Ancient Greek Philophers and Marx

[Philosophos]

Hi guys! I wasn't sure where to put this thread because it's for two philosophers and we have both "Learning" and "Philosophy" but anyway.

I've studied a little the work of Plato and Aristoteles (which basically the same only from a different point of view just like the different tendencies in communism) and I came to the conclusion that their opinions were almost the same as communism. P/A both wanted a classless state (actually they had classes but they existed only to show what kind of work you'll be doing not classes for rulling or getting more money depending on what you can do). Also they wanted to reach "ευδαιμονία" (bliss) which means that the state will have no needs from other countries/states because the production of the current state covers all the needs and some other stuff.

Do you know if Marx got influenced by Plato/Aristoteles? Have you ever read something like this or heard?

Thx in advance

[The Burgundy Rose]

i remember that plato was a bit of a bitter and resentful recluse from what i've read of him. spent all of his time in the walls of his academy after travelling to the pythagoreans in italy and the eleatics. he was heavily influenced by socrates as well. the sort of state he wanted was to my recollection an autarkic city state where the people were split into three groups; workers, soldiers and rulers. the rulers would derive themselves from the soldiers being physically and mentally superior and would also be philosophers. so it was rule by philosophers or what would effectively mean a gerontocracy which seems to reverberate with most communist countries that have existed. but one of the key themes of his ideal state was that sometimes the workers may grow restless in which instance the soldiers were required to maintain order...in a rather brutal fashion, which certainly seems to me to hint at class struggle. another theme was that children were not to be raised by their parents but were instead to be raised by the state in something similar to schools where they would be trained physically and mentally.

concerning private property and family life, it is true that the auxilliaries rely on the state for all their needs and do not accumulate material wealth of any kind but the same is not true of the artisans or workers. also art, some poetry (though not plato's own form of poetry) sculpture, etc. would be abolished (anything that tries to imitate the imitations of the forms was seen as perverse by plato).

the main theme of communism really is the desire to emancipate the proletariat from material necessity, and plato's ideal state does this on some levels but not others. so while there are some glib comparisons between communism and plato's ideal state, the similarities are not permeated throughout the entire system and are not pervasive enough for us to say that marx derived his ideas entirely from plato. marx invented the idea of communism in response to the pervasive socio-economic situations of his time when capitalism was decreasing the standard of living for the proletariat and was looking outward toward a global revolution, whereas plato was looking more inwardly to the ideal autarkic city state within a pre-industrialised world.

[Zanthorus]

"[T]he manifold forms of Greek philosophy contain in embryo, in the nascent state, almost all later modes of outlook on the world." - Engels, On Dialectics

I believe someone else had also said somewhere that the history of Western philosophy consisted of a series of footnotes to Plato.

In any case, with Plato it's probably worth pointing out with regards to the latter that he was ambivalent on the question of whether the state outlined in the Republic could actually ever be established in practice. The text begins with Socrates enquiring as to the nature of justice in individual actions, and dealing with various other positions such as that justice is helping one's friends and hurting one's enemies, or that justice is the law of the strongest. The allegory of the Republic comes up initially because Socrates thinks that a description of justice with regards to a whole state will allow us to get a better understanding of justice in the individual. The ultimate conclusion to which the book tends is that justice in the individual springs from the rule of the individual's reason over their impulses and appetites, which is shown through the demonstration that the just state is one in which reason rules rather than the impulse or caprice of particular individuals which is the case in oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. In this connection it's worth noting that all the formulations of species-being prior to Marx are derived from Hegel's claim that the distuinguishing mark of humanity is it's power to reason.

I don't think much is gained by claiming that Plato or Aristotle were communists though. Communism as the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement rather than as an abstract and transhistorical utopia could only come into existence after the extensive growth of capitalism as a system such as was occuring in the 19th century. For any Greek philosopher to have been a communist proper would have required the ability to see into the future, which doesn't however mean that nothing of value is to be gained by reading them.

[Philosophos]

i remember that plato was a bit of a bitter and resentful recluse from what i've read of him. spent all of his time in the walls of his academy after travelling to the pythagoreans in italy and the eleatics. he was heavily influenced by socrates as well. the sort of state he wanted was to my recollection an autarkic city state where the people were split into three groups; workers, soldiers and rulers. the rulers would derive themselves from the soldiers being physically and mentally superior and would also be philosophers. so it was rule by philosophers or what would effectively mean a gerontocracy which seems to reverberate with most communist countries that have existed. but one of the key themes of his ideal state was that sometimes the workers may grow restless in which instance the soldiers were required to maintain order...in a rather brutal fashion, which certainly seems to me to hint at class struggle. another theme was that children were not to be raised by their parents but were instead to be raised by the state in something similar to schools where they would be trained physically and mentally.

concerning private property and family life, it is true that the auxilliaries rely on the state for all their needs and do not accumulate material wealth of any kind but the same is not true of the artisans or workers. also art, some poetry (though not plato's own form of poetry) sculpture, etc. would be abolished (anything that tries to imitate the imitations of the forms was seen as perverse by plato).

the main theme of communism really is the desire to emancipate the proletariat from material necessity, and plato's ideal state does this on some levels but not others. so while there are some glib comparisons between communism and plato's ideal state, the similarities are not permeated throughout the entire system and are not pervasive enough for us to say that marx derived his ideas entirely from plato. marx invented the idea of communism in response to the pervasive socio-economic situations of his time when capitalism was decreasing the standard of living for the proletariat and was looking outward toward a global revolution, whereas plato was looking more inwardly to the ideal autarkic city state within a pre-industrialised world.


keep in mind that Plato was an aristocrat and he hated democracy because he thought it was corrupted. At the same time when he traveled to Italy he was merly killed or sold as a slave because he tried to show to the two tyrrani
his philosophi thinking in a non violent way. That could have affected him so he made his state as autarkic. Well that's my opinion

[Philosophos]

"[T]he manifold forms of Greek philosophy contain in embryo, in the nascent state, almost all later modes of outlook on the world." - Engels, On Dialectics

I believe someone else had also said somewhere that the history of Western philosophy considered of a series of footnotes to Plato.

In any case, with Plato it's probably worth pointing out with regards to the latter that he was ambivalent on the question of whether the state outlined in the Republic could actually ever be established in practice. The text begins with Socrates enquiring as to the nature of justice in individual actions, and dealing with various other positions such as that justice is helping one's friends and hurting one's enemies, or that justice is the law of the strongest. The allegory of the Republic comes up initially because Socrates thinks that a description of justice with regards to a whole state will allow us to get a better understanding of justice in the individual. The ultimate conclusion to which the book tends is that justice in the individual springs from the rule of the individual's reason over their impulses and appetites, which is shown through the demonstration that the just state is one in which reason rules rather than the impulse or caprice of particular individuals which is the case in oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. In this connection it's worth noting that all the formulations of species-being prior to Marx are derived from Hegel's claim that the distuinguishing mark of humanity is it's power to reason.

I don't think much is gained by claiming that Plato or Aristotle were communists though. Communism as the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement rather than as an abstract and transhistorical utopia could only come into existence after the extensive growth of capitalism as a system such as was occuring in the 19th century. For any Greek philosopher to have been a communist proper would have required the ability to see into the future, which doesn't however mean that nothing of value is to be gained by reading them.

I never said that Plato or Aristoteles were communists for crying out loud. There was not even the suspicion of having capitalism back then. I just posted that because I wanted to see if there was somehow a connection between the phisophical thinking of Marx and Plato/Aristoteles. Did Marx read these guys and said "Hey I've got an idea gimme some paper so I can write it down" :lol:

That's all I wanted....

[The Burgundy Rose]

keep in mind that Plato was an aristocrat and he hated democracy because he thought it was corrupted. At the same time when he traveled to Italy he was merly killed or sold as a slave because he tried to show to the two tyrrani
his philosophi thinking in a non violent way. That could have affected him so he made his state as autarkic. Well that's my opinion

democracy back in the days of ancient greece was entirely different from how we understand it. he didn't term democracy to be representative democracy but rather all of the people gathering in a large plaza and partaking in the democratic process. he went to sicily on two occasions having been invited by the king of syracuse to teach him on how to rule the state but was on both occasions exiled.

[Lynx]

I remember listening to Richard Wolff and he said that Plato and Aristotle hated markets. Especially Aristotle. I took that to mean they wrote about markets that existed in that era.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I remember reading a few of Plato's works, though it came from the mouth of "Socrates". I don't remember any similarities, though I won't say there aren't any. One of "Socrates'" works dictated the need for a society run by philosophers, like himself. It would be the age for "philosopher kings", though I don't remember that term being explicitly used. For obvious reasons, I think it likely that Marx rejected that sort of elitism.

[Positivist]

Marx was a student of philosophy, and this extended to Greece, but I don't believe his vision of communism was inspired by the works of Plato and Aristotle. The society that Plato describes in his work, "Republic," is about as communist as China is today. There were still classes, and no this was not just a division of labor as differing degrees of social authority were conferred onto each class. Furthermore all the labor the masses and auxiliaries was to be devoted to fulfilling the agenda of the "Guardian" class. Plato didn't understand that such an agenda would inevitably be shaped by the material interests of that class. Plato's republic is more a precursor to fascism than to communism.

As for Aristotle, he was born of privilige, and his mind was moulded believing in it. This was reflected all throughout his philosophy, especially in his famous theory that naturally, there would always be slaves, and always be masters. Class oppression is the very foundation of such s theory. Any claims of similarity between these ancient Greek philosophers and communism is based on a misunderstanding of there work, or a misunderstanding of philosophy.

Also they were both idealists.

[Philosophos]

I remember listening to Richard Wolff and he said that Plato and Aristotle hated markets. Especially Aristotle. I took that to mean they wrote about markets that existed in that era.

Do you mean "Agora"? Agora is now what we call market in mordern greek. In ancient greek Agora meant "the place where people gathered to talk about issues of the town". Sure markets existed but I can't recall how they were named.

[Lynx]

Do you mean "Agora"? Agora is now what we call market in mordern greek. In ancient greek Agora meant "the place where people gathered to talk about issues of the town". Sure markets existed but I can't recall how they were named.
I don't recall if he used that word. He doesn't in this excerpt (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZsMqQxHebc).

[Philosophos]

I don't recall if he used that word. He doesn't in this excerpt (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZsMqQxHebc).

OK he doesn't mean agora he actually means the markets. I just highlighted it because there are many people confusing the meaning of these words

[A Marxist Historian]

Marx was a student of philosophy, and this extended to Greece, but I don't believe his vision of communism was inspired by the works of Plato and Aristotle. The society that Plato describes in his work, "Republic," is about as communist as China is today. There were still classes, and no this was not just a division of labor as differing degrees of social authority were conferred onto each class. Furthermore all the labor the masses and auxiliaries was to be devoted to fulfilling the agenda of the "Guardian" class. Plato didn't understand that such an agenda would inevitably be shaped by the material interests of that class. Plato's republic is more a precursor to fascism than to communism.

As for Aristotle, he was born of privilige, and his mind was moulded believing in it. This was reflected all throughout his philosophy, especially in his famous theory that naturally, there would always be slaves, and always be masters. Class oppression is the very foundation of such s theory. Any claims of similarity between these ancient Greek philosophers and communism is based on a misunderstanding of there work, or a misunderstanding of philosophy.

Also they were both idealists.

This is basically correct (but let us not get into China in this thread!). But Marx was definitely a student of Greek philosophy, and more than that, indeed his equivalent of a Ph.D. dissertation was on materialism and dialectics in Greek philosophy (though he didn't quite call it that so early in his life.) Marx got his intellectual start as a classics scholar.

Certainly he drew on Plato and Aristotle, but he found other ancient Greek philosophers more interesting. One thing Plato and Aristotle had in common was that they both supported and believed in slavery. This was not true for all Greek philosophers, the Stoics had their doubts, and the much maligned Sophists were downright opposed, many of them.

-M.H.-

[Positivist]

This is basically correct (but let us not get into China in this thread!). But Marx was definitely a student of Greek philosophy, and more than that, indeed his equivalent of a Ph.D. dissertation was on materialism and dialectics in Greek philosophy (though he didn't quite call it that so early in his life.) Marx got his intellectual start as a classics scholar.

Certainly he drew on Plato and Aristotle, but he found other ancient Greek philosophers more interesting. One thing Plato and Aristotle had in common was that they both supported and believed in slavery. This was not true for all Greek philosophers, the Stoics had their doubts, and the much maligned Sophists were downright opposed, many of them.

-M.H.-

Well it wasn't a stab at China being capitalist, as I'm not so sure that it is completely, but at any rate neither Plato's republic, China, or anyother society which has existed in the last five thousand years has or had the potential to be communist until Marx and engels' theories.

Other than that yes. Too often people assume that since Marx studied Greek philosophy he must have been inspired by Plato or Aristotle,while negelcting the rich non-socraric Greek philosophical tradition.

[Mr. Natural]

VMH asks the question, "Did Marx read these guys [Plato, Aristotle] and say, 'I've got an idea, gimme some paper so I can write it down?'" A Marxist Historian then points to the answer: Marx's doctoral dissertation.

I get confused whenever I come across the various classical Greek philosophers, but Marx, as Zanthorus' quote from Engels indicates, "went to school" with them. His doctoral dissertation was on Epicurus' materialism from which Marx learned to base his ideas in material, dynamic, interdependent relations. The book that focuses on this matter is John Bellamy Foster's Marx's Ecology (2000). Foster is editor of Monthly Review, and he writes: "If, for Kant, the materialist and idealist wings of philosophy had as their formost representatives Epicurus and Plato, for Marx, they were represented by Epicurus and Hegel."

Marx's Ecology is written in unusually plain language for a philosophical work and concentrates on Marx's Greek connections. There's plenty of Plato and Aristotle for VMH, and this work firmly, irrefutably establishes Marx's and Engels' and Marxisms' ecological bona fides.

It is customary in some "left" quarters to denounce dialectics as "mysticism." However, as Marx's Ecology demonstrates, those with such views are rejecting Marxism, for the dialectical relations taken from Hegel and then materialized brought nature and society to life in Marx's mind and Marxism was born.

I am neither a scientist nor a philospher, but I know the new sciences of life's organizational (dialectical) relations can bring the materialist dialectic and Marxism and anarchist/communist revolutionary processes to life. As Engels wrote: "We have the advantage of all other creatures of being able to learn [nature's] laws and apply them correctly." (Dialectics of Nature).

Foster had largely dismissed Engels' work with dialectics in Anti-Duhring (co-written with Marx) and Dialectics of Nature. His research for this book, however, led him to write he had "still adhered to a modified version of the Lukascian prohibition against any 'dialectics of nature,' attributing this prohibition to Marx himself. I now view the question of the dialectics of nature once again as an open one."

And now a simple conceptual triangle created by the theoretical physicist, Fritjof Capra, reveals life's (thus communist society's) universal pattern of organization--the pattern by which matter self-organizes to life on Earth. This triangle--first introduced in Chapter 7 of The Web of Life (1996)--is an "embodied," popularly usable materialist dialectic. It is the mental tool the proletariat needs in order to consciously organize its existence in living, communist relations.

Did Marxism die with Marx and Engels and a few others? Dialectics are the life of Marxism, and Marx's Ecology reveals the Greek philosophical roots of Marxism's dynamic materialism.

The new sciences of organization then show how material systems such as penguins and people are organized to come to life. Penguins, though, automatically generate their living relations, while people must consciously do so and haven't known how.

The new science and Capra's triangle show how. Engels at Marx's graveside: "Science was for Marx a historically dynamic, revolutionary force."

My red-green best.

[Zealot]

Are you joking? Plato and Aristotle did not hold opinions anywhere close to Socialism let alone having ideas that were "almost the same as communism". They were both instrumental in the founding of political theory and political science. In addition, Aristotle, and possibly Plato to a lesser extent, was historically considered an authority on just about everything and so it wouldn't surprise me if Marx was aware of their ideas. However, I think you made quite a large exaggeration.

[Lucretia]

Anybody who thinks that Plato was the political equivalent to a communist has not read Republic.

[The Idler]

Forget Plato, Epicurus all the way.