Political views of Plato

[Ism]

Maybe this should've been posted in Learning, and please move it if you think so.

Is there some nice comrade out there that can give me a quick explanation as to why Plato wasn't even the slightest left-oriented when it came to politics? The explanation has to be so simple that the average high school student can understand this. I need to quickly explain, through a comment made throughout the class, that Plato wasn't a communist or even had the slightest communist ideals to some guy from my class who thinks he was. He's a conservative dumbass himself that doesn't know shit about communism. He believes that North Korea is communist, just to give an example.

We are right now working with The State in class and we are discussing Plato's political views. He was, compared to modern day politics, very conservative leaning to being fascist, right?

[Meridian]

He believed people had a natural, ideal position in society, which they were born with and unable to alter. For him, the ideal society was divided into a group of leaders, a group of workers and a group of soldiers. People who tried to transgress their own position were, according to Plato, the main cause of ills in a society.

I am not sure I have to explain how that is incompatible with communism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

For pre-industrial conditions, it wasn't compatible with primitive communism, but Plato sure was an advocate of Primitive Socialism From Above: equal ownership of private property (Distributism) plus public property where needed, and an austere, monastic-communal consumption for the political rulers. Plato had a point re. ills: it took Haiti for the chattel slave class(es) to figure out the political forms of governing themselves. Until then, they best they could come up with were mob riots and mob rule.

[Rooster]

Plato came from the landed aristocracy. He believed that the world was just a phantom of some ideal abstraction. Whether this was in the mind or some sort of higher world I don't really know. This is his theory of forms. So we can have an abstract notion of the perfect chair but all other chairs are just an attempt that. His The Republic follows on this notion of an abstract perfection in society and this is where people try to ascribe ideas of politics. He goes through it describing the political conditions of each city in Greece in a dialogue then he goes on to described (I think through the mouth of Socrates) about how his ideal state would be. It's heavily stratified, filled with exploitation and slavery. His ideas were born out of his time and I don't think it's correct to say he was an early socialist. If anyone could be described as an early socialist it would be his pupil Aristotle. Aristotle refuted much of what Plato taught. Aristotle went around giving lectures to the higher classes then gave simpler lectures to lower classes, came up with the concept of the dialectic (when A becomes B) and also the idea that money represents labour. Communism in our sense should be regarded as the historical period after capitalism. To throw back our ideas of times past as being socialist is misguided I think, especially in regard to Plato's The Republic.

[ZeroNowhere]

I really think it's probably dangerous to take interpretations of these kinds of thinkers from anything other than a thoughtful reading of the text by yourself.

[Rooster]

From what I can make of it and my memory, the republic Plato describes is more like the society of Sparta. I don't really think either are socialist or even attempts at a socialist (in our sense) society. His book is merely an attempt to show how social harmony can be brought about. Everything in society is geared towards the state, all music must be in a certain way, all art must be in a certain way, to cause unity within the state. I think that's what my memory is telling me. Ha, ten years of drinking is fading away quick. You also have to read it in context of the time. Greece as an iron age, pre industrial, slave society, broken up into city states.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DNZ:


Socialism From Above:

...Is not socialism.

The clue is in the word: 'social'.

You might however be confusing it with 'enlightened' despotism' or some form of 'progressive' oligarchy.

And Plato's system only works because those in power use a 'noble lie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie)' to persuade the majority it's all for their befefit -- which they'd not have to do if that were really so.

The 'noble lie' was based on the (odd) idea that we are all like statues (formed by the 'gods'), and made of different metals. Rulers were made out of precious metals so they were fit to rule. The rest were formed out of baser metals and that meant they were fit only to be ruled.

Does that sound like any sort of 'socialism' you have ever heard of?

That is, other than 'National Socialism'?

[LibertyOrMartyrdom]

While I'm not so much a fan of Plato's political philosophy, the development of idealism is something that interests me, probably has something to do with the fact that Terence Mckenna and his studies and experiences with DMT reveal some further insight into idealism and the realm of ideas. (It just dawned on me that I mentioned DMT in nearly all of my posts, possibly because I am reading a book about it?) I recently began thinking of an intermediate between Aristotle's Realism and Plato's Idealism, perhaps more on that later, I am still running it through my brain.

[Die Neue Zeit]

DNZ:

...Is not socialism.

The clue is in the word: 'social'.

You might however be confusing it with 'enlightened' despotism' or some form of 'progressive' oligarchy.

Look at the Communist Manifesto's description of various Socialisms: religious, feudal, petit-bourgeois, bourgeois, utopian, etc. and also True Socialism. I'm just using Draper's terminology and throwing his Third Campist analysis right back at him.


And Plato's system only works because those in power use a 'noble lie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie)' to persuade the majority it's all for their benefit -- which they'd not have to do if that were really so.

The 'noble lie' was based on the (odd) idea that we are all like statues (formed by the 'gods'), and made of different metals. Rulers were made out of precious metals so they were fit to rule. The rest were formed out of baser metals and that meant they were fit only to be ruled.

Did Plato advocate a hereditary oligarchy? I don't think so.

Draper described the other side of the equation: pre-industrial Populist Democracy. If only the pre-industrial Populist Democracy could sustain its political organizations and adopt a pre-industrial Socialism, then his argument against Kautsky listing Plato as an ancient source of modern socialism would hold more water.

But, like I said above, it took the chattel slave class(es) Haiti to do the first task, and it took the Industrial Revolution for Populist Democracy and Socialism to come together to some extent. The feudal serf was more capable of sustaining his political organizations than the chattel slave ever was with his mob riots and mob rule. Sorry, Spartacus, but I'm siding with the Julius Caesar of people's history.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DNZ:


Look at the Communist Manifesto's description of various Socialisms: religious, feudal, petit-bourgeois, bourgeois, utopian, etc. and also True Socialism. I'm just using Draper's terminology and throwing his Third Campist analysis right back at him.

1. So what?

2. Does Draper post here?


Did Plato advocate a hereditary oligarchy? I don't think so.

Er, so?


Draper described the other side of the equation: pre-industrial Populist Democracy. If only the pre-industrial Populist Democracy could sustain its political organizations and adopt a pre-industrial Socialism, then his argument against Kautsky listing Plato as an ancient source of modern socialism would hold more water.

Again, what has Draper got to do with anything I have argued?


But, like I said above, it took the chattel slave class(es) Haiti to do the first task, and it took the Industrial Revolution for Populist Democracy and Socialism to come together to some extent. The feudal serf was more capable of sustaining his political organizations than the chattel slave ever was with his mob riots and mob rule. Sorry, Spartacus, but I'm siding with the Julius Caesar of people's history.

All very interesting, but not the least bit relevant.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Draper coined the term Socialism From Above.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DNZ:


Draper coined the term Socialism From Above.

And, as you will no doubt recall, he was using that word in that context ironically.

A bit like, say, 'democratic fascism'.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Marx wasn't sarcastic when describing the Socialisms in the Communist Manifesto. Engels wasn't sarcastic when describing them likewise in the Principles of Communism.

[ZeroNowhere]

What, 'so-called socialists'? Yes, Engels used that term fairly frequently.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DNZ:


Marx wasn't sarcastic when describing the Socialisms in the Communist Manifesto. Engels wasn't sarcastic when describing them likewise in the Principles of Communism.

No, they were both wrong.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


What, 'so-called socialists'? Yes, Engels used that term fairly frequently.

Is this addressed to me?

[ZeroNowhere]

Is this addressed to me?
No, DNZ.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What, 'so-called socialists'? Yes, Engels used that term fairly frequently.

My point was that there was an attempt to distinguish the new communism from the older socialism(s).

[Zanthorus]

That would be because apart from the utopians most of those 'socialists' advocated a reformed version of capitalism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Still, I disagree with Draper's criticism of Kautsky listing Plato as one of several ancient sources of modern socialist thinking.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DNZ:


Still, I disagree with Draper's criticism of Kautsky listing Plato as one of several ancient sources of modern socialist thinking.

Only if you think socialism is the equivalent of National Socialism.

[Red Commissar]

I've always seen this come up and there is an issue with this: Plato's discussion of these communal arrangements are seemingly only applied to the guardian caste of Philosopher-Kings. Plato does not explore his ideas of how the people living in the class of producers live, while only exploring the class of auxiliaries in the framework of how the armed forces should operate in his ideal state.

Simply put Plato conceived these communal arrangements as a way of ensuring that the rulers are those who want to rule and administrate, as opposed to those who seek to enrich themselves with that position.

It is not socialism because we don't have workers controlling the means of production or some sort of body to do that. It is a paternal authoritarian structure, built more on class collaboration. In some ways it could be seen as a screwy predecessor to enlightened despots and further along the road to corporatism.

Plus Plato had some rather unsavory views on arts and poetry, writing off some contemporary Greek works off as decadent and a source of moral decay (and subsequently cause of unbalance in the soul... a major point of the Republic is him trying to find justice in the individual by designing a "just" society and having certain virtues in balance).

[Die Neue Zeit]

DNZ:

Only if you think socialism is the equivalent of National Socialism.

So now you're calling Kautsky a Nazi? :lol: :laugh:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DNZ:


So now you're calling Kautsky a Nazi?

I think he labelled himelf accordingly.

[Die Neue Zeit]

OK, now you'll really need to provide links to this wild accusation. :blink: :laugh:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Commissar, this is what Plato says:


True, I replied, but there is more coming; I have only told you half. Citizens, we shall say to them in our tale, you are brothers, yet God has framed you differently. Some of you have the power of command, and in the composition of these he has mingled gold, wherefore also they have the greatest honour; others he has made of silver, to be auxiliaries; others again who are to be husbandmen and craftsmen he has composed of brass and iron; and the species will generally be preserved in the children. But as all are of the same original stock, a golden parent will sometimes have a silver son, or a silver parent a golden son. And God proclaims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which they should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race. They should observe what elements mingle in their offspring; for if the son of a golden or silver parent has an admixture of brass and iron, then nature orders a transposition of ranks, and the eye of the ruler must not be pitiful towards the child because he has to descend in the scale and become a husbandman or artisan, just as there may be sons of artisans who having an admixture of gold or silver in them are raised to honour, and become guardians or auxiliaries. For an oracle says that when a man of brass or iron guards the State, it will be destroyed. Such is the tale; is there any possibility of making our citizens believe in it?

Bold added.

Book 3, section 415 (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1497/1497-h/1497-h.htm#2H_4_0006)

So, this does apply to workers.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DNZ:


OK, now you'll really need to provide links to this wild accusation.

I merely drew an inference from your own characterisation, based on what I alleged earlier:

Me:


Only if you think socialism is the equivalent of National Socialism.

You:


So now you're calling Kautsky a Nazi?

Me:


I think he labelled himelf accordingly.

I am quite happy to withdraw that if you mis-characterised Kautsky yourself.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think we're having a bit of a miscommunication moment. You said "I think he labelled himself accordingly," and my rhetorical question was a statement of opposition to any wild notion that Kautsky was a Nazi.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DNZ:


You said "I think he labelled himself accordingly," and my rhetorical question was a statement of opposition to any wild notion that Kautsky was a Nazi.

In that case, I suppose you withdraw this:


So now you're calling Kautsky a Nazi?

Since my inference was only based on the truth of what you yourself said.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In that case, I suppose you withdraw this:

Since my inference was only based on the truth of what you yourself said.

You should probably withdraw your earlier statement "Only if you think socialism is the equivalent of National Socialism" as well. I think Kautsky's assertion about Plato being one of several ancient sources of modern socialist thinking is valid.

I promise to read more as I cough up programmatic commentary on real austerity (i.e., not budget cutbacks but austerity imposed on the ruling class itself). For now, let's analyze your quote:


True, I replied, but there is more coming; I have only told you half. Citizens, we shall say to them in our tale, you are brothers, yet God has framed you differently. Some of you have the power of command, and in the composition of these he has mingled gold, wherefore also they have the greatest honour; others he has made of silver, to be auxiliaries; others again who are to be husbandmen and craftsmen he has composed of brass and iron; and the species will generally be preserved in the children.

This can be interpreted so many ways. It can be interpreted to justify castes. It can be interpreted to justify the social/non-technical/non-functional division of labour. It can also be interpreted to justify the technical/functional division of labour.


But as all are of the same original stock, a golden parent will sometimes have a silver son, or a silver parent a golden son. And God proclaims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which they should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race.

TRANSLATION ALERT! I don't think the ancient Greeks used "God" in the monotheistic or henotheistic sense, and I'm pretty sure "race" is a mistranslation (you know, Hitler and all that crap).


They should observe what elements mingle in their offspring; for if the son of a golden or silver parent has an admixture of brass and iron, then nature orders a transposition of ranks, and the eye of the ruler must not be pitiful towards the child because he has to descend in the scale and become a husbandman or artisan, just as there may be sons of artisans who having an admixture of gold or silver in them are raised to honour, and become guardians or auxiliaries. For an oracle says that when a man of brass or iron guards the State, it will be destroyed. Such is the tale; is there any possibility of making our citizens believe in it?

Re. "the ruler must not be pitiful," that does go against hereditary discrimination.

[Red Commissar]

Red Commissar, this is what Plato says:



Bold added.

Book 3, section 415 (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1497/1497-h/1497-h.htm#2H_4_0006)

So, this does apply to workers.

I was referring to the bit about communal living and an austere life style, not the nutty bit about genetic selection and breeding programs or his idea of how people move up or down the social ladder. His description of the producers implies there will still be a market of some sort that was familiar to Greeks (meaning property ownership for farms, shops, etc...), though kept in check. That is what I was driving at- the communal lifestyle seems to be limited to the guardians and auxiliaries, not the class of producers.

I know the bit about classes stratification- that was what I was referring to when I was saying it had similarities to the concepts of class collaboration and to some degree corporatism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I've always seen this come up and there is an issue with this: Plato's discussion of these communal arrangements are seemingly only applied to the guardian caste of Philosopher-Kings. Plato does not explore his ideas of how the people living in the class of producers live, while only exploring the class of auxiliaries in the framework of how the armed forces should operate in his ideal state.

Simply put Plato conceived these communal arrangements as a way of ensuring that the rulers are those who want to rule and administrate, as opposed to those who seek to enrich themselves with that position.

I think this carried over into the average workers wage demand in the Paris Commune. The general idea is that the politicians should not have standards of living above the average. Since the majority of free people even weren't really that well off, it was only natural for Plato to suggest "communal arrangements... an austere life style," as you put it.


It is not socialism because we don't have workers controlling the means of production or some sort of body to do that. It is a paternal authoritarian structure, built more on class collaboration. In some ways it could be seen as a screwy predecessor to enlightened despots and further along the road to corporatism.


I was referring to the bit about communal living and an austere life style, not the nutty bit about genetic selection and breeding programs or his idea of how people move up or down the social ladder. His description of the producers implies there will still be a market of some sort that was familiar to Greeks (meaning property ownership for farms, shops, etc...), though kept in check. That is what I was driving at- the communal lifestyle seems to be limited to the guardians and auxiliaries, not the class of producers.

I know the bit about classes stratification- that was what I was referring to when I was saying it had similarities to the concepts of class collaboration and to some degree corporatism.

You didn't address my earlier posts about the infeasibility of non-communal common ownership under pre-industrial conditions. At best you could have state ownership of land coupled with equal ownership of remaining private business property.

Corporatism involves tight class collaboration with the bourgeoisie, not with managers-for-the-sake-of-management.

[Red Commissar]

You didn't address my earlier posts about the infeasibility of non-communal common ownership under pre-industrial conditions. At best you could have state ownership of land coupled with equal ownership of remaining private business property.

Corporatism involves tight class collaboration with the bourgeoisie, not with managers-for-the-sake-of-management.

That's why in the end Plato's Republic is Utopian- it doesn't has any practicable real life application in the way Plato described it, and we shouldn't see it as such. IIRC I think he attempted to work with the lords of Syracuse (Sicily) to see the potential of a philosopher-king and other parts of his ideal society he has in The Republic possibly get realized, but that didn't go anywhere.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I generally stay away from this forum, but when somebody posted on Plato, I wanted to defend him somewhat because of what Chavez is doing re. golf clubs ("real austerity" politics).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DNZ:


You should probably withdraw your earlier statement "Only if you think socialism is the equivalent of National Socialism" as well. I think Kautsky's assertion about Plato being one of several ancient sources of modern socialist thinking is valid.

No, I wouldn't want to withdraw it.

And Kautsky is off his head.

[Zanthorus]

I think Kautsky's assertion about Plato being one of several ancient sources of modern socialist thinking is valid.

This is true to an extent. The focus on an organic and participatory political community by members of early Romanticism derived itself from their idealisation of Greek life, and the emphasis on unity in life in general derives from the writing of ancient Greek writers including Plato and Aristotle. Marx's own focus on overcoming alienation and achieving a manifold unity of life within an organic human community also derives itself from Romanticism (See the thread on this which I just bumped). In his book on Marx's conception of human self-creation, Cyril Smith also mentions Plato as a figure displaying proto-hermetic ideas.

However, these are somewhat general, and these kind of links could probably found with a good deal of major historical thinkers. I find it hard to see how Plato could have been a direct influence on modern socialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is the relevant text:

http://www.molloy.edu/sophia/plato/republic/rep3b_txt.htm

"Then now let us consider what will be their way of life, if they are to realize our idea of them. In the first place, none of them should have any property of his own beyond what is absolutely necessary; neither should they have a private house or store closed against anyone who has a mind to enter; their provisions should be only such as are required by trained warriors, who are men of temperance and courage; they should agree to receive from the citizens a fixed rate of pay, enough to meet the expenses of the year and no more; and they will go to mess and live together like soldiers in a camp. Gold and silver we will tell them that they have from God; the diviner metal is within them, and they have therefore no need of the dross which is current among men, and ought not to pollute the divine by any such earthly admixture; for that commoner metal has been the source of many unholy deeds, but their own is undefiled. And they alone of all the citizens may not touch or handle silver or gold, or be under the same roof with them, or wear them, or drink from them. And this will be their salvation, and they will be the saviours of the State. But should they ever acquire homes or lands or moneys of their own, they will become good housekeepers and husbandmen instead of guardians, enemies and tyrants instead of allies of the other citizens; hating and being hated, plotting and being plotted against, they will pass their whole life in much greater terror of internal than of external enemies, and the hour of ruin, both to themselves and to the rest of the State, will be at hand. For all which reasons may we not say that thus shall our State be ordered, and that these shall be the regulations appointed by us for our guardians concerning their houses and all other matters?"

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^That is no more an example of socialism than a monastery is.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It is more social or societal than a monastery precisely because of the number of participants involved.

[Amphictyonis]

His Atlantis fable was a sort of hierarchical communism?

I think his actual views can be found here-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_%28Plato%29

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DNZ:


It is more social or societal than a monastery precisely because of the number of participants involved.

The Medieval Roman Catholic Church then was socialist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As ComradeOm said, the RCC merely served to buttress feudal role. The guardians and philosopher-kings were not described to facilitate plutocracy or the economic domination of the merchants.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DNZ:


As ComradeOm said, the RCC merely served to buttress feudal role. The guardians and philosopher-kings were not described to facilitate plutocracy or the economic domination of the merchants.

So what? If Plato's utopia can be descibed as some form of socialism then the collective ownrship of property in the Medieval RCC can also be so described, whatever they sought to butress.

Same with the modern RCC.

[L.A.P.]

A proto-fascist.

[ZeroNowhere]

A proto-fascist.A brilliant ethical thinker.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

A brilliant ethical thinker.

However, those ethics led him to conlude that the 'perfect' society was one with rigid social constraints and little social mobility.

I think, that when discussing ancient philiosphers it is very important to remember the context in which they were writing and living, a society that was in many ways virtually alien to our own.

[Victus Mortuum]

Plato's "Republic" is a terrifying and nightmarish city ruled by 'philosopher'-dictators who control everything, where all art is state propaganda, where sex is restricted to production only, where every word you say and every act you do is monitored, where the work you do is set by and monitored by the state, where every inch of person-ness is stripped from you and you are merely the body of the oligarchic 'philosopher'-mind that is the state. Make no mistake - the only reason Plato doesn't speak of mass levels of public and secret policing and surveillance is because they did not have those things like we do now.

This is no foundation for socialism in the modern sense (a democratic instead of despotic mode of production (literally way of producing)). It is more a foundation for fascism or stalinism.

[Zanthorus]

The above really, really misses the point. The reason the rulers in Plato's republic live like they do is to stop them from becoming corrupt and power hungry, a default which Plato saw in both oligarchies and Athenian democracy. The city isn't even the important part of the book. The city is merely an extension of how a person's internal life should be organised if they are to live a harmonious life.

[RED DAVE]

Maybe this should've been posted in Learning, and please move it if you think so.

Is there some nice comrade out there that can give me a quick explanation as to why Plato wasn't even the slightest left-oriented when it came to politics? The explanation has to be so simple that the average high school student can understand this. I need to quickly explain, through a comment made throughout the class, that Plato wasn't a communist or even had the slightest communist ideals to some guy from my class who thinks he was. He's a conservative dumbass himself that doesn't know shit about communism. He believes that North Korea is communist, just to give an example.

We are right now working with The State in class and we are discussing Plato's political views. He was, compared to modern day politics, very conservative leaning to being fascist, right?Don't know if this has been posted before, but I.F. Stone, a prominent American Left journalist, wrote a terrific book on the trial of Socrates. Here's an interview with him. You can probably get the book in your library or cheap online.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/ifstoneinterview.html

While Stone thought that the execution of Socrates was a serious mistake on the part of the Athenian democracy, he realized that it was done because Socrates was a supporter of oligarchy and an enemy of democracy. Athens had just gotten rid of a tyranny, that Socrates certainly did not oppose actively, and he was making propaganda again against the democracy.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

DNZ:



So what? If Plato's utopia can be descibed as some form of socialism then the collective ownrship of property in the Medieval RCC can also be so described, whatever they sought to butress.

Same with the modern RCC.

Actually, I suspect that the RCC was formed partially with inspiration from Plato's Republic. Plato was hugely fashionable during the time when the RCC first emerged.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The above really, really misses the point. The reason the rulers in Plato's republic live like they do is to stop them from becoming corrupt and power hungry, a default which Plato saw in both oligarchies and Athenian democracy. The city isn't even the important part of the book. The city is merely an extension of how a person's internal life should be organised if they are to live a harmonious life.

Athenian democracy certainly did not impose restrictions on the standard of living for its ruling class.

It's almost done, folks! :D

[RED DAVE]

The above really, really misses the point. The reason the rulers in Plato's republic live like they do is to stop them from becoming corrupt and power hungry, a default which Plato saw in both oligarchies and Athenian democracy. The city isn't even the important part of the book. The city is merely an extension of how a person's internal life should be organised if they are to live a harmonious life.It's an elitist fantasy and a conscious antithesis of democracy and betrays contempt for the working classes.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

And it's done:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/real-austerity-ancient-t148740/index.html

[RED DAVE]

And it's done:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/real-austerity-ancient-t148740/index.html
Kautsky was correct in listing Lycurgus, Pythagoras (of the mathematical theorem that bears his name), and especially Plato as part of an ancient, “long line of Socialists.” Draper ignored pre-industrial class relations before late feudalism, under which both non-communal common ownership relations beyond state ownership of land and equal ownership relations beyond those over all other non-possessive property were not feasible, and under which the chattel slave classes and their populist democracy were simply incapable of long-term political organization (at least until the only successful but woefully belated chattel slave revolution in history, the Haitian Revolution). Within these pre-industrial class relations, the austere way of life for the Spartan ruling class and the Pythagoreans’ rather monastic communal consumption formed the ideal basis for the Guardians’ way of life in The Republic, Plato’s controversial yet political work:Elitist ruling class fantasies. Kautsky was dead wrong and so are you. This is apologetics for tyranny, which you, with your bullshit about caesarism, seem to have a penchant for.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Did you read my one sentence after the Plato quote? I think it is most insightful.

[RED DAVE]

Did you read my one sentence after the Plato quote? I think it is most insightful.You're just too modest for words.


Consciously or not, the Paris Commune itself followed Plato’s recommendation on subjecting its public officials to a standard of living no higher than that for a skilled worker by means of “average workers’ wage” pay levels.Which just goes to show that you don't understand workers democracy. What the Commune did had nothing to do with Plato's elitist tyranny of self-selected dictators. They engaged in wage levelling. What Plato advocated was absolute dictatorship of a self-selected elite.

RED DAVE

[~Spectre]

If there is any sort of metaphor, it's that all the characters in The Republic espoused views that reflected their own material interests. The merchant's definition of justice involved the repayment of debt, Plato's idealized philosopher avatar of himself wanted a dictatorship. It's not uncommon even among intellectuals today.

Chris Langan, the guy who supposedly has the highest tested IQ, also said that he thinks a council of the "high IQ community" should run things. Both should be rejected by the working class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Kautsky was dead wrong and so are you. This is apologetics for tyranny, which you, with your bullshit about Caesarism, seem to have a penchant for.


You're just too modest for words.

I didn't go ballistic on your late friend in my commentary for his misplaced anti-Kautsky shots.


Which just goes to show that you don't understand workers democracy. What the Commune did had nothing to do with Plato's elitist tyranny of self-selected dictators. They engaged in wage levelling. What Plato advocated was absolute dictatorship of a self-selected elite.

Au contraire, I do understand the Demarchic Commonwealth as the modern form of the DOTP. If you had bothered to read the last two paragraphs in that new thread, you'll note that the measure proposed is something that could be done without the DOTP.

[RED DAVE]

Which just goes to show that you don't understand workers democracy. What the Commune did had nothing to do with Plato's elitist tyranny of self-selected dictators. They engaged in wage levelling. What Plato advocated was absolute dictatorship of a self-selected elite.
Au contraire, I do understand the Demarchic Commonwealth as the modern form of the DOTP.What you seem to "understand" is some kind of self-referenced gobbledy-gook.


If you had bothered to read the last two paragraphs in that new thread, you'll note that the measure proposed is something that could be done without the DOTP.If you insist on using neologism, please provide a translation for us ignorant proles.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Eminent domain" is not a neologism. It is legal terminology. :rolleyes:

[RED DAVE]

"Eminent domain" is not a neologism. It is legal terminology. :rolleyes:(1) I was talking about "Demarchic Commonwealth and "DOTP."

(2) Why would you use a bourgeois legal term,"eminent domain, in a discussion of workers democracy?

(3) I continue to assert that you have no real concept of workers democracy.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

(1) I was talking about "Demarchic Commonwealth and "DOTP."

Um, I'm pretty sure "DOTP" was used long before I was born as a short-hand for "dictatorship of the proletariat." :rolleyes:


(2) Why would you use a bourgeois legal term, "eminent domain, in a discussion of workers democracy?

This thread isn't about workers democracy, is it?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Not when we are discussing Plato, it isn't.

[RED DAVE]

Let's get back to the main point: even a cursory view of Plato's politics, as expressed by Socrates, are elitist and betray a hatred of democracy. At best, Socrates/Plato supported a monarchy; at worst, a totalitarianism.

This has nothing to do with socialism.

RED DAVE

[Hexen]

I think the strings of western bourgeois "democracy" (capitalism) today can be traced back to Plato's republic at least what inspired it overtime.

[RED DAVE]

I think the strings of western bourgeois "democracy" (capitalism) today can be traced back to Plato's republic at least what inspired it overtime.I think you are confusing Plato's republic, which was elitist and totalitarian, with Athenian democracy, with he opposed. Athenian democracy, flawed though it was, was definitely an ancestor of bourgeois democracy.

RED DAVE

[Hexen]

I guess Plato was the 'father' of fascism.

[RED DAVE]

I guess Plato was the 'father' of fascism.He certainly was the father of most elitist political philosophies. He had nothing but contempt for democracy.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Just because he had contempt for democracy doesn't mean he had some profound insights. Like your late friend said, it wasn't until the 18th or 19th century when there was a merger of socialistic issues with democratic ones.

[ZeroNowhere]

I guess Plato was the 'father' of fascism.
Fascism serves capital, and hence ephemeral dross and appetites. It supports the subjugation of people and human rationality to things, as is inherent in people becoming mere ciphers for the appetites, the appetite for capital. Capital is the many-headed beast, not the divine; the human soul is not the end, but rather things, capital, are the end, and rather than serving the human, the human serves them. So no.

[RED DAVE]

Just because he had contempt for democracy doesn't mean he had some profound insights. Like your late friend said, it wasn't until the 18th or 19th century when there was a merger of socialistic issues with democratic ones.The topic of this thread is "political views of Plato." His views were reactionary for his time. In the middle of the Athenian democracy, he advocated dictatorship or monarchy. This is undeniable.

If you want to discuss his over views, on philosophy, etc., by a ll means start one. But politically, he was a piece of shit as was his mentor Socrates.

If by "my late friend," you mean Hal Draper, yes he pointed out, accurately, that the merger of socialism and democracy did not happen until the 19th Century. However, he also pointed out that Socrates/Plato was neither socialist nor democratic. Again, the best book on this is I.F.Stone's The Death of Socrates, which shows what kind of shit Socrates/Plato was.

RED DAVE

[ZeroNowhere]

Plato argued that we all live in caves. What a bizarre man.

[Dimentio]

Plato argued that we all live in caves. What a bizarre man.

He claimed that there is a perfect spiritual world which only a chosen elite is able to see, and that elite needs to govern the rest. Plato also said that it was true because it would bring an authoritarian government (what was "true" according to Plato was what brought certain results). Actually, that shit was realised 700 years after Plato through the Catholic Church.

[RED DAVE]

Actually, that shit was realised 700 years after Plato through the Catholic Church.Several other people have mentioned this, which is a good point. Did the Church actually pattern itself on Plato consciously?

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

Several other people have mentioned this, which is a good point. Did the Church actually pattern itself on Plato consciously?

RED DAVE

Plato was fashionable during the same period when the Catholic Church really emerged as the main social movement in the Roman Empire (Third Century), but I think that it was an emergent process, namely that Platonian philosophers competed and interacted with Christian leaders, and in some cases turned into Christian leaders, bringing with them the bagage of Platonian philosophy.

There is a slight possibility that some of the original founders were consciously modelling the Church after Plato's teachings. The cave allegory and the idea of the material world as evil and the spiritual world as perfect was pretty much mainstream though in that period.

[ZeroNowhere]

The forms? There's nothing much wrong with the forms, they're the basis of Marx's view of humanity. Still, though, we haven't lived in caves for millennia. It's not clear how Plato did not notice this.

[Die Neue Zeit]

However, he also pointed out that Socrates/Plato was neither socialist nor democratic.

Did you bother to read my "pre-industrial relations" paragraph?

[ar734]

Any thoughts on Whitehead's remark that all modern philosophy is essentially a footnote to Plato? I've wondered if the title of Marx's Poverty of Philosophy really refers to the death of modern philosophy, rather than just to Proudhon's Philosophy of Poverty.

Marx said that Aristotle, and, I guess, Plato, could not realize the inhumanity of slavery because they were living in an economic system entirely based on slavery. Plato's Republic would be a perfect way to run a slave society and to explain the natural superiority of the slave-owners and the lesser of grades of society down to the non-human slaves.

The only connection with socialism Plato had, in my opinion, was the pre-Athenian primitive communism of tribal and clan society.

[ar734]

Plato argued that we all live in caves. What a bizarre man.

You don't mean he literally argued we all live in caves? As I recall he argued that we live (metaphorically) in a cave in which we sit before a fire and all we can see are the shadows of reality on the walls of the cave.

[RED DAVE]

The forms? There's nothing much wrong with the forms, they're the basis of Marx's view of humanity.I think you are dead wrong. The Platonic theory of forms is the basis for all existing idealist philosophies of which Marx was a deadly enemy.


Still, though, we haven't lived in caves for millennia. It's not clear how Plato did not notice this.Comrade, the Allegory of the Cave is an allegory of perception, truth and the role of an elite, not a discussion of the developmental level of society. I suggest you go and read Plato before you start criticizing him.

RED DAVE

[ZeroNowhere]

You don't mean he literally argued we all live in caves? As I recall he argued that we live (metaphorically) in a cave in which we sit before a fire and all we can see are the shadows of reality on the walls of the cave.
Analogies? How strange. You mean that he could say things without meaning them literally? Woah, dude, it's almost like context matters. Perhaps those English Literature students aren't completely worthless.

Wow, man, this is pretty complex stuff. Maybe he even used adumbration; in fact, maybe he even said so. So much to get one's head around.