Cretinist

While reading The Republic, specifically the part regarding his political system, I could only think that it does make a great deal of sense...if you're an elitist who thinks you should be in charge of everyone else's lives.

I definitely would not want to live in that society.

[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: Cretinist ]</p>

emphryio

Well maybe I have some misunderstandings of his system. Anyway, if you could handpick the individuals who wouldn't corrupt such a system, then why not apply the same concept to any system? If you apply the same concept to any system, they would all work (well maybe almost all) pretty well. So it's a rather meaningless point to make.

And you come back to... The most important quality of a political system is the degree to which it is or isn't corruptible.

This would be some form of democracy.

Laurentius

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.

The type of people that should inhabit the perfect world communism describes does not exist. Marx’s ideal social order project starts from the absolute idea that justly settling the economic aspect of reality is enough to institute heaven on earth – i.e. a classless society consisting of people endowed with immaculate fully-grown consciences.

Plato himself, in his Republic, is not interested in the most idyllic city one could think of, but in the best sort of society that can prove feasible, that is applicable to the conditions of a living community and to the nature of man. Unlike Plato’s plan, which I’ve heard has been successfully applied by some sects, the communist project has always been a chimera.

AVE