Études platoniciennes

9 | 2012
Platon aujourd’hui

Plato and Politeia in Twentieth-Century Politics

Takeshi Sasaki

Electronic version
URL: http://journals.openedition.org/etudesplatoniciennes/281
DOI: 10.4000/etudesplatoniciennes.281
ISSN: 2275-1785

Publisher
Société d’Études Platoniciennes

Printed version
Date of publication: 15 December 2012
Number of pages: 147-160
ISBN: 978-2-251-44462-8

Electronic reference
Takeshi Sasaki, « Plato and Politeia in Twentieth-Century Politics », Études platoniciennes [Online],
9 | 2012, Online since 01 March 2014, connection on 03 May 2019. URL : http://
journals.openedition.org/etudesplatoniciennes/281 ; DOI : 10.4000/etudesplatoniciennes.281

Études Platoniciennes est mis à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons
Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.
 P  POLITEIA
 T-C P
T S

In t rodu ctio n

First of all, my paper is written for the Japanese general public rather than for an
academic audience. At the same time, my agenda is not to present my interpretation
of Plato. he basic goal of my lecture is to describe, from the perspective of intellectual
history, how people have mobilized/misunderstood/criticized Plato on the basis of
certain social/political interests.
When I began my studies in the 1960s, the most popular image of Plato for the
student of social sciences seemed to be the image deriving from the irst part of Karl
Popper’s Open Society and Its Enemies (he Spell of Plato).1 his work was clearly an
intellectual product of the political experiences of the irst part of the 20th century,
dominated by the coming of the new political regime of totalitarianism. It tried
to defend ‘our civilization’ against the new Leviathan by harshly criticizing some
intellectual traditions of Western socio-political thought which seemed to encourage
the coming of the totalitarian regime. In this context, Plato was singled out as one
of the important sources of this regime, along with Hegel and Marx. his kind of
argument changed the basic view that traditional Western intellectual history had
continuously progressed toward the realization of humanity, liberty, equality, and
eventually democracy. Popper identiied some dangerous elements, which had to
be prosecuted and excluded in the name of ‘our civilization’. While in the era of
Cold War it was understandable for one to criticize Marx (and Hegel), it was not
easy to understand why we had to condemn a philosopher of over 2000 years ago
in the same way. But I was impressed by the fact there were serious barriers in the
way for a political theorist to study Plato.
It is important to stress that Popper’s argument was not an isolated case. he
growing threat of totalitarianism inluenced the political arguments of many people,
and many intellectuals who were not specialists in the study of Plato participated
in the arguments for and against Plato. On the one hand, there was a tendency to

1. K. Popper 1945.
Études platoniciennes IX
148 TAKESHI SASAKI

defend Nazism in the name of Plato, while on the other hand some people connected
the condemnation of Nazism and of Plato. A number of the pro/contra arguments
in the Journal of Education (‘Was Plato a fascist?’)2 illustrated how deeply Plato was
caught up in the struggle of political confrontations in 20th century politics.
he problem is why Plato was caught up into this struggle, and what factors were
responsible for this. his phenomenon cannot be understood without taking new
trends of political thinking into consideration. he following presentation attempts
to clarify some aspects of the changing faces of Plato in the ‘Age of Extremes’.3

T h e d i s c ov e r y o f a n e w P l a t o a n d i t s c o n s e q u e n c e s . Fr o m
Ni et zs c h e to Fa scism

he consensus until the end of the 19th century was that Plato’s thinking and
the Politeia did not have any speciic real-political implications. His argument
in Politeia was characterized above all as a utopian, fanciful vision. At the same
time, Plato was discussed mainly with regard to his relationship to Christianity as
well as to philosophical systems. he dominant image of the ‘philosopher Plato’
was illustrated indirectly by the fact that the Nomoi and the Seventh Letter, which
seemed to describe his political standpoint, were often treated as spurious writings.
Of course, in the history of political thought there are some criticisms of Plato’s
political argument among liberal thinkers such as Benjamin Constant etc., but we
cannot ind any criticism as heated and systematic as that of Popper.
Since the second half of the 19th century, Western society has faced waves
of industrialization and democratization, while feudal hierarchical society was
gradually fading. he age of the masses arrived, with its strong lavor of materialism
and egalitarianism. his trend stimulated the socialist movement on the one hand,
but on the other hand it encouraged critical arguments against industrialization
and democratization. While steady progress was expected and predicted among
liberals and socialists, others warned strongly against the anarchic consequences of
the pursuit of unlimited desire.
At the time, the ancient Greek classics were still considered as providing the
elite with a paradigm of humanity, and the experience of democracy in ancient
Greece and its arguments seemed to supply a good example of how to cope with
the realities of the 19th and 20th century. In this sense, Greek thinkers became
as it were contemporary igures, and the natural consequence of this was mutual
inluence extending beyond the past and the present. Did the image of Plato
change or not?
Friedrich Nietzsche is famous for his radical criticism of Western philosophical
tradition, so that it was natural for him to criticize Plato as one of the founders of
this tradition. But his relation with Plato is not so simple. He claimed that Plato
should not be approached as an other-worldly system builder, but as a political
igure, politician, and legislator ighting against the masses. According to Nietzsche,

2. Journal of Education, 1944.

3. E. Hobsbawm 1994.
Études platoniciennes IX
PLATO AND POLITEIA IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY POLITICS 149

the fundamental duty of a philosopher lies in the ‘creation of value’, which depends
on the ‘will to power’, and Plato was a igure who truly practiced this duty and
embodied Nietzsche's ideal of the philosopher. Nietzsche mercilessly discloses
the ‘will to power’ of the weak behind liberalism as well as egalitarianism, and
supports an aristocratic way of thinking. From his point of view, Plato seemed
to be a personiication of the aristocratic way of thinking, so that he expresses his
sympathy with Plato's value system. In this way, Nietzsche intuitively grasps the
igure of ‘Plato as political man’. Simultaneously, he refers insightfully to the basic
diference between Plato and Socrates, who is more sympathetic with the weak. In
any case, Plato was a ‘noble’ and ‘godlike’ person for Nietzsche.4
Here I wish to consider how Nietzsche’s attempt to transform Plato’s image
was followed in the next stage of German scholarship. Ulrich von Wilamowitz
-Moellendorf was an important igure in classical philology in Germany and he
was very famous for his criticism of Nietzsche’s ‘Die Geburt der Tragoedie’. But his
work on Plato from 19195 is interesting because it seems to explore the Nietzsche’s
orientation to some extent. He protests against the academic trend to interpret Plato
like a professor of philosophy and stresses the necessity to disclose what kind of
person he was. Plato's works are a manifestation of his life (Leben), so that it is more
important to identify what he thought and what he did than to interpret his works.
In his work, Wilamowitz visualizes Plato as an active person trying to inluence his
own society, rather than concentrating on building a philosophical system in an
isolated situation. For him Plato was above all a political man, trying to reform the
Greek world politically, but political circumstances prevented him from playing a
political role, so that he was forced to live and remain as a philosopher. In a word,
Plato was an ‘impeded political man’. He changed his original position that the
Seventh Letter was a spurious work and tried to ind the real Plato in the letter. In
his work, Plato as an ‘impeded politician’ and as a philosopher still coexisted, but
he reoriented the basic trend from works to person. In another work published after
World War I, Wilamowitz referred to Plato to criticize anarchic egalitarianism, and
stressed the necessity of elite rule in order to overcome social dissolution. Here it is
not diicult to see that Plato has moved into the 20th century as a contemporary
political igure, not as an ancient Greek political igure.
WWI signiied an important turning point. he War encouraged a kind of
argument to separate Great Britain/France and Germany. In Germany the formulation
‘Deutschland versus West Europa’ became more and more popular. According to
Ringer6 this situation brought about a serious split among the intellectually
cultivated social classes who studied Greek and Roman classics. While the modern
group accepted the realities of modern society and concentrated on reforming it,
the ‘legitimate’ group stressed the dangerous aspect of democracy and egalitarianism
and despised the parliamentary system. he latter group, moreover, supported
nationalism and militarism. Wilamowitz was among the most prominent members
of the ‘legitimate’ group.

4.F. Nietzsche, Einleitung in das Studium der platonischen Dialoge.

5. Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf 1919 and 1920.
6. K. F. Ringer 1969.
Études platoniciennes IX
150 TAKESHI SASAKI

Before moving on to the ‘legitimate’ group I would say that Plato was accepted
as relevant by the modern group as well. Both cathedral socialists and social idealists
were critical of individualism and of materialism, so that they showed a sympathetic
attitude toward the arguments of the Politeia.7 According to their perception,
Plato conceived of a state independent of class struggle, which enabled social reform
from the standpoint of the whole. Plato’s so-called communism was appreciated
positively as a symbol intended to assure the independence of state from society.
hey recognized that Plato was not egalitarian, but maintained that he correctly
pointed out the function of the elite in the creation of a new organic community.
his kind of mobilization of Plato was connected with the concept of social reform
from above. hey characterized Plato as a social aristocrat, diferentiating him
from modern aristocrats, who were thoroughly subject to Nietzsche’s concept of
‘master morality’ as well as the ‘will to power’. We will turn later to Plato's relation
to communist regimes.
Among the ‘legitimate’ group, George’s circle produced a number of characteristic
interpretations of Plato. hey were deeply committed to aristocracy and romanticism.
heir main interest lay in using biographical research to discover a ‘hero’ who
embodied the ideal human being, and in pursuing/rebuilding the ideal of our life
(Leben) in this world. While they despised professionalized, positivistic academic
discipline (originating from Aristotle) because of its irrelevance to the reemergence of
ideal life, they adopted Plato as their ‘hero’, who could provide a total understanding
of our life. Plato was named ‘king of the spiritual kingdom (Reich)’. According
to their understanding, Wilamowitz’s Plato was still dominated by the spirit of
positivism, which should be overcome, and it was their obligation to disclose Plato
as ‘a presenter and ruler of the spiritual kingdom’.
An important pioneer of Plato interpretation in George’s circle was Heinrich
Friedemann’s book.8 It started out from their harsh antagonism to liberalistic,
individualistic, materialistic society, full of decadence and chaos. In contrast,
the ‘new spiritual kingdom’ sought to realize a new organic community of life
depending upon a unifying principle, such as the idea of the good. he new
community was to integrate every member perfectly into the system of rule
and obedience. Each life is no other than the life of the whole acting in the
individual. Plato is described as the legislator or ruler who made the idea of
the good penetrate human reality. Friedemann asserted the important function
of eros as a critical connecting power to vitalize this community continuously.
Here Nietzsche’s main message ‘a philosopher is a legislator’ seemed to ind a
loyal follower. Despite the name ‘spiritual kingdom’, Friedemann’s main interest
lay in the organization of new community of life and had no connection with
otherworldly interest. It was not soul, but life (Leben) which should be taken
care of above all. But we cannot ind any serious analytic investigation of life
itself.

7. R. von Poehlmann 1893-1901, Geschichte der sozialen Frage und des Sozialismus in
der antiken Welt, and G. Adler 1923, Geschichte des Sozialismus und Kommunismus von Plato
bis Gegenwart.
8. H. Friedemann 1914.
Études platoniciennes IX
PLATO AND POLITEIA IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY POLITICS 151

Edgar Salin9 describes the ‘spiritual kingdom’ as an embodiment of spiritual

order/hierarchy, which should be deinitely distinguished from the state as a
power-relation.
For Salin, Plato recognized the eternal principle, namely the idea of the good
that penetrated the cosmos, the ‘spiritual kingdom’, and human beings in concentric
circles. Naturally, therefore, Plato is not only a sage, but also a ruler of a ‘spiritual
kingdom’ destined to organize every aspect of life. he main factor characterizing
this kingdom is the harmony that results from the driving force of the holy center
(the idea of the good). his community had a kind of caste system consisting of
clergy, warrior and worker, but this caste system depended upon the diference of
contribution to the community rather than upon birth. he ‘spiritual kingdom’ can
be described as a community worshipping the idea of the good. Salin describes the
Politeia as a political program for building the ‘spiritual kingdom’. he ‘spiritual
kingdom’ appears at irst in the form of voluntary association, but eventually
political power will rise above it.
Kurt Singer also belonged to the George’s circle.10 He consistently rejected the
kind of understanding of Plato that presupposed a highly diferentiated modern
academic world, and interpreted Plato as the founder of ‘new spiritual kingdom’
overcoming the fragmented situation of our life. he ‘new spiritual kingdom’ is
situated in contrast to the dissolution of society and to the domination of instinct
and wants. Singer describes the fundamental diference between Plato and Aristotle
in the following way. Plato had no interest in exploring a highly professionalized
academic discipline. His main interest lay in reforming the social system drastically
according to the idea of the good. Plato concentrated on how human beings can
live following the noble principle, and he was never hostile to eros, inspiration or
the body. Singer characterizes Platonic philosophy as the expression of a political
spirit, so that Plato mobilizes his intellectual capability in order to explore the eternal
principle of state as well as of human being. George’s circle judged intellectual and
academic activity from the standpoint of whether it could contribute to building
a new life. Singer’s argument seeks to show that Plato’s thinking coincides with his
basic conception of intellectual activity. he Politeia could function as a paradigm
of the torch of hope, even in the darkest era. In another work, Singer discusses
the interesting issue of who can be the bearer of the Platonic-Greek ideal in the
contemporary era. His answer is very simple: only Germany can do so, while the
liberal and utilitarian western countries cannot. Here we can identify the stereotype
‘Deutschland versus West Europa’ mobilized by the legitimate wing of German
“mandarins”.
Here I would like to refer to a Japanese scholar who criticized the Plato-
interpretation of George’s circle. Professor Shigeru Nanbara discussed this group
in his book State and Religion (1942)11, where the understanding of Plato is
mobilized as a good paradigm of the ‘total state’. At the same time he accused
their interpretation of an inclination toward anti-rationalism and mythological

9. E. Salin 1921.
10. K. Singer 1927 ; id., 1920 ; id., 1931.
11. S. Nanbara 1942.
Études platoniciennes IX
152 TAKESHI SASAKI

argument. He indicates that their interpretation reduced Plato to the argument

that while there is a mysterious intuition on the side of the ruling minority, there
is simple subjection to it on the side of the majority. his kind of interpretation of
Plato seems to be an extreme case of anti-rationalism. According to Nanbara, both
the ‘hatred of scientiic activities’ and the ‘contempt for knowledge’ originating in
Nietzsche brought about a lood of mythological/anti-rationalistic arguments and
political naturalism concentrating on power relations.
It is said that Stefan George despised the Nazis as a caricature of his abstruse
ideal, and died in Switzerland as an exile after refusing to support the Nazis. But
some of his disciples became supporters of the Nazis, while others were victimized
by the Nazi-regime. While some kept silence during the Nazi-regime, some others
exiled themselves.12 George’s circle continued to produce their Plato interpretation
after the Nazis came to power, and it is not easy to overlook a change of argument.
Kurt Hildebrandt13 inherited the circle’s view that Plato discloses the way of life
appropriate to eternity, yet on the other hand he began to incorporate the factor
of nationalism and racism into the ideal community. Initially George’s circle tried
to use Plato’s arguments as the revelation of a ‘spiritual kingdom’, but the Nazi’s
basic dogma, ‘purity of blood’, began to invade the ‘spiritual kingdom’.
In the Nazi era it is quite easy to see that Plato was understood as a saviour
of the Volk, and the Politeia was read as a text to legitimize racism. his meant a
concord between Plato and Hitler. In particular, the education system of the leader
group in the Politeia was often interpreted as a good symbol of ‘aristocracy of spirit,
character, blood and race’. Racists such as Hans Friedrich Karl Guenther referred to
Plato quite often in order to justify their own arguments. In this way, the concept of
romantic community of George’s circle was replaced by cold-blooded racism under
the Nazi regime. he furious discussions in the Journal of Education I referred to in
the introduction resulted from this kind of understanding of Plato in Germany.

Cri t i c i s m s o f Pla to

Here I discuss three examples of famous criticism of Plato. It is characteristic

that these criticisms were not carried out by specialists in Plato. hey rely on more
general intellectual interest in reconsidering the status of Plato in the whole context
of Western tradition.
he irst of these is he Platonic Legend (1934)14 by Warner Fite, Professor at
Princeton University. his book protests against the tradition of Plato's godlike
status in Western tradition and claims consistently that Plato is an anti-modern,
anti-democratic, anti-Christian thinker. Like Wilamowitz, Fite tries to understand
Plato in a historical context, and interprets the Politeia as a political document. His
main interest lies in making clear how the basic ideas of the Politeia are anti-liberal
and anti-democratic. According to his interpretation, the Politeia defends strong

12. P. Gay 1969.

13. K. Hildebrandt 1933.
14. W. Fite 1934.
Études platoniciennes IX
PLATO AND POLITEIA IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY POLITICS 153

caste system incompatible with ‘open opportunity’. As to male/female relations,

Plato’s idea is dominated by a eugenic and utilitarian point of view, which has no
relation to the Christian and liberal tradition including Platonic love. He is a serious
defender of virtues, but a fearful enemy of freedom, plurality and individuality.
Fite airms that Politeia should be understood not from the viewpoint of
abstract philosophical interest, but from the standpoint of class interest as well as
party interest, because Plato continued to be a friend of his distant relatives such
as Critias and Charmides who played a key role in destroying Athenian democracy
and in replacing it by oligarchy. According to Fite, Plato's ultimate interest was
to reestablish the rule of gentlemen in Athens, but he correctly recognized that it
was impossible simply to reintroduce the old aristocracy. hus, the basic idea of
the Politeia was to establish a ‘new aristocracy based on scientiic arguments’ and
to create a new ruling class. In this sense, the Politeia was fundamentally an anti-
democratic treatise, and Plato’s continuous criticisms of democracy and pro-Spartan
stance illustrated his basic orientation.
Fite also pays attention to the concept of the rule of knowledge and of experts.
Political art is considered as an art based on true knowledge, and the true politician
should be sharply diferentiated from the amateur politician. For Fite, the fundamental
idea of the Politeia lies in the realization of true experts and their rule in society,
which is eventually reduced to utilitarian eiciency. In the contemporary situation,
Fite inds that the Soviet Union seems to follow this basic idea. He airms that
Lenin and Stalin belong among the great leaders of scientiic rule. his means
that Plato’s idea has only peripheral relevance, lacking all relevance to civilized
societies such as ancient Athens. According to Fite, Plato's ideal city consists only
of children, so Plato’s idea was not very efective in relation to political realities. In
fact Plato belongs among the peripheral, reactive political igures. In this way Fite
has demoted Plato from a godlike status to a peripheral one.
R.H.S. Crossman’s Plato Today (1937)15 was originally broadcast by the BBC,
so the book was published for a large audience. Crossman begins by giving a clear
description of the drastic change of our relation to Plato and his Politeia after
WWI in the following way. “Before the First World War, the Republic was often
treated as the ‘Ideal State’ which Plato never intended to put into practice. Its whole
conception seemed far-fetched and remote to a generation which assumed liberal
ideas as self-evident truth of human nature. A world which believed that, under the
lags of science, general education, and democracy, it was marching to perfection,
could not swallow Plato’s estimate of the common man, or seriously approve his
educational programme… Because Plato was a famous philosopher, he was rarely
condemned as a reactionary resolutely opposed to every principle of the liberal
creed. Instead, he was elevated to a higher rank, and became a idealist, remote
from practical life, dreaming of a transcendent City of God.” But war has changed
all that. “Plato’s so-called ‘idealism’ is now seen for what it is – a grimly realistic
estimate of the moral and intellectual capabilities of the masses. Knowing what
class-war and revolution mean, we can understand why Plato advocated dictatorship
to prevent them. Having some experience of the efects of propaganda, we can treat

15. R.H.S. Crossman 1937.

Études platoniciennes IX
154 TAKESHI SASAKI

‘noble lie’ not as an amusing fantasy but as an extremely practical instrument of

government. Our modern objection to Plato is that he is much too ‘realistic’ in his
analysis of human nature.” he social crisis and turmoil after the War forced people
to recognize the striking similarity between the age of Plato and their own era. So
Plato’s argument seemed to be more relevant and sensitive to their society.
Crossman’s image of Plato is not very much diferent from Fite’s, insofar as
Plato was seen as a defender of aristocracy who tried to rebuild aristocracy on a
new intellectual foundation. he new foundation was supplied by the philosophy
of Socrates, for whom truth derives only from reason. By this new foundation,
aristocracy was legitimized by an eternal and universal order. Plato sympathized
with the Spartan constitution, but he clearly recognized it was necessary to provide
a ‘civilized Sparta’ in order to be accepted by the masses. he philosopher king thesis
was presented to make leaders more self-regulating, based on their own spiritual
capability as well as on their knowledge. While class-politics was eradicated by the
separation of political power and property, Plato appealed to propaganda or the
‘noble lie’ to rob the masses of their liberty. According to Plato, every man can be
happy under the dictatorship of the true aristocracy and the rule of the best, so
Crossman says. His Academy can be seen as the headquarters of an open conspiracy
to establish aristocratic dictatorship in Greek world, and the Politeia is no more
than its Manifesto. he commander-in-chief is Plato himself.
For Crossman Platonic philosophy is “the most savage and the most profound
attack upon liberal ideas”. It denies every basic axiom of ‘progressive’ thought and
challenges its ideals. Equality, freedom, and self-government are condemned as
illusions. Plato claims that man should be more realistic, and be free from such
illusions. he perfect state is not a democracy of rational equals, but an aristocracy
of inequalities among men. Crossman admits repeatedly that liberal ideas are
losing their efectiveness, and a kind of spiritual revitalization is necessary. In
this situation, a growing number of people are showing a more serious interest in
the ‘dictatorship by the best’. In this context, the battle of Plato has gained a real
political meaning.
Half of his book is allocated to a ictional account of how Plato would view the
contemporary European political regime. Plato begins his visit with Great Britain.
He is troubled by the diferent meaning of the concept of democracy, but soon he
recognizes that British regime is in fact an aristocracy depending upon the natural
submissiveness of the poor, and that good government is preferred to self-government
there. he British system can enjoy its stability by mobilizing a ‘noble lie’ such as
self-government, individual freedom, parliamentary system, and change of power.
Plato does not think the British have the best political system, but recognizes that
they have a ‘less vicious’ one. Plato consistently criticizes the attempt to introduce
true democracy (popular government) in Great Britain because his experience of
democracy was so terrible. He found eventually that “the safest defence against real
democracy is the ‘noble lie’ of Representative Government”.
Next Plato visits the Soviet Union, with its communistic system. Was Plato a
communist? Crossman says no in various respects. Plato would not be in sympathy
with modern socialism, which is based on economic justice and workers’ control,
even though he would be ready to recognize the failure of capitalism. He would say
Études platoniciennes IX
PLATO AND POLITEIA IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY POLITICS 155

that the problem of economic justice is not the real problem, and control by the
workers could not improve the situation very much. Insofar as socialism is a product
of class warfare, it cannot overcome it. he basic objective of the government is to
change the heart of men, so that Plato would feel only disgust for the Communist
gloriication of material and technological advance. Plato would consider that the
United States and Russia shared a common aim (acquisitive instinct), in spite of
diference of political system, a diference in method alone.
According to Crossman, Plato would be interested in the Russian experiment
even though the doctrine of communism is the iercest enemy of true philosophy.
Above all, he would be strongly impressed with “a self-conscious attempt to plan
human society in accordance with a clear philosophy of life”. He would recognize
that “the rulers of Russia are indeed philosopher-kings who have organized their
State on clear-cut philosophical principles”. So there would be a good possibility that
Plato would praise the socio-political system of the USSR. Moreover the educational
program of the Politeia could be accepted by the Russian government, and Plato
would admire the Communist Party organization, whose members were “subjected
to military discipline, and schooled to accept without question the philosophy and
the policy of its leaders”. hen Crossman discusses the similarity between Plato
and Lenin. Both of them agree that philosophy and science should be mobilized to
change social reality, and believe that such changes are feasible. At the same time,
neither is reluctant to use power ruthlessly in order to abolish vested interests. “Plato
believed the philosopher must become king: Lenin achieved it.” Plato would not
pay much attention to the theory that supported a more genuine democracy in
communism. Rather he would praise Stalin's very skillful use of a ‘noble lie’ such
as democracy and proletarian freedom at a proper time, on the basis of a profound
contempt for the stupidity of the common people. His praise of Stalin seems to be
more impressive when we consider the series of great purges in 1930s Russia. In
describing Plato’s visit to Russia, Crossman suggests that the communistic regime is
the real embodiment of the idea of philosopher king in the 1930s, and that Plato’s
observation of Russia is more realistic than the oicial doctrine of communism
such as the proletarian dictatorship and the death of the state.
hird, Plato visits Germany to analyze this new regime. During his visit, Plato is
supposed to write to Aristotle, because Aristotle would be helpful to classifying this
regime. First of all, Plato recognizes that the message of National Socialism is full of
such ‘noble lies’ as that every evil results from Jews. hen Plato happens to face the
reality that he himself is mobilized in National Socialism, for a professor confesses in
public that he studied Plato according to liberal prejudices, but has recently published
a new book titled Platon und der Ursprung des Nationalsozialistischen Staatsgedankens
for the consolidation of National Socialism. he professor went on to say that Plato
advised the revolution which Hitler achieved, and rejecting democratic Athens he
praised Sparta in terms of its military training and its educational system.
He continues tediously, airming that “Sparta was Plato’s ideal, and it is our
Nazi ideal, too” and so on. Eventually the audience expresses its dissatisfaction with
this long speech, and he is ordered to leave the platform. Later Plato interviews
him and corrects his misunderstandings of Plato’s doctrine one by one. At the same
time Plato utters a harsh critique of German philosophers, insofar as in Germany
Études platoniciennes IX
156 TAKESHI SASAKI

the ‘noble lie’ was assumed to be superior to philosophical truth, and philosophers
were lattering politicians rather than being leading politicians. If this tendency
were to continue, Plato predicts, the ‘noble lie’ would dominate without limits,
and Germany would be thrown into tyranny rather than regenerate. he basic
motives of the new rulers are ambition and power, so that Plato tells Aristotle that
the National Socialist State seems to be ‘a mixed constitution containing elements
of both timocracy and oligarchy.’
Plato's ictional visits to communist and fascist regimes displays how Crossman
tries to answer the problem of the coincidence, or lack of coincidence, between Plato
and both these political systems. It is characteristic that Plato has no sympathy with
fascism. In any case, the report of the visits illustrates the impact of realist Plato
very clearly. Crossman inally discusses the problem of the relationship between
Plato and liberal democracy. First of all, he examines Plato's so-called realism. Plato
starts out from the recognition of the irrational nature of the common man on the
one hand, while on the other he designs the new regime presupposing the presence
of exceptionally gifted statesmen. But Crossman stresses that this presupposition is
extremely unrealistic and far from realities of human life. In fact, Plato overlooks the
basic reality that politics is necessary because no extraordinarily gifted personality
exists in this world. Plato, basing himself on wrong presuppositions, makes the
highest demands of the rulers and requires absolute submission of the governed,
who are to abdicate their own self-realization. Owing to his bias, in fact, Plato puts
supremely wise statesman and ‘real’ gentleman in the same category. So “Platonism,
because it is at once too ideal and not ideal enough, becomes the rational apologia
for reaction”. At the same time the basic problem of Platonic political thinking
is that Plato cannot realize that the main issue is not replacing one dictatorship
by another, but replacing dictatorship by a constitutional system and rule of law,
because the ancient Greek situation was too dominated by harsh power battles
to allow Plato to realize this basic change of perspective. In connection with this
argument, Crossman criticizes the thesis of the philosopher king, in which absolute
truth should be imposed upon the masses. he dictatorship by philosophers violates
the nature of philosophical research, because human reason cannot reach infallible
and absolute truth. Crossman recognizes it is time to review the democratic regime
free from the prejudices of old liberal axioms and to consolidate its intellectual
position anew in a turbulent situation. In spite of these criticisms, Plato’s arguments
can contribute to this consolidation through their realistic, shrewd observations. In
other words, liberal democracy has no good prospect unless it can survive Plato’s
intellectual challenge.
Finally, I come to a brief discussion of Popper’s arguments. His book picks out
Plato as one of the key intellectual enemies to “our civilization” which is “aiming at
humaneness and reasonableness, at equality and freedom”. While our civilization
aims at an “open society” which would liberate the critical powers of human beings,
its enemies try to defend a “closed society”. At the same time, Popper thinks we live
in a critical stage of historical transition from a ‘closed society’ to an ‘open society’,
so that he criticizes some forms of social science and philosophy which claim to
prophesy the course of historical events by discovering laws of history. his way of
thinking, namely historicism, implies the historical inevitability of totalitarianism.
Études platoniciennes IX
PLATO AND POLITEIA IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY POLITICS 157

So historicism is also a main target of his attack in this work. Yet it seems diicult to
incorporate Plato into the category of historicism, which originates in 18th or 19th
century. Popper tries to solve this diicult problem by providing the interpretation
that Plato did not write his Politeia as a design for the future, but simply tried to
identify his ideal state in the beginning of the history. In other words, Plato was an
absolute defender of the past and an antagonist of historical change itself. According
to Popper, Plato's ideal state at the beginning of the history is a kind of tribal society
as well as a Spartan state and caste state, which consists of a ruling class having
absolute power and of the group of livestock simply subjected to the ruling class.
he main aim of the ideal state was to prevent the danger both of change and of
decay. his aim could be realized by a strongly uniied ruling class, whose members
are not only racially superior but also are educated and trained so thoroughly that
they can remain as a uniied group of warriors without being disturbed by internal
conlict. hus, the ideal state for Plato was Sparta, not Athens.
Popper recognizes that Plato was thinking in the stage of dissolution of tribal
society, and he came to Socrates’ philosophy in order to grasp the norm of human
nature. In this sense the Politeia was originally intended as the recovery of the
natural order, but Plato conceptualizes an organic community in which only a tiny
number of elite can realize the nature of human beings. his basic design should
be contrasted with the principle of universalism and equalitarianism supported by
Christianity and humanism, according to Popper. Popper displays no interest in
how Socrates’ philosophy is realized in the Politeia. His main interest is to stress
how strongly this community is dominated by Plato’s longing for tribal society.
According to Popper, the reality of Plato's community is the rule of the strong
over the weak, so that there is only biological naturalism. In other words, Socrates’
philosophy has almost nothing to do with it.
Popper characterizes Plato’s programme as consisting of ive elements : namely
strict division of class, identiication of the fate of the state with that of the ruling
class, monopoly of military virtue and training by the ruling class, censorship of all
intellectual activities of the ruling class and self-suiciency of the state. Criticizing
Crossman’s argument, Popper says that “Plato’s political programme, far from
being morally superior to totalitarianism, is fundamentally identical with it”. he
objections against this view are “based upon an ancient and deep-rooted prejudice
in favour of idealizing Plato”. Giving a typical example, the translation of Politeia
by Republic in the English speaking countries has helped to cultivate the image
that Plato must be a liberal. Plato’s doctrine supports a radical statism which can
be characterized as an intentional attack against egalitarianism and individualism.
he main problem is the spell of Plato as “a teacher of morals” so that “his ethics
is the nearest approach to Christianity before Christ”. He claims that the spell of
Plato is one of the causes that help spread totalitarian mentality.
Popper also pays attention to Plato’s inclination to utopian social engineering.
his social engineering is designed as a tool to reverse the basic historical trend of
Greek society from ‘closed society’ to ‘open society’. His doctrine is part of a counter-
revolutionary attempt against the egalitarianism, humanism and universalism realized
in Athenian democracy. he great spirit of Athenian democracy was embodied
by Pericles as well as his mentor Socrates, while Plato continued to belong to the
Études platoniciennes IX
158 TAKESHI SASAKI

group of the Oligarchy. Plato in fact betrayed his mentor Socrates. For Popper, the
Politeia is a political document for reform instigated by strong personal ambition
and self-love. Behind Plato’s theory of the philosopher-king, Popper tries to identify
a strong longing for power, which reminds us of the Nietzsche’s stress on ‘will to
power’ in philosophical thinking.

An e n di ng

he controversy about Plato is a historical product of the era in which people

could no longer understand the tradition of Western intellectual history as a
harmonious and seamless development. In fact, this kind of controversy was repeated
many times in Western intellectual history. Friedrich Nietzsche, a symbol of the
rejection of harmonious development, set the basic standard by mobilizing Plato
against liberalism and democracy (egalitarianism) as the glorious achievement of
the modern era. he clash between tradition and modernity is revealed. It can
encourage a doubt about the universal authority of liberalism and democracy and
an interest in the possibility of a new revolutionary regime. he 19th century was
characterized as the century of liberalism, but in reality its liberalism consisted of
various heterogeneous intellectual trends. At the beginning of the 20th century
its status quo position was challenged in diferent aspects and its crisis intensiied
very rapidly. he decline of economic liberalism deinitely accelerated its crisis.
he criticisms of Plato I refer to here relect the crisis of liberalism in the irst
part of the 20th century. In other words, liberalism is forced to reconsider its real
standpoint and to change. he impeachment of Plato is seen as a symbol of the
self-puriication of liberalism.
After WWII a number of books were written in order to defend Plato. One
of the interesting responses claims that totalitarianism is a product of the modern
philosophy revolting against the tradition of classical philosophy as represented by
Plato.16 Modern philosophy brings about relativism, materialism, historicism and
positivism, which eventually provide totalitarianism with a good springboard. Here,
the assessment of Plato is totally diferent from that of Popper and his followers. his
kind of argument seeks to impeach the moderns from the viewpoint of traditional
philosophy, and both individualism and democracy are seen as problematic in the face
of tradition. his formulation contributes to weakening the absolute confrontation
between totalitarianism and liberalism. Plato is indirectly separated from modern
afairs as the representative of the philosophical tradition.
Even in the postwar era, the model of Plato’s philosopher-king, namely the
intimate relations between philosophical truth and political power, continued to
be a relevant problem. As Crossman’s iction indicates, the problem was still a real
issue under the Cold War.
At the same time we cannot overlook the interest of positivism in the Plato’s
model. Positivism in the irst part of the 20th century tended to pursue the basic
goal of materializing the results of scientiic research by mobilizing political power.

16. J. Wild 1946 ; id., 1953. L. Strauss 1959.

Études platoniciennes IX
PLATO AND POLITEIA IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY POLITICS 159

In fact the dissolution of traditional society and the growth of mass society brought
about a number of social issues to be solved by the growing power of the state and
by its planning. Positivists seemed to be tacit supporters of Plato’s model. In fact
one of the founders of American Political Science, Charles Merriam, said that it
was time to discuss education and eugenics in relation to the problem of ‘what kind
of person should be produced’, and referred to Plato as the great pioneer of this
kind of thinking.17 his phenomenon illustrated how liberals in the irst part of
the 20th century were still deeply involved with the problem ‘what kind of people
should be produced’. In this sense it is not diicult to identify some common
ground with communism as well as fascism. he concept of social engineering was
also very popular in the mid-20th century. hus, Plato's sympathizers in the 20th
century were not limited to George’s circle. he controversy over science and its
role can therefore imply some kind of criticism of Plato. As Hayek’s case suggests,
scientism is contrasted with spontaneous order or market mechanism, which is
totally foreign to Plato.
he intimate relationship between philosophical truth and political power
is discussed and reexamined closely by Hannah Arendt.18 She classiies human
activities into three categories, namely labor, work and action. As is well known,
labor is an activity intended to make our biological reproduction possible. In
contrast to it, work is seen as the artisan’s activity of processing materials, and
producing something independent of our life according to a model in his brain.
Action is considered as a network both of language and of display of the freedom
and of individuality plural human beings. According to Arendt, politics belongs to
action originating from voluntariness and trust, mostly far removed from violence.
Plato's basic problem is to try to understand politics (the expression of freedom)
in terms of the model of work. She recognizes very well that the space of action is
continuously full of change, and neither stability nor predictability is to be expected.
According to Arendt, this frustration seduced Plato to replace politics by the model
of work. His philosopher-king is a typical case of this replacement, and he tries
to fabricate an everlasting polis according to the idea of the good. It is natural for
the work model to treat its materials freely, but if its model is introduced in the
human area, it can justify the violent treatment of human beings. Moreover the
truth is monopolized by the ruler, so that there is no room for action consisting
of plural subjects. If a political system were fabricated according to the model of
work, the role of violence would inevitably increase. Arendt claims that a series of
modern revolutions provide us with dreadful examples. Her thesis, the replacement
of politics by the work model, results from the fundamental human condition
rather than from criticism of democracy. In this sense Plato’s argument is deeply
rooted in human nature.
Political thinking of the second half of the 20th century can be deinitely
characterized as a light from the spell of Plato. he main players are such concepts
as spontaneous order, the market, plurality of the subject, pluralism (from interest-
group pluralism to identity pluralism) which replace the fabrication of a political

17. C. E. Merriam 1925.

18. H. Arendt 1958 ; id. 1963.
Études platoniciennes IX
160 TAKESHI SASAKI

system according to a speciic model. hese concepts shared the common agenda,
either in the name of freedom or in the name of eiciency, of decreasing the power
of government that had been increased in the irst half of the 20th century. heir
pressure was strong enough to destroy and to dissolve the most powerful political
regime originating in the irst half of the 20th century, namely the communist
regime. Globalization gave these concepts visible reality, and the idea of freedom
and equality seemed to be absolutely dominant.
Yet the orientation of historical dynamism is highly changeable. Might not the
weakening or dissolving of the political/economic system constructed under the
inluence of the spell of Plato(?) increase instability and unpredictability? If Plato’s
intellectual stance of understanding politics through the model of work originates
from a deep irritation with the instability and unpredictability of politics, are we
preparing for the way to the next round of the spell of Plato? As the sudden collapse
of inancial markets shows us, the historical pendulum required a more powerful
commitment on the part of the government. As far as the industrialized countries
are concerned, most people are facing more instability and unpredictability than
before. On this occasion, the controversy over Plato in the 20th century asks us
what we could learn from the experiences of the 20th century and how we can
make a wiser decision than our predecessors.

Études platoniciennes IX