What do you think of the classic philosophical texts which developed into Western philosophy as we know it? In the Republic, Plato clearly advocated for a militarized state ruled by a class of guardians skilled in combat and gymnastics. He argued for a socialistic view of roles within a community, each producing their own share and consuming what they need from each other. He also argued for censorship of intellectuals, fashioning works into moral texts very similar to the socialist realism tendencies advocated by György Lukács and exemplified during the Soviet Union. From Plato what does Marx owe philosophically, and how much can Marx take credit for original thought in the context of western philosophy? This does not mean to be explicit criticism but rather constructive inquiry.
Plato’s Republic and philosophy before Marx
Military juntas and socialist realism have nothing to do with Marx.
That's ok. They're good things anyways
Do you know why you find similarity in Plato and Marx, because both advocate socialism, but let me tell you the difference.
Plato, and his teacher, Socrates, was living in the period of Athenian tribe dissolution, where private property began to erode every corner of society. The "Athenian democracy" now we celebrate, was nothing but the democracy of owners of private property, who demanded the opinion of "normal man" (who actually were mainly rich men, and the mobs they hired) to be equivalent to the opinion of elders in the tribe. Plato belonged to the class of aristocrats in tribe, and Republic was nothing but his attempt to reform the old communal tribe society to the new mode of production. That's why Plato was noble in his idea, but at the same time, reactionary and doomed to failed.
Socrates died, trying do oppose Athenian democracy. Plato and Aristotle were exiled, that was the fate of them. Medieval society can only appropriate the idealistic philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, but cannot do the same with their political idea, because it's too reactionary. Similar thing happen to Confucius in the East.
And the father of ancient Diamat, Heraclitus was even more extreme than Plato and Socrates. He rejected the new society totally, living as a hermit. Funny, the same thing also happen to Laozi, the father of dialectic thought in China.
Plato hated democracy, thought it was the worst possible system. In the Republic he argues for a system where everyone would be fulfilling their innate purpose, this purpose to be recognised by Philosopher Kings. Most people think PK's would have power in the classic sense, but all they could do is assign jobs to people, which is pretty powerful in and of itself. They would also take care of diplomacy. The Auxiliaries, next on the hierarchy, would be charged with defense and keeping the order. Below them would be various Necessary and Unnecessary Workers. People would be educated to the level that is necessary for them, PK's the most, then Aux, then the rest. Social mobility would be non-existent, once a Worker always a Worker, your offspring though could be born for any position. So no, Plato doesn't advocate for socialism at all.
Precious little. Marx flat out rejected Plato's Theory of Forms, and his focus on determining truth through observation of the matrerial world was developed by Plato's philosophical opponents.
I suppose so if you happen to enjoy the taste of boot leather.
Anarkiddies are so predictable.
Not even an anarchist. You are, however, a boot-licking bitch.
by direct consequence you're saying shit like military juntas are inherent to a state
Betch please. You don’t know me.
According to Plato in an advanced state there would be merchants and some sort of wage labourers. I don't remember him totally rejecting these things. Communal living is only enforced for Auxiliaries and Philosopher Kings.
*I don't remember him totally rejecting these things totally
Marx was an anarchist btw
Yes, I think you’re correct. He only really delineates society as propertyless and communal for the guardians. They are rigidly subject to rules regarding procreation as well. Plato unfortunately only establishes centralized planning for them and doesn’t talk about anyone else. Honestly, I think this is due to limiting the scope to key arguments he tries to make rather than any neglect for the others.
If we're talking about praxis Marx was closest to a socdem today.
It's true, the bootlickers believe that this is good if the right foot is in the boot.
Correct. That's why I said it was updated to the mode of production, to allow for some form of private production. Tribalism with private production, i say
First, socialism are not democracy. Democracy is the form of government, not economic method.
Second, Plato hated Athenian democracy. What is the Athenian democracy in essence? It is the system where everyone vote and opinion are equals, that's means the new class of private proprietors can have the same right as elder tribal leaders. That's a no no with Plato. In the old day tribal society, everything is discuss in public, but the decision makers are always elders and leaders. Everyone can contribute his opinion in planning process, but when it is executed, the leaders will decide what should we do, who do this, who do that and so on. Plato system basically an upgraded version of this, but with a distrust of private owners and workers, he excluded them from the decision making. Don't apply your modern lens on Plato, place yourselves as a ancient person and try to understand the class position of each one. For reference, please also read about the hunting and gathering societies: des.ucdavis.edu
Plato system was based on late stage Tribalism
And this early tribal society: psychologytoday.com
It was more democratic and egalitarian, but even then, don't expect to talk against the community freely like in modern times.
The same tribes that were noted by anthropologists to be warm, fun-loving and always smiling, also routinely and remorselessly killed their elderly women, girls, disabled children, or children who were deemed to be weird and annoying.
And you have a problem with this why?
Because of my white male colonial gaze, duh.
Oh well in that case, carry on. Gas the kids!
My hypothesis is that at the early stage of tribal society, the kinship was quite good, but at later stage of society, the relationship became much more violent. Had you read about Genghis Khan, he killed his half-brother over a dispute when he was a kid, his mother was very angry for the fact that he was killing the his kins when the family was already small. It showed that violence in later stage of tribal society is a problem.
If you have time, consider watching Genghis Khan drama made by Chinese. Of course it is the view of modern people, but the Chinese had excellent recorded history and also the life in Inner Mongolia is still somewhat nomadic, this film give a lot insight on people living during later Tribalism.
Both observations from contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes and archaeological findings indicate that deadly violence is and was rife among them.
The real question to me then seems not; what object introduced all this deadly violence? But instead; what object caused it to become so much less of an occurrence?
Given the allmightyness they ascribe to it, the answer to this question from a leftist position would logically be, the capitalist system.
I'll check it out if you give me a link. Though I'd be way of terms like "later Tribalism", as it conveys the notions that there are two kinds of people, namely sociologists and the homo sapiens they study.
Violence is a normal thing in ancient society, I don't think it's bad or good by itself. For agriculture and industrial (the so call civilization), it is a bad because it will disrupt the production process, so I don't attribute it to capitalist or socialist at all. Modern society is full of deception, but will I attributed it to capitalist? No of course not, I think the problem in our society is not because of capitalist system, but because of the obsolete of the capitalist system. That's why what I understand from Marxist ideology.
And here is it, it is a good film: youtube.com
There are reasons that even small communities, in a social vacuum due to isolation, almost categorically condemn murder. It comes from innate psychological responses to murder that condemn the practice. Natural instincts beyond our ability to discern through reason alone. Animal instincts.
I'm sure you enjoy the taste of rubber dick the same way, anarkiddie faggot.
Imagine a world where the autistic are killed instead of being given an internet connection.
KEK, yeah, it couldn't possibly come from people deciding that indescriminate murder is undesirable.
"Later tribalism" is not an anthropological category. I don't know where he is getting it.
It’s like repulsion at maggots or the smell of rotting meat. It’s biological impulse.
"Natural morality" is the lizard brain apparently.
But some tribes are eating maggots tho, cultural conditioning stronk.
And some people have cannibalized other humans. The exceptions don’t make the rule.
Either there is a natural morality or there is not.
If you try to elaborate an universal rule you can't tolerate exceptions or your rule can't be universal by definition.
It’s a matter of nature versus nurture. By nature humans are opposed to indicators of death of their own kind, spoilage of food and rot and decay (funeral rites across the world). However, if they are raised in an environment that celebrates murder or something akin to that, they will develop a tolerance for it. That does not invalidate a theory of natural disposition against things. You used the term natural morality, not me. It’s less morality than it is a biological predisposition against certain repulsive behaviors.
Tell me, how would this theory of yours be falsifiable?
You mean testable? I don’t know, you figure it out.
No, falsifiable. What would theoretically disprove the theory?
If cannibalism and murder were much more widespread phenomena than they are. Also, if the majority of states did not have laws against murder.
How wide-spread? What is the quantitative point at which the supposed qualitative reality of universal instinct would be rightly determined to be false? You don't get how this whole "theory" thing works, do you?
What does the law–this concept that was not applied to human behavior until Hammurabi–have to do with it? It is obviously not a function of any natural human instinct, as it is not universal.
USSR is the ideal Plato's state. Lenin, Statlin - philosophers, new "faith" for state etc.