Democracy is Oppression

infoterror · Jul 17, 2006

The ancient Greeks experienced it all just as we will, in time. Humans haven't changed a bit. And instead of wishing humans would change, "educating" them to change, etc. we might just want to grow up and accept reality.

What are we afraid of?

Next comes democracy; of this the origin and nature have still to be considered by us; and then we will inquire into the ways of the democratic man, and bring him up for judgment.

That, he said, is our method.

Well, I said, and how does the change from oligarchy into democracy arise? Is it not on this wise: the good at which such a State aims is to become as rich as possible, a desire which is insatiable?

What then?

The rulers being aware that their power rests upon their wealth, refuse to curtail by law the extravagance of the spendthrift youth because they gain by their ruin; they take interest from them and buy up their estates and thus increase their own wealth and importance?

To be sure.

There can be no doubt that the love of wealth and the spirit of moderation cannot exist together in citizens of the same State to any considerable extent; one or the other will be disregarded.

That is tolerably clear.

And in oligarchical States, from the general spread of carelessness and extravagance, men of good family have often been reduced to beggary?

Yes, often.

And still they remain in the city; there they are, ready to sting and fully armed, and some of them owe money, some have forfeited their citizenship; a third class are in both predicaments; and they hate and conspire against those who have got their property, and against everybody else, and are eager for revolution.

That is true.

On the other hand, the men of business, stooping as they walk, and pretending not even to see those whom they have already ruined, insert their sting—that is, their money—into someone else who is not on his guard against them, and recover the parent sum many times over multiplied into a family of children: and so they make drone and pauper to abound in the State.

Yes, he said, there are plenty of them—that is certain.

The evil blazes up like a fire; and they will not extinguish it either by restricting a man's use of his own property, or by another remedy.

What other?

One which is the next best, and has the advantage of compelling the citizens to look to their characters: Let there be a general rule that everyone shall enter into voluntary contracts at his own risk, and there will be less of this scandalous moneymaking, and the evils of which we were speaking will be greatly lessened in the State.

Yes, they will be greatly lessened.

At present the governors, induced by the motives which I have named, treat their subjects badly; while they and their adherents, especially the young men of the governing class, are habituated to lead a life of luxury and idleness both of body and mind; they do nothing, and are incapable of resisting either pleasure or pain.

Very true.

They themselves care only for making money, and are as indifferent as the pauper to the cultivation of virtue.

Yes, quite as indifferent.

Such is the state of affairs which prevails among them. And often rulers and their subjects may come in one another's way, whether on a journey or on some other occasion of meeting, on a pilgrimage or a march, as fellow-soldiers or fellowsailors; aye, and they may observe the behavior of each other in the very moment of danger—for where danger is, there is no fear that the poor will be despised by the rich—and very likely the wiry, sunburnt poor man may be placed in battle at the side of a wealthy one who has never spoilt his complexion and has plenty of superfluous flesh—when he sees such a one puffing and at his wits'-end, how can he avoid drawing the conclusion that men like him are only rich because no one has the courage to despoil them? And when they meet in private will not people be saying to one another, "Our warriors are not good for much"?

Yes, he said, I am quite aware that this is their way of talking.

And, as in a body which is diseased the addition of a touch from without may bring on illness, and sometimes even when there is no external provocation, a commotion may arise within—in the same way wherever there is weakness in the State there is also likely to be illness, of which the occasion may be very slight, the one party introducing from without their oligarchical, the other their democratical allies, and then the State falls sick, and is at war with herself; and may be at times distracted, even when there is no external cause.

Yes, surely.

And then democracy comes into being after the poor have conquered their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing some, while to the remainder they give an equal share of freedom and power; and this is the form of government in which the magistrates are commonly elected by lot.

Yes, he said, that is the nature of democracy, whether the revolution has been effected by arms, or whether fear has caused the opposite party to withdraw.

And now what is their manner of life, and what sort of a government have they? for as the government is, such will be the man.

Clearly, he said.

In the first place, are they not free; and is not the city full of freedom and frankness—a man may say and do what he likes?

'Tis said so, he replied.

And where freedom is, the individual is clearly able to order for himself his own life as he pleases?

Clearly.

Then in this kind of State there will be the greatest variety of human natures?

There will.

This, then, seems likely to be the fairest of States, being like an embroidered robe which is spangled with every sort of flower. And just as women and children think a variety of colors to be of all things most charming, so there are many men to whom this State, which is spangled with the manners and characters of mankind, will appear to be the fairest of States.

Yes.

Yes, my good sir, and there will be no better in which to look for a government.

Why?

Because of the liberty which reigns there—they have a complete assortment of constitutions; and he who has a mind to establish a State, as we have been doing, must go to a democracy as he would to a bazaar at which they sell them, and pick out the one that suits him; then, when he has made his choice, he may found his State.

He will be sure to have patterns enough.

And there being no necessity, I said, for you to govern in this State, even if you have the capacity, or to be governed, unless you like, or to go to war when the rest go to war, or to be at peace when others are at peace, unless you are so disposed—there being no necessity also, because some law forbids you to hold office or be a dicast, that you should not hold office or be a dicast, if you have a fancy—is not this a way of life which for the moment is supremely delightful?

For the moment, yes.

And is not their humanity to the condemned in some cases quite charming? Have you not observed how, in a democracy, many persons, although they have been sentenced to death or exile, just stay where they are and walk about the world— the gentleman parades like a hero, and nobody sees or cares?

Yes, he replied, many and many a one. See, too, I said, the forgiving spirit of democracy, and the "don't care" about trifles, and the disregard which she shows of all the fine principles which we solemnly laid down at the foundation of the city—as when we said that, except in the case of some rarely gifted nature, there never will be a good man who has not from his childhood been used to play amid things of beauty and make of them a joy and a study—how grandly does she trample all these fine notions of ours under her feet, never giving a thought to the pursuits which make a statesman, and promoting to honor anyone who professes to be the people's friend.

Yes, she is of a noble spirit.

These and other kindred characteristics are proper to democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.

We know her well.

Consider now, I said, what manner of man the individual is, or rather consider, as in the case of the State, how he comes into being.

Very good, he said.

Is not this the way—he is the son of the miserly and oligarchical father who has trained him in his own habits?

Exactly.

And, like his father, he keeps under by force the pleasures which are of the spending and not of the getting sort, being those which are called unnecessary?

Obviously.

Would you like, for the sake of clearness, to distinguish which are the necessary and which are the unnecessary pleasures?

I should.

Are not necessary pleasures those of which we cannot get rid, and of which the satisfaction is a benefit to us? And they are rightly called so, because we are framed by nature to desire both what is beneficial and what is necessary, and cannot help it.

True.

We are not wrong therefore in calling them necessary?

We are not.

And the desires of which a man may get rid, if he takes pains from his youth upward—of which the presence, moreover, does no good, and in some cases the reverse of good— shall we not be right in saying that all these are unnecessary?

Yes, certainly.

Suppose we select an example of either kind, in order that we may have a general notion of them?

Very good.

Will not the desire of eating, that is, of simple food and condiments, in so far as they are required for health and strength, be of the necessary class?

That is what I should suppose.

The pleasure of eating is necessary in two ways; it does us good and it is essential to the continuance of life?

Yes.

But the condiments are only necessary in so far as they are good for health?

Certainly.

And the desire which goes beyond this, of more delicate food, or other luxuries, which might generally be got rid of, if controlled and trained in youth, and is hurtful to the body, and hurtful to the soul in the pursuit of wisdom and virtue, may be rightly called unnecessary?

Very true.

May we not say that these desires spend, and that the others make money because they conduce to production?

Certainly.

And of the pleasures of love, and all other pleasures, the same holds good?

True.

And the drone of whom we spoke was he who was surfeited in pleasures and desires of this sort, and was the slave of the unnecessary desires, whereas he who was subject to the necessary only was miserly and oligarchical?

Very true.

Again, let us see how the democratical man goes out of the oligarchical: the following, as I suspect, is commonly the process.

What is the process?

When a young man who has been brought up as we were just now describing, in a vulgar and miserly way, has tasted drones' honey and has come to associate with fierce and crafty natures who are able to provide for him all sorts of refinements and varieties of pleasure—then, as you may imagine, the change will begin of the oligarchical principle within him into the democratical?

Inevitably.

And as in the city like was helping like, and the change was effected by an alliance from without assisting one division of the citizens, so too the young man is changed by a class of desires coming from without to assist the desires within him, that which is akin and alike again helping that which is akin and alike?

Certainly.

And if there be any ally which aids the oligarchical principle within him, whether the influence of a father or of kindred, advising or rebuking him, then there arise in his soul a faction and an opposite faction, and he goes to war with himself.

It must be so.

And there are times when the democratical principle gives way to the oligarchical, and some of his desires die, and others are banished; a spirit of reverence enters into the young man's soul, and order is restored.

Yes, he said, that sometimes happens.

And then, again, after the old desires have been driven out, fresh ones spring up, which are akin to them, and because he their father does not know how to educate them, wax fierce and numerous.

Yes, he said, that is apt to be the way.

They draw him to his old associates, and holding secret intercourse with them, breed and multiply in him.

Very true.

At length they seize upon the citadel of the young man's soul, which they perceive to be void of all accomplishments and fair pursuits and true words, which make their abode in the minds of men who are dear to the gods, and are their best guardians and sentinels.

None better.

False and boastful conceits and phrases mount upward and take their place.

They are certain to do so.

And so the young man returns into the country of the lotuseaters, and takes up his dwelling there, in the face of all men; and if any help be sent by his friends to the oligarchical part of him, the aforesaid vain conceits shut the gate of the King's fastness; and they will neither allow the embassy itself to enter, nor if private advisers offer the fatherly counsel of the aged will they listen to them or receive them. There is a battle and they gain the day, and then modesty, which they call silliness, is ignominiously thrust into exile by them, and temperance, which they nick-name unmanliness, is trampled in the mire and cast forth; they persuade men that moderation and orderly expenditure are vulgarity and meanness, and so, by the help of a rabble of evil appetites, they drive them beyond the border.

Yes, with a will.

And when they have emptied and swept clean the soul of him who is now in their power and who is being initiated by them in great mysteries, the next thing is to bring back to their house insolence and anarchy and waste and impudence in bright array, having garlands on their heads, and a great company with them, hymning their praises and calling them by sweet names; insolence they term "breeding," and anarchy "liberty," and waste "magnificence," and impudence " courage." And so the young man passes out of his original nature, which was trained in the school of necessity, into the freedom and libertinism of useless and unnecessary pleasures.

Yes, he said, the change in him is visible enough.

After this he lives on, spending his money and labor and time on unnecessary pleasures quite as much as on necessary ones; but if he be fortunate, and is not too much disordered in his wits, when years have elapsed, and the heyday of passion is over—supposing that he then readmits into the city some part of the exiled virtues, and does not wholly give himself up to their successors—in that case he balances his pleasures and lives in a sort of equilibrium, putting the government of himself into the hands of the one which comes first and wins the turn; and when he has had enough of that, then into the hands of another; he despises none of them, but encourages them all equally.

Very true, he said.

Neither does he receive or let pass into the fortress any true word of advice; if anyone says to him that some pleasures are the satisfactions of good and noble desires, and others of evil desires, and that he ought to use and honor some, and chastise and master the others—whenever this is repeated to him he shakes his head and says that they are all alike, and that one is as good as another.

Yes, he said; that is the way with him.

Yes, I said, he lives from day to day indulging the appetite of the hour; and sometimes he is lapped in drink and strains of the flute; then he becomes a water-drinker, and tries to get thin; then he takes a turn at gymnastics; sometimes idling and neglecting everything, then once more living the life of a philosopher; often he is busy with politics, and starts to his feet and says and does whatever comes into his head; and, if he is emulous of anyone who is a warrior, off he is in that direction, or of men of business, once more in that. His life has neither law nor order; and this distracted existence he terms joy and bliss and freedom; and so he goes on.

Yes, he replied, he is all liberty and equality.

Yes, I said; his life is motley and manifold and an epitome of the lives of many; he answers to the State which we described as fair and spangled. And many a man and many a woman will take him for their pattern, and many a constitution and many an example of manners are contained in him.

Just so.

Let him then be set over against democracy; he may truly be called the democratic man.

Let that be his place, he said.

Last of all comes the most beautiful of all, man and State alike, tyranny and the tyrant; these we have now to consider.

Quite true, he said.

Say then, my friend, in what manner does tyranny arise? —that it has a democratic origin is evident.

Clearly.

And does not tyranny spring from democracy in the same manner as democracy from oligarchy—I mean, after a sort?

How?

The good which oligarchy proposed to itself and the means by which it was maintained was excess of wealth—am I not right?

Yes.

And the insatiable desire of wealth and the neglect of all other things for the sake of money-getting were also the ruin of oligarchy?

True.

And democracy has her own good, of which the insatiable desire brings her to dissolution?

What good?

Freedom, I replied; which, as they tell you in a democracy, is the glory of the State—and that therefore in a democracy alone will the freeman of nature deign to dwell.

Yes; the saying is in everybody's mouth.

I was going to observe, that the insatiable desire of this and the neglect of other things introduce the change in democracy, which occasions a demand for tyranny.

How so?

When a democracy which is thirsting for freedom has evil cup-bearers presiding over the feast, and has drunk too deeply of the strong wine of freedom, then, unless her rulers are very amenable and give a plentiful draught, she calls them to account and punishes them, and says that they are cursed oligarchs.

Yes, he replied, a very common occurrence.
- Republic, Plato
Click to expand...

Shambhala Peace · Jul 18, 2006

Well, Plato was very against "power to the people" - if you have ever read "The Republic" all the way through. This is the same guy who thought the Arts were dangerous to have in a society.

I understand your intention for posting this passage, albeit misguided, it's a good one. The word democracy has been thrown around alot in the political rhetoric. It's what we are supposedly trying to do in Iraq, etc. The thing is - we live in more of a Republic - not a true democracy. True democracy would not allow for direction, as you well know, too many cooks spoil the pot. A republic, while still an ineffective form of government, still accomplishes things. I have heard the term Republican-Democracy thrown around to describe our country and I would agree with the sentiment.

However people who are clueless (this is directed to one particular person in power), throw out terms they truly don't understand and this is detrimental to the masses. Misinformation as it were.

So what I am really saying is this: Bush is no philisopher-king.

Thanks for this passage! It's been a while since I have read "The Republic".

Green · Jul 18, 2006

We live in a bourgeoisie democractic republic. That means democracy isn't avaliable to most people (the poor) in even the most democratic countrys. The fact that we are a propaganda state is one example of how the elections are bought.

In order to make democracy work the way it is supposed to (people have the power), we'd need a revolution.

dd3stp233 · Jul 18, 2006

Wouldn't a true democracy (if the people are relatively uneducated) be basically equivelent to mob rule, where the minority gets screwed?

Shambhala Peace · Jul 18, 2006

dd3stp233 said:

Wouldn't a true democracy (if the people are relatively uneducated) be basically equivelent to mob rule, where the minority gets screwed?
Click to expand...

That would be Plato's point. He feared the mob, as they killed his teacher.

Inquiring-Mind · Jul 18, 2006

Democracy with informed, educated, and intelligent citizens is a wonderful thing but without such elements it becomes a tool of oppression. If we spend half of what we spend on war and military tools, on education democracy will flourish.

Haid · Jul 18, 2006

If we spend half of what we spend on war and military tools, on education democracy will flourish
Click to expand...

If we did that we would have been invaded and our Government overthrown long ago. You can not preserve your ideals if you are not willing to Protect and Defend them.

Shambhala Peace · Jul 18, 2006

It is all about balance. You both have proposed excellent points, so if there could be a melding of the two (and feet kept to the fire to keep it working) - We could have a better government. There is no such thing as a perfect government, as human nature invariably gets in the way.

woodsman · Jul 18, 2006

Haid said:

You can not preserve your ideals if you are not willing to Protect and Defend them.
Click to expand...

America doesn't have any ideals anymore. They were all thrown out by an over zealous government. Compare the bill of rights to the current body of U.S. laws and see how many liberties you no longer have.

dd3stp233 · Jul 18, 2006

The U.S defense budget is roughly the same as all the other countries on Earth combined. So the U.S. needs to be ready incase the rest of the world tries to invade. That sounds rather paranoid. I think the balance is tipped onto the side of military spending.

Pressed_Rat · Jul 18, 2006

Does anyone even know what "Democracy" translates to in latin?

TokeTrip · Jul 19, 2006

Plato didn't believe in democracy, he believed in oligarchy; rule by the richest and most powerful (only men too).

Chodpa · Jul 19, 2006

The only thing I know for certain is that the best laid plans go awry.

DQ Veg · Jul 19, 2006

Pressed_Rat said:

Does anyone even know what "Democracy" translates to in latin?
Click to expand...

Well, in the first place "Democracy" is a Greek word, not a Latin one. "Demos" means 'people' and 'cracia' means "rule"-in other words, the 'rule of the people'.

The term "Democracy" has had a change in meaning over the years. It originally meant the absolute rule of the people, where the people voted directly on all matters of importance. In the past century or so, it has come to mean republican government, where the people elect their representatives, who actually vote on the issues and make laws. Words change meaning over the centuries, and this is no exception. It's true that "democracy" can still have its original meaning, but usually when it is used today it is interchangeable with 'republican government'. In fact, that is usually what is meant when the term 'democracy' is used today.

Haid · Jul 19, 2006

America doesn't have any ideals anymore. They were all thrown out by an over zealous government. Compare the bill of rights to the current body of U.S. laws and see how many liberties you no longer have.
Click to expand...

I don't think America has thrown out any of its ideals. There is a reason why most of the world is trying to immigrate here. Just because they are not your ideals doesn't mean they are not others. Which one of the Bill of Rights do you feel has been taken away??

The U.S defense budget is roughly the same as all the other countries on Earth combined. So the U.S. needs to be ready incase the rest of the world tries to invade. That sounds rather paranoid. I think the balance is tipped onto the side of military spending.
Click to expand...

These other countries would spend as much on defense budgets to if they could afford it. People act like no one else in the world wants power besides America. False. We just have a decent system that is working for us. If it were not for our Military spending somebody would have made a go at us before now.

Pressed_Rat · Jul 19, 2006

DQ Veg said:

Well, in the first place "Democracy" is a Greek word, not a Latin one. "Demos" means 'people' and 'cracia' means "rule"-in other words, the 'rule of the people'.

The term "Democracy" has had a change in meaning over the years. It originally meant the absolute rule of the people, where the people voted directly on all matters of importance. In the past century or so, it has come to mean republican government, where the people elect their representatives, who actually vote on the issues and make laws. Words change meaning over the centuries, and this is no exception. It's true that "democracy" can still have its original meaning, but usually when it is used today it is interchangeable with 'republican government'. In fact, that is usually what is meant when the term 'democracy' is used today.
Click to expand...

Greek -- excuse me.

Democracy means MOB RULE!

Haid · Jul 19, 2006

Well, in the first place "Democracy" is a Greek word, not a Latin one. "Demos" means 'people' and 'cracia' means "rule"-in other words, the 'rule of the people'
Click to expand...

Correct.

http://www.msu.edu/%7Edefores1/gre/roots/gre_rts_afx1.htm

No country is democratic. We are a Republic.

DQ Veg · Jul 19, 2006

Haid said:

I don't think America has thrown out any of its ideals. There is a reason why most of the world is trying to immigrate here. Just because they are not your ideals doesn't mean they are not others. Which one of the Bill of Rights do you feel has been taken away??
Click to expand...

Wow, you live in a real fantasy world. America's thrown out ALL of its ideals. Which ONE of the Bill of Rights do we feel has been taken away? How about all TEN of them?

The reason that people are trying to immigrate here is for economic reasons. I know people from every corner of the globe, and all of them swear they had a lot more freedom where they came from than they do here. I have degrees in several subjects that are related to these issues and I happen to know that they are correct in that assesment. They're shocked at how strangled they are by laws and regulations when they live here for a while. I could go on for hours, about how the Bill of Rights has been renderred meaningless, but I honestly don't think you care, because you clearly have this "America's the greatest country on earth" attitude, regardless of what facts you're presented with to the contrary.

woodsman · Jul 19, 2006

Haid said:

I don't think America has thrown out any of its ideals. There is a reason why most of the world is trying to immigrate here. Just because they are not your ideals doesn't mean they are not others. Which one of the Bill of Rights do you feel has been taken away??
Click to expand...

I was going to respond to that, but DQ Veg said it best:

DQ Veg said:

Wow, you live in a real fantasy world. America's thrown out ALL of its ideals. Which ONE of the Bill of Rights do we feel has been taken away? How about all TEN of them?
Click to expand...

The only thing I will add is that the America we live in now is nothing like the America envisioned by the founding fathers. Like I said before, read the Bill of Rights, and the Articles of the Constitution as well. You'll see what I mean.

AHumblePatriot · Jul 19, 2006

A democracy, is by definition, a government in which all the people come together and make laws and whatnot. This, with the US having a population of 299,240,319, would be almost completely impossible. For one thing, the sheer amount of time it would take for a motion to be suggested, seconded, voted upon, tallied, and accepted would take inefficent amounts of time. Look how long it takes for a law to be passed now.

"America doesn't have any ideals anymore. They were all thrown out by an over zealous government. Compare the bill of rights to the current body of U.S. laws and see how many liberties you no longer have."

What a load of crap.

Log in or Sign up

Democracy is Oppression

infoterror Member

Shambhala Peace Senior Member

Green Iconoclastic

dd3stp233 -=--=--=-

Shambhala Peace Senior Member

Inquiring-Mind Senior Member

Haid Member

Shambhala Peace Senior Member

woodsman Senior Member

dd3stp233 -=--=--=-

Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

TokeTrip Senior Member

Chodpa Senior Member

DQ Veg JUSTYNA'S TIGER

Haid Member

Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

Haid Member

DQ Veg JUSTYNA'S TIGER

woodsman Senior Member

AHumblePatriot Member

Log in or Sign up

Democracy is Oppression

infoterror Member

Shambhala Peace Senior Member

Green Iconoclastic

dd3stp233 -=--=--=-

Shambhala Peace Senior Member

Inquiring-Mind Senior Member

Haid Member

Shambhala Peace Senior Member

woodsman Senior Member

dd3stp233 -=--=--=-

Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

TokeTrip Senior Member

Chodpa Senior Member

DQ Veg JUSTYNA'S TIGER

Haid Member

Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

Haid Member

DQ Veg JUSTYNA'S TIGER

woodsman Senior Member

AHumblePatriot Member

Useful Searches