Plato's state - good or bad concept?

Question

This is a Q for all those familliar to Plato's view of how a state should be run. I wish to hear pros and cons to some of his, to some, controversial suggestions. And the biggest question - if found good, how to apply it to modern states?

Answer 1

In the piece Plato: the Rule of the Wise, Plato unveils his idealist view for human society. Although he makes good points at constructing a better world, overall Plato’s ideals for a perfect human society are completley unrealistic. Plato seems to set up a class system in which there are three classes where the philosophers seem to have the most power. Although education does seem to be the best way towards knowledge Plato leaves very little room for movement in this class system and completley neglects room for disagreement.

Plato speaks at great length about the exact position proper to the lower classes, and the necessity that each group keeps to its place (Republic, 434c). Each group must do only its job, and must not aspire to the position of a higher group. Plato warns strictly against “miscegenation” - the possibility of different groups mating. In Plato’s ideal society, one’s position in life is determined not by one’s individual characteristics, but by one’s membership in a group (Republic, 441d-e). This group-specificity is also a component of oppression.

The true nature of Plato’s ideal society will be invisible to the masses. They will not see that the system is rigged to keep them in their place. They will never receive the education necessary to think critically and see the truth about the state. As long as the producer classes remain unaware of their oppression, they will not revolt. Naturally, Plato does not plan on the producer classes ever finding out.

Answer 2

Most agree that Plato's blueprint of a state is probably not a practicable one. But if it had nothing to say in spite of this, it would not still be talked about even now, would it? So let's find some of the kernels of truth in there.

Where Plato does well at hitting the mark is in addressing many of the things a society must have to run well. Every nation needs a military. Every one has some kind of ruling body. And no nation would go far without a lot of production. Voila! We have his three classes. Likewise, it is easy to see that we would ideally want people suited to these roles to serve in them and that they should want to perform these roles and not step outside of them.

Part of where he makes people nervous is in his overt identification of tools that most people prefer to think their governements don't use. Like propaganda and censorship. These are a bit of a red herring: there is nothing intrinsically wrong with self-promotion, nor is there much unappealing about preventing certain kinds of damaging speech. Every nation must draw the line somewhere... Plato unfortunately draws it WAY on the side of the government. I think a bit unnecessarily so. But this is not too critical a flaw.

It is some of the other freedoms the Plato restricts that draw a lot more ire. Neither the philosophers nor the guardians, for example, are not permitted to own property to any great degree. There is a practical reason for this - guardians cannot abuse their physical power and philosophers their intellectual and social power for gains if such gains would immediately be noticed and taken away. I think he has a good point. Would we have any corrupt politicians if they could never profit from their corruption?

Still, it's hard to imagine living in such an economic state. Plato felt that it would be no loss to the members of those classes - anyone who lusted for gold instead of honour or learning shouldn't be anything but a provider anyway. This would probably also be his defense to the charge that people did not have the freedom to choose their profession - he would say that he is only getting them to do what their nature already would cause them to be inclined towards.

Nor is his model of society so restrictive as his critics make it seem. There are, after all, a multitude of things one can do in the military, or in the world of business, or in a university. It should not really be a torment for anyone 'trapped' in one of those environments to find some role for himself he is happy with. Nor are the classes as fenced in as some make them sound... but this creates even worse problems. Namely:

The one facet that seems to go the most against human nature is the reassignment of children and control of reproduction. It would be hard for any state to prevent different classes of people from interbreeding in any way, or to come between a child an their parents. I understand some of why Plato wants to do these things (What soldier could turn on his countrymen if any of them could be his brother or sister? What enemy could stand against a man bred to fight or think as dogs have been bred for specific purposes? Aren't aggressive children of thinkers or thoughtful children of workers doomed to unhappiness?) and though they are powerful reasons, I suspect that parental and breeding instinct produced by millennia of evolution might be even more powerful. Though it is possible his republic might persist without these pieces, the classes would quickly become indistinct from each other and there would be no valid reason to maintain them. This, if anything, is the fatal flaw in his plan.

But who knows? If we ever got enough people to buy into it, it might be interesting to see an attempt. Whether or not you agree with his solutions, the problems he observes are certainly still around. That's my take anyway, for what it's worth.