which might bring slave revolt, so all his thought - compare early Greek philosophy with its near-Buddhist denial of permanence - is based on avoiding it - making up this drivel about 'forms', of which real, experienced life is an inadequate copy, and producing his deadly fascist 'Republic' where there would be none. Le Platonisme, ici l'enemi!

[black magick hustla]

i like plato. i think it is good literature. i don't think there is much to to "extract" from it except the effect of nasty philosophical blunders. it is however, a canon in western thought and everyone who wants to consider himself or herself educated should atleast give a try to the republic. the analogy of the cave is one of the most beautiful concepts ive ever read about.

[black magick hustla]

also you "cant" judge plato. it is silly to judge him for slavery. in the minds of greek men, there was no such thing as a concept of "men are born equal". the values we use today do not translate at all to the world of the old greek. it was a very different world, and if a man started talking about egalitarianism and liberal values at that time he simply would not be understood. it is like judging children for pooping themselves.

[Dimentio]

Plato's society actually has some form of grim likeness to the European High Medieval age.

[rhys]

also you "cant" judge plato. it is silly to judge him for slavery. in the minds of greek men, there was no such thing as a concept of "men are born equal". the values we use today do not translate at all to the world of the old greek. it was a very different world, and if a man started talking about egalitarianism and liberal values at that time he simply would not be understood. it is like judging children for pooping themselves.

I don't know what on earth 'men are born equal' might mean. Equal at what? What is interesting is the way in which different modes of production influence - and prevent - thought, as they still do. Incidentally, though, didn't the stoics have a version of egalitarianism? I was brought up to see philosophy as a very inadequate substitute for literary criticism, but I seem to recall some such notion floating around in some of the Latin I once read.