Socrates and Class Stuggle

[ComradeRed]

I just read this:

Originally posted by [email protected] Republic IV
You ought to speak of other States in the plural number; not one of them is a city, but many cities, as they say in the game. For indeed any city, however small, is in fact divided into two, one the city of the poor, the other of the rich; these are at war with one another; and in either there are many smaller divisions, and you would be altogether beside the mark if you treated them all as a single State. Interesting that class struggle dates back into the fourth century BCE.

[Comrade BNS]

Interesting point Socrates made. Not surprising though, fuedal and urban classes have existed since pre-sumer....so its a long time. and No doubt there would have been class struggles from the beggining.

Comrade BNS

[Floyd.]

So does this not in effect merely highlight the fact that we have a disgustingly long history of opportunism oppression and inequality? At least now they are less instances of slavery, countries are saying no to the death penalty and so on. We can only hope to be truly progressive in a humane rather than industrial way.

[monkeydust]

Firstly it should be noted that Socrates may well not have said that at all. The Republic was written by Plato, not Socrates, though Socrates features, it is unlikely that the words attributed to him are all exact.

Besides the point, it may well have been true that Socrates recognised class struggle, and disparities between the wealth of different groups in society. However, it should be noted that Socrates and Plato were by no means Leftists at all, in fact they advocated rule by (supposedly benevolent) "Philosopher Kings".

In other words, they were in favour of Dictatorhip.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 06:00 PM

Besides the point, it may well have been true that Socrates recognised class struggle, and disparities between the wealth of different groups in society. However, it should be noted that Socrates and Plato were by no means Leftists at all, in fact they advocated rule by (supposedly benevolent) "Philosopher Kings".

In other words, they were in favour of Dictatorhip.
That is simplistic. They were in favor of rational government, a la the French Revolution. They were in favor of the good of society as a whole, as opposed to the good of a class or classes. I would hardly call it a dictatorship; the rulers weren't allowed possessions or wealth, and were to be chosen from those who despise power; and furthermore they were designated as servants of the people rather than masters.

[Wenty]

Firstly it should be noted that Socrates may well not have said that at all. The Republic was written by Plato, not Socrates, though Socrates features, it is unlikely that the words attributed to him are all exact.

Yes. But then if we truly accept this we would never talk about Socrates at all.

[monkeydust]

That is simplistic. They were in favor of rational government, a la the French Revolution. They were in favor of the good of society as a whole, as opposed to the good of a class or classes. I would hardly call it a dictatorship; the rulers weren't allowed possessions or wealth, and were to be chosen from those who despise power; and furthermore they were designated as servants of the people rather than masters.

Of course its simplistic, this topic's complexity and depth is such that it would take pages to write about it in adequate detail.

You're right that "Philosopher Kings" were supposed to be benevolent servants of society, who would not abuse what power they were given. In an abstract sense this may not necessarily be a bad idea, certainly it avoids many of the problems associated with popular democratic rule.

I feel, however, that if it were to be the case that power was vested in a small elite of "Philospher Kings" that they may not act in the interest of the people they supposedly serve. This is not necessarily to say that any "Philosopher King" may not wish to act in the interest of his people, but rather that no one person has the sufficient sagacity or intelligence to rule in an adequate and fair manner, even if he wishes to and has good intentions of doing so.

Moreover, it should be considered that what such a ruler considers to be in the interests of "The People" may not actually be so at all. I'd certainly consider rule by such an unaccountable body to be a "Dictatorship", even if it is not openly despotic in nature.


Yes. But then if we truly accept this we would never talk about Socrates at all.

No, that's not really the point I was making. The words in the Republic may not be exact, but they still (probably) represent the kind of thing that Socrates would have said.

Perhaps I shouldn't have been so pedantic in this sense, however, in many other sources where Socrates is quoted (such as in the satirical plays by Aristophanes and others) it's important not to take his supposed words literally and at face value.