from Zeitlin, Irving M. Rulers and Ruled: An Introduction to Classical Political Theory from Plato to the Federalists. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1997.
Plato
The central question Plato set himself in the Republic was
this: What is a good individual, and how is such an individual
formed? To Plato, it was obvious that an individual could be
made good only through membership in a good society. Hence,
the first question presupposed a second:
What is a good
society?—or, on the foundations of what principles is a good
society formed?
In one of its important aspects the Republic is a polemic
directed against the sophists who argued from nature that ‘might
is right.’ Laws of morality, from their standpoint, were not more
than arbitrary conventions, which had to be destroyed to make
way for rule of nature where the strong and superior rule the
weak and inferior. In opposition to this view Plato wants to argue
that the laws of morality are in fact rooted in the nature of the
universe and in the nature of human soul. In an earlier dialogue
we hear a sophist named Callicles insisting that no truly strong
and superior individual would enter politics and assume the
responsibilities of a ruler if he could not gain materially and
otherwise from his position of power in the state.
Plato, therefore, takes it upon himself the task of proving
rationally that a state should no longer be the field for the selfsatisfaction of the ruler. A state, Plato avers, should rather be the
organism of which the ruler is a part and in which he fulfills a
vital function. The good society should demand from its rulers
that they sacrifice their personal ends to the interests of the
general welfare.
For Plato, both oligarchy and democracy were defective.
Athenian democracy was fundamentally flawed in that it allowed
ignorance to reign in politics. Statesmanship, like any art or craft,
required knowledge and expertise. Yet in Athens any man,
whatever his background and experience, might be elected to
office by the chance of the lot. This was not only a misguided and
false equality, it was also unjust. For justice, in Plato’s view
meant that every individual should do the work for which he is
best suited by his capacities. Everything has its proper function.
Hence, anyone who attempts to govern others when at best he is
fit only to be an artisan is doubly unjust; for he not only fails to
do his own work, but he also prevents the properly qualified
individual from doing his.
But oligarchy also had its distinctive flaws—a rampant
egoism that prompted individuals to seek offices of state in order
to wield power for their own selfish purposes. Every oligarchical
city was divided into two hostile camps of rich and poor,
oppressors and oppressed. Not only that, but the ruling body
itself was torn by dissension, and the root of the evil was, of
course, greed. The rich, striving to become still richer, captured
political office for the sake of the material advantages that its
corrupt use might bring. Thus government, instead of mediating
between the classes and moderating conflicts, furthered the
interest of the rich and privileged.
For Plato, however, political selfishness was not unique to
oligarchies. The citizens of Athenian democracy not only paid
themselves from the public coffers for their political services, they
used their authority, on the slightest pretext, to confiscate the
estates of the rich and to plunder their wealth by imposing upon
them heavy financial obligation. In oligarchies and democracies
alike, then, intense and often violent social strife was he rule.
Plato’s mission, therefore, was to propose a theory of the state
that would avoid the evil of both political systems.
Oligarchies and democracies alike failed to recognize that
statesmanship was a calling, requiring specialized knowledge and
moral responsibility. Plato’s central doctrine in the Republic is
that each individual should ‘do his own’—each should fulfil a
single, specific function. Hence, in shaping the division of labor
Plato begins with the appetitive or economic functions as the
foundation of the state. The fundamental human need for food
and shelter requires cooperation in the form of a division of labor;
and it is the division of labor that demonstrates the inevitability of
human interdependence; each participant in it provides
something for the others that they, in turn, provide for him or
her. The specialization of functions inevitably brings with it
reciprocal exchange and interdependence. No individual is selfsufficient; every individual needs others. In this way Plato
reasoned that reciprocity and the mutual exchange of services
between ruler and ruled could displace the self-seeking in which
one strives to get everything for oneself. Plato’s aim then was to
design a state in which all citizens must be set to the specific
tasks for which their natures have fitted them, so that the whole
society becomes not a multiplicity of interest groups and factions,
but rather an organic unity.
Plato begins the construction of his ideal state by
enunciating the principle of specialization as justice. He divides
the state into three classes: the rulers, the warriors, and the
farmers-producers. Each of the three classes is assigned its
specialized function, and each is to concentrate exclusively on the
discharge of that function.
Plato denies private property to both the rulers and the
warriors, seeking thereby to free then from any temptation to
pursue material interests. Plato believed that communism is
necessary for the rulers because experience had shown that
wherever economic and political power are held in the same
hands, corruption of government is inevitable. The property-less
rulers are to live on an income paid in kinds by the farmerproducer class, who in their subordinate status would
presumably be willing to make such payments. He imagined that
if a distinct class were designated for the work of government that
would eliminate the struggle for power so characteristic of other
political systems. Moreover, if each class remained within its
boundaries, concentrating on its exclusive function, there would
be no reason for one class to come into conflict with another.
Selfishness, for Plato, meant trespassing on another’s sphere; so
a properly trained governing class would never commit such
trespass. To instill the virtue of selflessness in this class, Plato
subjects its candidates to a demanding and rigorous series of
trials and tests; and only those who have distinguished
themselves by their dedication to the common weal of the state
are admitted.
Besides the spiritual education for unselfishness, Plato
introduces the material guarantee of communism: the rulers are
to have no family, nor any home or private property of their own.
With communism, Plato assumed, the rulers would have no
temptation to selfishness, no material interest in holding their
positions of authority. With the rulers having nothing in private
possession but their bodies, and everything else in common, one
could count on their being free from the dissension that arise
among individuals from the possession of family and property.
That is the way Plato proposes that each should do his own
specialized work in contentment. The fundamental principle of
social life is ‘justice’ –which for Plato means neither more or less
than an individual’s fulfilment of the role assigned to him in the
interest of society….
The warrior is the guardian of the state.
Here Plato
characteristically employs an analogy: the guardian, like a
watchdog, must be gentle to those he guards, but ferocious to
every stranger. The watchdog possesses the cognitive capacity to
distinguish between friend and foe. Likewise, the guardian of the
state must develop his faculty of reason so as to recognize an
enemy deserving of attack. In the warrior, reason is mixed with
the soul-element of spirit, by which reason is aided. But reason
in its purest form expresses itself not in the guardian, but the
‘perfect guardian,’ or ruler. The class of guardians is now split by
Plato into two: the military guardians whose chief characteristic is
‘spirit’ and who are now termed ‘helpers,’ and the philosophic
guardians whose chief strength lies in their superior capacity for
reasoning.
The real ruler of the Republic must be a philosopher; but
the philosophic faculty is present in only a few, rare souls.
Philosophy, or the love of wisdom, says Plato, is impossible to the
multitude. Candidates for rulership will be carefully selected and
subjected to an elaborate system of intellectual and moral tests.
The state is capable of perfection if it is guided by a superlative,
philosophic reason.
This is the underlying premise of the
Republic: the state is the product of the human mind.
Either philosophers must become kings, or present-day
kings must become philosophers, so that political power and
philosophical intelligence are joined. The rule of the ‘philosopherkings’ may be either a monarchy or an aristocracy. Whether it is
one who rules or a few, their power is absolute in the sense that it
is uncontrolled by any written law. Although Plato makes no
provision for the written law-code, he does lay down certain
principles: (1) the rulers must guard against intrusion into the
state of extremes of wealth and poverty; (2) the size of the state
must be limited so as to be consistent with unity and selfsufficiency; (3) the rulers must maintain justice in Plato’s peculiar
sense—that is, they must ensure every citizen is occupied
exclusively with the fulfillment of his specific function. Plato
imagines that the philosopher-rulers will be loved by those they
rule because they are their wise helpers, not their masters. The
rulers, in turn, will love their subjects to whom they owe their
sustenance. Ruler and subjects will be bound together by mutual
need, respect, and gratitude.
To the philosophers and guardians Plato now adds a third
class—the class of producers who fulfil the fundamental economic
function. Like the philosopher-rulers and the warriors, the
members of the third class by far the vast majority of the
populace—will also confine themselves to a single function. So
the Platonic state as a whole is a society consisting of a division of
labor between three specialized classes: the rulers or ‘perfect
guardians’; the warriors; and the producing classes, who Plato
calls the ‘farmer.’
In fairness to Plato, we need observe that he acknowledges
the possibility that individuals of one class may possess the
faculties required for another.
When that occurs, such
individuals should be enabled to rise to the class to which their
capacities entitle them.