Was Plato a proto-communist?

[percept¡on]

My impression based on the Republic is that Plato/Socrates envisioned a crude sort of communism (Leninism, more precisely) in their ideal state; evidenced in the communal ownership of property, 'community of wives/children', emphasis on unity and equality and the deemphasis on material wealth. While there remained class distinctions, they weren't based on wealth or political power but were utilitarian, for lack of a better word.

It stands out, at any rate, in contrast to Aristotle's emphasis on private property and individualism.

[Hate Is Art]

I very much enjoyed the idea of justice as sword/bag of gold, rewarding those do good not just punishing those who are bad. This I believe is the main failure in modern judicarcy system, there is nothing to gain, you can only lose.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Plato's society is quite simply based on the idea that Philosopher Kings are the best type of people to run society.

It has no relationship to any class disctinction, and is probably best described as a kind of 'democracy of philosophers' in which there is a parliament of philosophers who make decisions.

Its been said before but quickly dismissed, historical context alone should be enough to dismiss this idea.

[monkeydust]

Plato might in many respects, have been considered "progressive" in the Greek world.

I would hardly call him a Communist though.

He believed that "the people" were not capable of self-government, preferring leadership by "philosopher kings".

Oh and he also supported slavery. ;)

[Karo de Perro]

As pointed out by other respondents Plato conceived a society ruled over by philosopher-kings,in his allegory regarding the cave of illusions from whence one emerges to the light as it were is then to return and liberate those still trapped inside this dark cave wherein people are entranced by mere shallows rather than substance.

In reality Plato's ideal society can be summed up as nothing more than one based on a psuedo-elitism whereby a select few rule over the great masses of people and by this one cannot rightly claim that Plato by such ponderings was a proto-communist in any real sense of what communism was conceived to be by Marx and Engels.

[percept¡on]

I shouldn't have to point out the similarities between philospher-kings and the vanguard party. Hence why I said 'Leninism'.

[Wenty]

Bertrand Russell would agree with you, at least thats what i remember him saying about some of what Plato advocated.

[Karo de Perro]

I think it best that I point out at this juncture of the thread that I am a firm believer in a peoples vanguard ... do note that I rendered this as a 'peoples' vanguard and NOT as a vanguard party in that partisan divisions work against rather than for the people.

I am reminded of Sartres reference to the idea of alienation in the vien of existentialism which he personally espoused,that this sense of separations and the idea of degrading the human entity into a thing of sorts leads to extreme nausea in the individual wherein he comes to view himself as that very thing which others have cast upon him.

In reality one must come to grips with this nonsensical mind-game which pretentious intellectuals and psuedo social-forecasters project onto the public by means of scientific jargon through which they make man nothing more than an object of investigation,prediction and manipulation.

By this I wish to express the need of a vanguard in the sense of a popular front into which the ocean of humanity can flow uncumbered by tags and labels,a free organization of social liberation based on the principles of common sense and common justice in all socio-political matters.

This one thing stands true regardless to the amount of opposition fanatics may fling against it ... - a truly revolutionary apparatus must NOT appear unattached from the populace or else it shall die in incubation,for without popular support and the assurance of the initial instigators and agitators of revolution to the people that they too are fully embraced as comrades essential to the struggle and are held in common regard as equals then such leaders are destined to fail in their aims and goals.

Moreover,I say leaders only in the sense of plannin and encouraging rather than some superficial idea of a layered society,for in the construction of a socialist society there must be no uppers and lowers but rather a common front workin for the common good of all humanity,thus every cadre and cell from the smallest rural area to the most complex metropolitan area must be assured that all are equal and the vision is universal.

[Wenty]

off topic somehow...

[PRC-UTE]

Actually perception has a good point, the rule by enlightened philosophers reminds me of the rise of intellegentsia as a distinct class in the 20th cen, lenninists and democrats.

[Marxist-Leninist]

Well, in the sense that communism is the abolition of private property (in the simplest sense of the word), and forasmuch as the protectors do not have private property, the Republic of Plato is communistic. Certainly not communist in the Marxian sense, but communist in the sense that there is no private property in his utopia (there are still classes, no doubt).

[che's long lost daughter]

I admire Plato but I think he thought nothing about communism. Communism is all about a classless society while Plato wanted to have a society divided into three classes where there is a ruling class (take note, a RULING CLASS) and this ruling class is composed of kings and we all know how kings are like.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

They arent kings as such, they are philosophers who he believed to be the most fair, rational etc. human beings alive.

[refuse_resist]

From what I've heard, Plato's beliefs inspired fascism. And from what people have said about him here so far and what little I know about him, it seems to be pretty self-explanatory.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Read him yourself or else just join the queue along with those who believe Nietzsche was a fascist of people who take second hand information for fact offhand.

[refuse_resist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 01:52 PM
Read him yourself or else just join the queue along with those who believe Nietzsche was a fascist of people who take second hand information for fact offhand.
I never said he was, but I was implying his views had an impact on it.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

But they didnt, at all.

[redstar2000]

I think that Plato was very much what we would call a "proto-fascist"...though I doubt any of his ideas ever had much to do with the rise of real fascism, at least directly.

As a matter of intellectual history, it might be interesting to find out if some of the 19th century proto-fascist thinkers were influenced by Plato...guys like Spengler, Chamberlain, etc.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[che's long lost daughter]

If Redstar says so then it's the truth :D

[Fidelbrand]

Plato's realm of forms was brilliant,,, i think communism is the form that is accord & ordaned by nature to make meaningful progress in ANY aspects.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 03:37 AM
I think that Plato was very much what we would call a "proto-fascist"...though I doubt any of his ideas ever had much to do with the rise of real fascism, at least directly.

As a matter of intellectual history, it might be interesting to find out if some of the 19th century proto-fascist thinkers were influenced by Plato...guys like Spengler, Chamberlain, etc.

You can't just casually stroll through the thread and make a statement like that without backing it up.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 03:37 AM


As a matter of intellectual history, it might be interesting to find out if some of the 19th century proto-fascist thinkers were influenced by Plato...guys like Spengler, Chamberlain, etc.



They were influenced by German Idealism, especially Hegel. Plato is the father figure of philosophy, you can blame him on almost anything if you wish.

Once again I bring up historical context. Can you blame somebody who lived in Greece back then for fascism in Germany in the last century. The idea is absurd.

[redstar2000]

You can't just casually stroll through the thread and make a statement like that without backing it up.

Damn! :D

Ok, Plato did not simply advocate a despotism of "philosopher-kings" or a rigid caste system.

He thought that divisions in human societies were biological in origin...a concept at the very heart of modern fascist ideologies.

He advocated, in fact, a rather elaborate breeding scheme where people's mates would appear to be chosen in a random lottery...but the rulers would actually rig the lottery to insure that superiors mated only with superiors and inferiors mated only with inferiors.

He was also very "up-front" about the role of religion in preserving the social order. He invited the rulers to make up whatever myths they thought might be useful and propagate them as "divine revelation" to the inferiors. Goebbels himself couldn't have said it better.

The best critique of Plato (and Hegel!) that I've run into is Karl Popper's The Free Society and its Enemies (written during World War II). There's also a critique of Marx...but it's not so good.

However, Popper "slices & dices" Plato and Hegel so neatly and expertly that his book is nevertheless well worth reading.

And unlike most works about philosophy, it is written clearly and, indeed, elegantly.


Plato is the father figure of philosophy, you can blame him for almost anything if you wish.

True...it's been said that all of western philosophy is a 2,500 year dialog with Plato.

Nevertheless, his ideas were really awful...and he is still being taught as someone to "respect".

That's not good.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 04:08 PM
He thought that divisions in human societies were biological in origin...a concept at the very heart of modern fascist ideologies.

He advocated, in fact, a rather elaborate breeding scheme where people's mates would appear to be chosen in a random lottery...but the rulers would actually rig the lottery to insure that superiors mated only with superiors and inferiors mated only with inferiors.
This is true, but keep in mind the context... It was in keeping with the Greek quest for the 'ideal' man, who was the pinnacle of excellence and goodness; they didn't think that men who exhibited the qualities of moral excellence should be dragged down and lumped in with the rest of us slobs, but that the rest of us should strive to approach their level. He proceeded to devise a program of eugenics to acheive just that.

Not that I agree, but it isn't like he was saying, "These men are superior to you, you are destined to be their slaves." He was saying these men are the height of excellence, our society should strive to create a race of such men. Which does sound a bit like fascism, but if you tie in his educational programs and all around societal conditioning (poetry and drama which reflected truth and goodness) it could equally be argued that it is akin to the 'communist man' that would be molded in a communist society. Albeit a bit over the top (throwing illegitimate babies into the sea is a bit harsh).

Like most 2500 year old texts, it leaves a lot to interpretation.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

True...it's been said that all of western philosophy is a 2,500 year dialog with Plato.

Yup, they say all Western philosophy is a footnote to Plato which to some degree is true.


Nevertheless, his ideas were really awful...and he is still being taught as someone to "respect".

They dont teach his 'political ideas' anywhere, in fact any course on Plato's Republic focuses on the early part of the dialogue, the whole part about justice. Most people stop once we get into his whole ideal Republic scenario so need to worry. I have never heard of anybody ever taking his political ideas serious.

Most of his work is great Redstar, especially his showing of political and religious hypocrisy among the elites of Athens which is applicable to any society.

I would say with Plato the merits outweight the flaws enough for him to be indispensible to any academic insitution.

[redstar2000]

I have never heard of anybody ever taking his political ideas seriously.

The neo-despotic philosopher Leo Strauss took Plato's political ideas very seriously.

And, of course, the Bush regime is packed with...Straussians.

They really liked the part about "the noble lie".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[ComradeRed]

I think redstar2000 is correct, even if -supposing- Socrates was a Leninst, he doesn't have the aim of a classless society. So therefore, he must not be a leninist. Fascism is all most identical to Leninism, and its an easy mistake to confuse the two.

[STI]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 01:52 PM
Read him yourself or else just join the queue along with those who believe Nietzsche was a fascist of people who take second hand information for fact offhand.
Nietzsche WAS a fascist! The masses say so!

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

You mean the herd dont you...

[Wenty]

Geist you must get so tired of having to defend Nietzsche when you shouldn't have to!

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Yup!

[percept¡on]

I'm gonna make a thread about pancakes in this forum just to see if ya'll can find a way to bring Nietzsche into the discussion.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Pancake is dead.

[imperator]

Plato is the disciple of Socrates.

Here is a summary of the ideal state proposed by Socrates in ancient greece, long before lenin or marx or che.

(from the Republic of Plato)
All quotes directly from "Masterpeices of World Philosophy"


"Socrates claims that the just man, provided he has knowledge, can rule both himself and others, and that the concern for the just man is for himself alone."

I agree with this because it is logical that a just, wise man is the best ruler. He will place his people before himself and will be just, but will be able to make a decision for the greater good even if it is not truly just, because wisdom says one cannot always be fair and do what is right.

"To clarify the idea of justice and to prove its worth, Socrates leads a discussion concerning justice in the state; he constructs the idea of an ideal state, one which exhibits justice.
Any state needs guardians (rulers), auxilliaries (soldiers), and workers; each class does its proper business without interfering with the others; analogously, the just man is one in whom the three elements of his nature - the rational, the spirited, and the appetitive- are harmonized.
The ideal republic is one in which classes are carefully built up by controlled breeding, education, and selection; society is communized in order to eliminate quarrels about personal property.
The guardians of the state should be educated as philosophers, having been prepared by training in music and gymnastic."


quite simply, i wholeheartedly agree with Socrates' ideal state. It makes perfect sense and a Wise People would embrace such a society (even if they had to make small personal sacrifices.)
unfortunately, we are not a very Wise People.
that is not to say that this cannot be changed.

[redstar2000]

"Socrates claims that the just man, provided he has knowledge, can rule both himself and others, and that the concern for the just man is for himself alone."

First of all, you should be aware of the fact that we have little direct knowledge of what Socrates "claimed". Like "Jesus", Socrates wrote no books himself...and many scholars suggest that Plato put his own words into the mouth of Socrates (who, being dead, could not protest).

This was a common practice in classical times...to write something and then put some famous dead guy's name on it so that people would read it and take it seriously.

So it is really Plato who is claiming that "the just man...can rule both himself and others".


I agree with this because it is logical that a just, wise man is the best ruler. He will place his people before himself and will be just, but will be able to make a decision for the greater good even if it is not truly just, because wisdom says one cannot always be fair and do what is right.

You should reconsider your "agreement".

How do we know that someone who wants to rule us is "a just man"?

Just because he says so? Many have made such a claim...all such claims, upon closer examination, have been utterly demolished.

I think Plato was talking about something that cannot exist in the real world (he liked to do that a lot!). There's really no such thing as "a just man"...there are only real, living people with various material interests who will act to further those interests as best they comprehend them.

A capitalist thinks it is "just" that he should be rich while millions are poor. The poor have a different concept of "justice".

Neither view is abstractly "right" or "wrong"...your decision depends on where you find yourself actually living, among the rich or among the poor.


Quite simply, I wholeheartedly agree with Socrates' ideal state.

Perhaps...but you'd hate living in it!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[imperator]

tut tut my friend.



So it is really Plato who is claiming that "the just man...can rule both himself and others".


what makes you so sure? were you there? perhaps you've invented a time machine?

the most reliable source we have says socrates said that.
quite a bit more reliable than you, one would think ;), as Plato was actually alive.


How do we know that someone who wants to rule us is "a just man"?

Just because he says so? Many have made such a claim...all such claims, upon closer examination, have been utterly demolished.


We don't know that. But finding a just , wise, and intelligent leader should be the goal of a society. (Or, such a man should be trained for the job at birth)




Quite simply, I wholeheartedly agree with Socrates' ideal state.



Perhaps...but you'd hate living in it!

again, how would you know?


:)

[V.I.Lenin]

Was Plato a proto-communist? - No.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 05:05 AM
Fascism is all most identical to Leninism, and its an easy mistake to confuse the two.
Are you planning to back this up?

[redstar2000]

The most reliable source we have says Socrates said that. Quite a bit more reliable than you, one would think, as Plato was actually alive.

You're new to this history stuff, aren't you?

Believe me or not as you wish; the consensus of the folks who've actually studied this stuff is that the only authentic words of Socrates were in Plato's account of the trial and execution of the man.

All the rest of the stuff Plato attributes to Socrates was actually Plato's own ideas.

Sorry about that.


But finding a just, wise, and intelligent leader should be the goal of a society. (Or, such a man should be trained for the job at birth)

Who would be qualified to "train" such a person? There are no "just men" (or "just women" either) in the real world. How are unjust people supposed to "train" someone to be "just"?

And why this gasping thirst for a "leader", anyway? You don't trust people collectively to figure out the best things to do? You don't trust yourself to figure things out?

We're all fucked unless there's some "wise despot" to tell us what to do? And punish us if we disobey?


Again, how would you know?

Because you are presumably human and nearly all humans hate living in despotisms...except despots, of course.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[ComradeRed]

Are you planning to back this up?

Simple, look into the OI and watch them rave, rant, and maunder about how communism=fascism. Naturally, these ignoramuses don't understand that it wasn't communism but leninism. You see, they mistook leninism for fascism! Need I say more? ;)

[imperator]

You're new to this history stuff, aren't you?

Believe me or not as you wish; the consensus of the folks who've actually studied this stuff is that the only authentic words of Socrates were in Plato's account of the trial and execution of the man.

All the rest of the stuff Plato attributes to Socrates was actually Plato's own ideas.

Sorry about that.



are you fucking daft


im not "New" to this history stuff, or at least i'm as new as the rest of us. history itself would take more than a human life time to get properly acquainted to . so yes, i am new, but so are you.

"the consensus of the folks who've actually studied this stuff"

are you among these?
again, how do they know for sure? what evidence is there for this? just because Plato agreed with his master's ideas doesn't mean he wrote them himself.
maybe the reason Socrates didn't write is because he thought Plato was more worthy of the task. (the general usually doesn't lead the charge.)


Who would be qualified to "train" such a person? There are no "just men" (or "just women" either) in the real world. How are unjust people supposed to "train" someone to be "just"?

And why this gasping thirst for a "leader", anyway? You don't trust people collectively to figure out the best things to do? You don't trust yourself to figure things out?

We're all fucked unless there's some "wise despot" to tell us what to do? And punish us if we disobey?[/b]

yes. we are. there are alot of stupid people in human society that do stupid things. there are also alot of selfish people that take advantage of others.

people need leaders.

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 05:36 PM
yes. we are. there are alot of stupid people in human society that do stupid things. there are also alot of selfish people that take advantage of others.

people need leaders.
How very paternalistic and reactionary of you.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 07:36 AM

just because Plato agreed with his master's ideas doesn't mean he wrote them himself.
maybe the reason Socrates didn't write is because he thought Plato was more worthy of the task. (the general usually doesn't lead the charge.)


Actually Socrates didn't believe in writing philosophy down, he thought it should be discussed orally

[monkeydust]

Actually Socrates didn't believe in writing philosophy down, he thought it should be discussed orally

How do you know that? Did he write it down for you?!?

[imperator]

no , he got it from another [/I]written[I] source.

which i assume he trusts more than plato.

[Pete]

In the various works of Plato that I have read, as well as other platonic dialogues and essays, it is obvious that Plato was an aristocrat. Philosophy can only exist in such a state, and only the few could ever learn it. All others who tried at philosophy would either become like the sophists or depressed and angry. When he said that kings should become philosophers, and philosophers kings, as well as all the 'communistic' proposals (I believe in Book VII of the Republic) it is quite obvious that he is mocking the ideas, that he is saying that this ideal state of justice cannot exist. His society could not accept the ideas he proposed. And he most definitely knew this.

That was brief, but even briefer, the answer is: NO.

Hobbes was closer to being 'proto-communist' with his idea of the commonwealth and the sovriegn (which is the Actor for the Authors, ie the general population who willed the sovriegn into being... and the sovriegn can come in any form. A commune could be its own commonwealth with the assumed unwritten rules guiding it the sovriegn powers needed for peace and the quest for felicity.).

[monkeydust]

Hobbes was closer to being 'proto-communist' with his idea of the commonwealth and the sovriegn (which is the Actor for the Authors, ie the general population who willed the sovriegn into being... and the sovriegn can come in any form. A commune could be its own commonwealth with the assumed unwritten rules guiding it the sovriegn powers needed for peace and the quest for felicity.).

Thomas Hobbes a Communist? Are we thinking of the same Hobbes?

I'd say he was perhaps even less so than Plato. Hobbes claimed that any kind of political authority was preferable to none at all. He also, essentially, supported the Mnarchy (though he might have also exchanged it for some kind of democratic assembly, provided it was vested with equal authority and power to rule).

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 09:32 PM
no , he got it from another [/I]written[I] source.

which i assume he trusts more than plato.
actually I got it from plato ;)

and I have verified its authenticity by the fact that no one has ever found a single manuscript written by Socrates. If you have one maybe you can send me the .pdf and make a liar out of Plato.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 11:05 PM

Hobbes was closer to being 'proto-communist' with his idea of the commonwealth and the sovriegn (which is the Actor for the Authors, ie the general population who willed the sovriegn into being... and the sovriegn can come in any form. A commune could be its own commonwealth with the assumed unwritten rules guiding it the sovriegn powers needed for peace and the quest for felicity.).
You are insane.

Hobbes believed that humans need to be kept in check by a Leviathan, a sovereign body with supreme power to dictate every aspect of their lives.

And he also made it clear that the laws of the commonwealth must be WRITTEN, UNDERSTOOD by all, and ENFORCED with the harshest punishments.

The people don't 'will the sovereign into being'; Hobbes proposed that they trade their freedom for his unchecked power because freedom for humans is an unbearable state.

[Pete]

I am not insane, I actually have read the text. Perhaps you should too?

I didn't say Hobbes was a communist, I said he was closer to it than Plato was. Hobbes believed that everyone was fundamentally equal, Plato didn't. (A point I should have used before.)

[monkeydust]

and I have verified its authenticity by the fact that no one has ever found a single manuscript written by Socrates. If you have one maybe you can send me the .pdf and make a liar out of Plato.


I couldn't resist the pedantry.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as sure as you are that Socrates never wrote his philosophy down.

What I'm questioning is how you purport to know why he didn't do this. Surely any thoughts about his motives are mere conjecture if we have no verifiable account of his own personal thoughts.


Hobbes believed that everyone was fundamentally equal, Plato didn't.

At best, Hobbes believed in the formal equality of all men. In practice, this only meant that each man was "born equal" or "equal in the eyes of God". It did not encompass any notion of redistribution of wealth, that poverty was undesirable nor did it cite that equality of opportunity should be encouraged.

[Pete]

Indeed, but that was not what I was arguing.

[PRC-UTE]

it's true, imperiator, there is near universal conscensus that Plato "filled in the blanks", or editorialized, at the very least. We don't know what socrates really said.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Who cares; Plato/Socrates. They are just names, faces carved in stone. What's important is their work.