Laying the Groundwork
This discourse will navigate the shared terrains and divergent paths in the political philosophies of Plato and Marx, shedding light on the subtle elements of communism embedded within the teachings of the Academy’s founder, but also drawing attention to profound disparities. After all, Plato’s “Republic” stands as one of the most intricately woven utopias of ancient philosophy.
The Everlasting Riddle of the “Republic”
Plato’s “Republic,” arguably his most renowned work, has persistently featured in countless academic syllabi crafted over the decades. Yet, the diverse interpretations it spawns remain strikingly nebulous. The gamut of biases and shifts influencing the acclaim of “Republic” intriguingly serves to bond us, fueling our curiosity to decipher the wisdom of one of antiquity’s greatest philosophers.
This, above all, propels us to dig deep into the core of this seminal work, a sphere far beyond the realm of political philosophy.
Plato’s dialogues are captivating invitations to participate, mostly in quests for eternal truths. A standout feature of Plato, setting him apart from his contemporaries, is the evasive nature of his ideas and philosophical musings – rarely are they explicit or systematized.
Rather, Plato’s thoughts are relayed via dialogues, following the Socratic method of inquiry and using literary vignettes where he narrates dialogues between two or more characters, yet he remains a silent observer. This narrative technique with multiple voices lends itself to interpretation, presenting an exciting conundrum.
In stark contrast, Marx’s oeuvre, placing him as the chief theoretician of socialist thought, offers a definitive resolution to the issue of the working class’s deplorable living conditions – a problem he and Engels squarely attributed to the bourgeoisie. Marx’s major works, laden with detailed analyses, were primarily aimed at finding ways to surmount various economic challenges. This crucial aspect is often overlooked or dismissed by many delving into the works of thinkers from millennia past.
Naturally, this suggests that studying Marx may be more accessible, given that we can evaluate the practical outcomes borne out in historically communist or socialist nations. Nonetheless, this should not deter us. As Descartes so wisely pointed out, the importance lies in assessing “that which is so clear and distinct to the mind that it can engender no doubt”.
Parallels and Divergences in Plato’s and Marx’s Political Ideologies
If the “Republic” is perceived as an embodiment of perfect harmony, where morality becomes integral to the political framework, Marx takes a decisive stand in favor of tangible, existing communism rather than an abstract possibility. This clear stance prompts Marx to champion radical shifts in eternal truths, religion, and morality, believing they must be uprooted because “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles,” morphing differently in varying epochs.
This vision distinguished Marx from his contemporaries, as he primarily focused on pragmatic solutions that would wrest capital from the bourgeoisie. The capital problem, that is, the proletariat’s subjugation by the bourgeoisie, is at the heart of the “Communist Manifesto,” revealing the first striking similarity between Marx and Plato.
In the opening book of “Republic,” primarily centered on justice, Cephalus contends that “wealth alone, without wisdom, could never make old age easier.” Within these initial pages, we encounter the sophist Thrasymachus, part of a cadre of itinerant scholars who lectured for money, a practice Plato and many of his philosophical peers regarded with contempt.
Socrates’s confrontation with Thrasymachus serves as an excellent precursor to the portrayal of ideal altruistic leadership. Despite an apparent elitist structure, those wielding power (the guardians) would need to dedicate themselves wholly to communal benefit, implying a necessary sacrifice of material possessions.
This renunciation also encompasses private property, a cornerstone of Marx’s most famous works. However, the topic of state hierarchy presents another substantial divergence between the two thinkers.
In “Republic,” Plato meticulously outlines a clear hierarchical state structure. Conversely, Marx, in his seminal work “Capital,” elucidates his vision of salvation through communal ownership, devoid of a specific hierarchy, for a nation’s progress.
In this extensive work, composed over 30 years, Marx enumerates compelling reasons why an economic system bolstering individuals cannot endure while authorities constantly favor capitalists amassing colossal fortunes, as workers descend deeper into destitution.
Yet, due to the clearly defined hierarchy in the “Republic,” private property would not apply universally. Plato permits private ownership for certain societal classes, given that it’s under state regulation. This sharply contrasts with Marx’s call for the total abolition of private property. The three classes of citizens within an ideal state would encompass the productive workers, the auxiliaries, and the rulers.
The productive workers, forming the population’s majority, encompass farmers, artisans, unskilled laborers, entrepreneurs, artists, contractors, service providers, and professionals in various vocations. Auxiliaries include military personnel and law enforcers. The relatively small ruling class comprises those best qualified to govern due to their wisdom, dedication, and integrity in serving and protecting the state’s best interests.
Addressing women’s roles in an ideally organized state reveals similarities between Marx and Plato. The “Communist Manifesto” dedicates a section to Marx and Engels’s aspiration for women’s improved status, including their views on marriage’s annulment, presenting it as one of the criticisms leveled against their political ideology by capitalists. Marx contends that only by unequivocally rejecting capitalism can women’s rights be enhanced.
On the other hand, “Republic” offers complex solutions when juxtaposed with contemporary feminist viewpoints, or even socialist feminism originating in the 19th century’s mid-1800s. Notably, women could serve as “guardians,” requiring the relinquishment of their private property, consequently leading to the marriage’s dissolution due to shared responsibility.
Moreover, rulers’ involvement in economic activities would detract from their duty to justice, or serve the people by maintaining a class-based social order. For Plato, family and property were the primary catalysts for discord and social tensions. In this light, Plato’s version of “communism” manifests as both ascetic and aristocratic.
Synthesizing the Confluence and Dissonance in the Philosophies of Plato and Marx
The temporal divide between the lives of these two philosophers in no way suggests their philosophies are an identical melange. Contrasting, analyzing, and incorporating prior research in interpreting their works is a pivotal marker of philosophical evolution.
In his seminal work “History of Western Philosophy,” Bertrand Russell intricately weaves Plato’s utopia with 19th-century nation-states and their governance, further underscoring this methodology’s significance. A unified interpretation of the founder of the Academy and the leading proponent of socialist thought is also critical in the maturation of political discourse. With the advantage of hindsight, the shortcomings in Plato and Marx’s philosophies have been subjected to vehement criticism.
Comparing them in this domain is challenging due to the eras in which they were conceived. For instance, it’s not difficult to fault Plato for a semblance of eugenics. Marx was cognizant of certain criticisms from the bourgeoisie towards his political ideology. However, the potential pitfalls of practically applying Marxism in particular countries were highlighted by numerous intellectuals, and Marx’s political vision considerably dwindled in popularity with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
Notably, Slavoj Žižek stated that while he is fundamentally anti-capitalist, a greater degree of caution is required when instituting such radical changes, primarily because all alternative solutions to capitalism experienced significant failures in the 20th century. Nevertheless, following the victory of neoliberal capitalism, many activist movements have reignited interest in Marx’s radical ideologies.
This naturally leads to the question: Was Marx correct? While there isn’t a single definitive answer to this, statistics can provide insights into capitalism’s effect on contemporary society. A few years back, over 85% of the total wealth was held by a mere tenth of the global population.
Unquestionably, such a fact would have appalled Plato, given his aforementioned concept of the guardian’s role.
Does this automatically signify the imminent implosion of capitalism, as Marx might suggest? Not necessarily. Since the Industrial Revolution, and notably in the past three decades, over a billion people have improved their financial status, no longer residing in extreme poverty.
Jim Yong Kim, former World Bank president, opined that the poverty issue could be resolved by 2030, given an increase in investments to create jobs for those with the least purchasing power.
Thus, economic challenges continue to escalate, ensuring Marx’s ideas will remain pertinent, irrespective of capitalism’s dominance. Would a reversion to eternal truths and morality effect change? Could that facet of Plato’s utopia bring about sweeping transformations in the perception of the state or, more realistically, the global community? Certainly, even contemplating their breadth is what expands our philosophical horizons.