Laying the Groundwork

This discourse will navigate the shared terrains and divergent paths in the political philosophies of Plato and Marx, shedding light on the subtle elements of communism embedded within the teachings of the Academy’s founder, but also drawing attention to profound disparities. After all, Plato’s “Republic” stands as one of the most intricately woven utopias of ancient philosophy.

The Everlasting Riddle of the “Republic”

Plato’s “Republic,” arguably his most renowned work, has persistently featured in countless academic syllabi crafted over the decades. Yet, the diverse interpretations it spawns remain strikingly nebulous. The gamut of biases and shifts influencing the acclaim of “Republic” intriguingly serves to bond us, fueling our curiosity to decipher the wisdom of one of antiquity’s greatest philosophers.

This, above all, propels us to dig deep into the core of this seminal work, a sphere far beyond the realm of political philosophy.

Plato’s dialogues are captivating invitations to participate, mostly in quests for eternal truths. A standout feature of Plato, setting him apart from his contemporaries, is the evasive nature of his ideas and philosophical musings – rarely are they explicit or systematized.

Rather, Plato’s thoughts are relayed via dialogues, following the Socratic method of inquiry and using literary vignettes where he narrates dialogues between two or more characters, yet he remains a silent observer. This narrative technique with multiple voices lends itself to interpretation, presenting an exciting conundrum.

In stark contrast, Marx’s oeuvre, placing him as the chief theoretician of socialist thought, offers a definitive resolution to the issue of the working class’s deplorable living conditions – a problem he and Engels squarely attributed to the bourgeoisie. Marx’s major works, laden with detailed analyses, were primarily aimed at finding ways to surmount various economic challenges. This crucial aspect is often overlooked or dismissed by many delving into the works of thinkers from millennia past.

Naturally, this suggests that studying Marx may be more accessible, given that we can evaluate the practical outcomes borne out in historically communist or socialist nations. Nonetheless, this should not deter us. As Descartes so wisely pointed out, the importance lies in assessing “that which is so clear and distinct to the mind that it can engender no doubt”.

Parallels and Divergences in Plato’s and Marx’s Political Ideologies

If the “Republic” is perceived as an embodiment of perfect harmony, where morality becomes integral to the political framework, Marx takes a decisive stand in favor of tangible, existing communism rather than an abstract possibility. This clear stance prompts Marx to champion radical shifts in eternal truths, religion, and morality, believing they must be uprooted because “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles,” morphing differently in varying epochs.

This vision distinguished Marx from his contemporaries, as he primarily focused on pragmatic solutions that would wrest capital from the bourgeoisie. The capital problem, that is, the proletariat’s subjugation by the bourgeoisie, is at the heart of the “Communist Manifesto,” revealing the first striking similarity between Marx and Plato.

In the opening book of “Republic,” primarily centered on justice, Cephalus contends that “wealth alone, without wisdom, could never make old age easier.” Within these initial pages, we encounter the sophist Thrasymachus, part of a cadre of itinerant scholars who lectured for money, a practice Plato and many of his philosophical peers regarded with contempt.

Socrates’s confrontation with Thrasymachus serves as an excellent precursor to the portrayal of ideal altruistic leadership. Despite an apparent elitist structure, those wielding power (the guardians) would need to dedicate themselves wholly to communal benefit, implying a necessary sacrifice of material possessions.

This renunciation also encompasses private property, a cornerstone of Marx’s most famous works. However, the topic of state hierarchy presents another substantial divergence between the two thinkers.

In “Republic,” Plato meticulously outlines a clear hierarchical state structure. Conversely, Marx, in his seminal work “Capital,” elucidates his vision of salvation through communal ownership, devoid of a specific hierarchy, for a nation’s progress.

In this extensive work, composed over 30 years, Marx enumerates compelling reasons why an economic system bolstering individuals cannot endure while authorities constantly favor capitalists amassing colossal fortunes, as workers descend deeper into destitution.

Yet, due to the clearly defined hierarchy in the “Republic,” private property would not apply universally. Plato permits private ownership for certain societal classes, given that it’s under state regulation. This sharply contrasts with Marx’s call for the total abolition of private property. The three classes of citizens within an ideal state would encompass the productive workers, the auxiliaries, and the rulers.

The productive workers, forming the population’s majority, encompass farmers, artisans, unskilled laborers, entrepreneurs, artists, contractors, service providers, and professionals in various vocations. Auxiliaries include military personnel and law enforcers. The relatively small ruling class comprises those best qualified to govern due to their wisdom, dedication, and integrity in serving and protecting the state’s best interests.

Addressing women’s roles in an ideally organized state reveals similarities between Marx and Plato. The “Communist Manifesto” dedicates a section to Marx and Engels’s aspiration for women’s improved status, including their views on marriage’s annulment, presenting it as one of the criticisms leveled against their political ideology by capitalists. Marx contends that only by unequivocally rejecting capitalism can women’s rights be enhanced.

On the other hand, “Republic” offers complex solutions when juxtaposed with contemporary feminist viewpoints, or even socialist feminism originating in the 19th century’s mid-1800s. Notably, women could serve as “guardians,” requiring the relinquishment of their private property, consequently leading to the marriage’s dissolution due to shared responsibility.

Moreover, rulers’ involvement in economic activities would detract from their duty to justice, or serve the people by maintaining a class-based social order. For Plato, family and property were the primary catalysts for discord and social tensions. In this light, Plato’s version of “communism” manifests as both ascetic and aristocratic.

Synthesizing the Confluence and Dissonance in the Philosophies of Plato and Marx

The temporal divide between the lives of these two philosophers in no way suggests their philosophies are an identical melange. Contrasting, analyzing, and incorporating prior research in interpreting their works is a pivotal marker of philosophical evolution.

In his seminal work “History of Western Philosophy,” Bertrand Russell intricately weaves Plato’s utopia with 19th-century nation-states and their governance, further underscoring this methodology’s significance. A unified interpretation of the founder of the Academy and the leading proponent of socialist thought is also critical in the maturation of political discourse. With the advantage of hindsight, the shortcomings in Plato and Marx’s philosophies have been subjected to vehement criticism.

Comparing them in this domain is challenging due to the eras in which they were conceived. For instance, it’s not difficult to fault Plato for a semblance of eugenics. Marx was cognizant of certain criticisms from the bourgeoisie towards his political ideology. However, the potential pitfalls of practically applying Marxism in particular countries were highlighted by numerous intellectuals, and Marx’s political vision considerably dwindled in popularity with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

Notably, Slavoj Žižek stated that while he is fundamentally anti-capitalist, a greater degree of caution is required when instituting such radical changes, primarily because all alternative solutions to capitalism experienced significant failures in the 20th century. Nevertheless, following the victory of neoliberal capitalism, many activist movements have reignited interest in Marx’s radical ideologies.

This naturally leads to the question: Was Marx correct? While there isn’t a single definitive answer to this, statistics can provide insights into capitalism’s effect on contemporary society. A few years back, over 85% of the total wealth was held by a mere tenth of the global population.

Unquestionably, such a fact would have appalled Plato, given his aforementioned concept of the guardian’s role.

Does this automatically signify the imminent implosion of capitalism, as Marx might suggest? Not necessarily. Since the Industrial Revolution, and notably in the past three decades, over a billion people have improved their financial status, no longer residing in extreme poverty.

Jim Yong Kim, former World Bank president, opined that the poverty issue could be resolved by 2030, given an increase in investments to create jobs for those with the least purchasing power.

Thus, economic challenges continue to escalate, ensuring Marx’s ideas will remain pertinent, irrespective of capitalism’s dominance. Would a reversion to eternal truths and morality effect change? Could that facet of Plato’s utopia bring about sweeping transformations in the perception of the state or, more realistically, the global community? Certainly, even contemplating their breadth is what expands our philosophical horizons.

A specter haunts Europe – the specter of communism. 

You’ve probably heard the beginning of the Communist Manifesto countless times, a work that is the ideological reading of many leftists. That work is also one of the most important political works of the 20th century because it influenced epochal changes in the world political scene a little more than a century ago. Let’s take a look at the very essence of this work, as well as see what impact it had on the entire political scene at the time it was created.

A thorough critique of the capitalist system provides the core of the Communist Manifesto. Marx and Engels contend that capitalism’s relentless pursuit of profit lays the groundwork for its demise. They claim that the bourgeoisie exploits the proletariat in its continuous pursuit of markets, leading to class strife. According to the Manifesto, the only way to end this war is for the proletariat to rise against the bourgeoisie and create a communist society devoid of class divisions. Large segments of society, especially the working class, found this critique and solution to be persuasive, spreading the seeds of revolutionary thought.

Regarding the critique of capitalism, Marx and Engels write, “The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations… It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors,’ and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment’.” (Chapter 1: Bourgeois and Proletarians)

On the idea of a proletariat revolution and the establishment of a communist society, they state, “The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State… Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except using despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production…” (Chapter 2: Proletarians and Communists)

Lastly, the Manifesto’s vision of a future communist society is encapsulated in this famous quote: “In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” (Chapter 2: Proletarians and Communists)

The global reach of the Communist Manifesto further underscores its influence. It has been translated into countless languages and has inspired revolutions and political movements worldwide. Its principles underpinned the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the establishment of Communist China, and the rise of socialist states in Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The Manifesto’s ideas also found expression in labor movements, social policies, and political parties in non-communist countries. Its impact reverberated through the corridors of power, challenging established norms and systems.

Yet the influence of the Communist Manifesto extends beyond political movements and revolutions. It has left an indelible mark on academia, intellectual thought, and popular culture. The Marxist critique of capitalism has become a cornerstone of sociological analysis, inspiring myriad theoretical perspectives in the social sciences. Scholars across disciplines grapple with Marx’s concepts of class struggle, alienation, commodity fetishism, and the materialist conception of history. Furthermore, the Manifesto has influenced literature, cinema, art, and music, its themes seeping into the cultural fabric of societies around the globe.

However, the influence of the Communist Manifesto is not merely historical. In the 21st century, amidst growing economic inequality and social unrest, its critique of capitalism still resonates. The 2008 financial crisis, the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the resurgence of socialist ideas in mainstream political discourse – these phenomena have renewed interest in Marx and Engels’ seminal work. The Manifesto continues to inspire, provoke, and challenge, reflecting its enduring relevance.

The Communist Manifesto’s influence is thus rooted in its ideological potency, its historical resonance, its global reach, and its multi-dimensional impact. It embodies the spirit of an era, giving voice to the dispossessed and challenging the status quo. But more than a political tract, it is a mirror of society, reflecting its contradictions and conflicts. The Communist Manifesto is more than a document; it is a force, an idea, that continues to shape our world. The echo of Marx and Engels’ words continues to resonate, a testament to the enduring influence of the Communist Manifesto.

The historical setting of the Communist Manifesto is intrinsically linked to the economic and social changes of the 19th century, particularly those brought on by the Industrial Revolution. The Manifesto was published in 1848, which is often referred to as “the year of revolutions” because of the significant political unrest that occurred in Europe during that year. The Manifesto’s ideas reflected and contributed to defining the chaotic period in which it was written, therefore this was no coincidence.

Economic systems and social structures were substantially affected by the late 18th-century Industrial Revolution, which began in Britain and spread to the rest of Europe and North America in the 19th century. It introduced mechanical manufacturing methods, encouraged the expansion of industries, and significantly increased the productivity of society. But it also resulted in significant social disruption.

Many workers were uprooted from rural communities and traditional ways of life and thrown into new urban industrial environments. The working conditions at factories, which were frequently inhumane, were commonplace and included long hours, little pay, and dangerous situations. Child labor was widespread. The gap between the rich and the poor grew wider and more pronounced.

The working class, or proletariat, was hardest hit by the economic changes, while the capitalist class, or bourgeoisie, enjoyed great profits. Due to this discrepancy, Marx and Engels identified class conflict as the main force behind historical progress.

Additionally, rising bourgeois classes and changing economic conditions were exerting increasing strain on the previous feudal structures and kingdoms. The Manifesto was drafted in 1848, a year in which upheavals against despotism took place in Germany, France, Italy, and other European countries. The beliefs backed by these upheavals were usually liberal and nationalist.

In this setting of social and political instability, Marx and Engels penned the Communist Manifesto, which offered a theoretical framework for comprehending the upheavals. They framed the struggles as part of a larger historical pattern of class warfare and saw the development of a communist society as the solution once the proletariat rose to power.

By capturing the frustrations of the proletariat and providing a radical vision for a different society, the Manifesto resonated with many people of the time. Its influence was not just a result of the potency of its ideas, but also the critical historical moment it emerged from. The Industrial Revolution and the wave of revolutions in 1848 provided fertile ground for the seeds of Marx and Engels’ ideas to take root and grow.