Laurentius

AVE


Invited to a talk-show where the issue of NATO accepting new European members was under discussion, a Russian diplomat was recently claiming the superiority of dictatorship over democracy. Here are some of his assertions (the quotes are approximate):

“Plato, in his Republic, was not proposing a democratic state as the perfect city, but a dictatorship, although he himself was the fruit of the ancient Greek democracy.”

“Democracy is superior over dictatorship only from a limited, individual point of view.”

“Nations experience great accumulations and gain the awe of other peoples only in times of dictatorship or authoritarian regimes.”

“I am in favor of a Gemeinschaft-like social order, where both the nation and the individuals can benefit from the spirit of communion, while I resent Gesellschaft-like societies, where extreme individualism and competition destroy the relations between people and weaken the state.”

Looking for these two terms, I found that, developed by the German sociologist Ferdinand Tonnies, they represented two opposed ideal types of society. Gemeinschaft is the social system in which most relationships between people are personal and/or traditional, based on kinship, informal, sentimental and general. Gesellschaft is the social system in which these relationships are impersonal, utilitarian, specialized and defined through written contracts.

I thought for a while and realized that Plato’s world in The Republic does seem to resemble Gemeinschaft. And the Russian’s words were still ringing in my ears:

“Social orders alternate. Gemeinschaft was long ago replaced by Gesellschaft. Now Gesellaschaft is finally dying, and I think we should prepare for Gemeinschaft again.”

Who would like to live in Plato’s Republic?

AVE

John Page

If the alternative was, say, Europe under Hitler, me.

Clearly, in the right context, the Soviet General's remark could be right.

I would offer that it is very relevant to examine the relationship between the state and the individual, rather than the aspect of individual relationships you discuss. The benefits of individual freedom that democratic forms of government bring are demonstrable, whereas rigid lives under dictatorship surely are constrained like ants in a colony. An army of ants, however, can wreak significant destuction.

Cheers, John

Laurentius

AVE


John Page

<John Page> If the alternative was, say, Europe under Hitler, me.

<Laurentius> Sure, an open-minded tyrant, instead of a narrow-minded one.

<John Page> I would offer that it is very relevant to examine the relationship between the state and the individual, rather than the aspect of individual relationships you discuss.

<Laurentius> However, I do believe that close relationships between society memebers is a sign that there is a strict hierarchy within the group. Authoritarianism even. Romans were enjoying so much freedom and detachment from both the state and one another, that they did not have to fight against the enemies threatening the existence of their empire. And this is the reason why they were vanquished. It's another well-known argument (actually, now that I remember, it was the first) that the Soviet-minded guy made use of.

AVE

abe smith

Un UNGH! I wdn't want to live under ANYfink "Platonic". Damn fantasist!

AtlanticCitySlave

I'd like to live in Hefner's mansion.

emphryio

I like the idea of communism only for the leaders.
(Which despite some misunderstandings, is what Plato seems to be talking about, I think.)

Also Plato is assuming the group of "dictators" will have been trained for the first 50 years of their life before they will rule. I assume this means they will ideally rule quite well. If such a system wasn't corrupted, it would of course be better than democracy.

Of course, democracy is the least easily corruptible system, etc, etc.

I would prefer to live in a non-corrupted version of Plato's republic, if I'm remembering the major points of his republic.

One major reservation concerns music. Plato talked about outlawing music? or having the state control it? That would silly.

Laurentius

AVE

abe smith

<abe smith> Un UNGH! I wdn't want to live under ANYfink "Platonic". Damn fantasist!

<Laurentius> Yet, in his Republic, Plato tried to be somehow practical. I read once that some sect organized on principles from Plato’s Republic showed such cohesion that it proved quite impossible to penetrate or annihilate.

AVE

Laurentius

AVE

emphryio

<emphryio> I like the idea of communism only for the leaders.

<Laurentius> C’mon, you can’t be serious.

<emphryio> If such a system wasn't corrupted, it would of course be better than democracy.

<Laurentius> Plato’s organization reminds me of some kind of corporatism, which will necessary lead to corruption (supported by the rigid hierarchy and absence of public control).

<emphryio> I would prefer to live in a non-corrupted version of Plato's republic.

<Laurentius> The only non-corrupted form of it would only be Heaven, if such thing existed.

AVE

emphryio

I think it depends upon what type of people are living in this republic. Would you agree that it could work if a person of great wisdom had the ability to "read minds" and go around the world handpicking prospective citizens? (Not neccessarily talking about future generations, just the short term.)

Or am I describing a type of heaven?

If you just arbitrarily grabbed a bunch of people, yes it would certainly be corrupted.

Bill

From <a href="http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/democrcy.html" target="_blank">The Encyclopedia Americana</a> comes this quote: I can only agree with Churchill.....

== Bill