Page 27 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Unit 2: Plato’s Communism and Theory of Education

Notes

Plato viewed the ideal age for marriage to be between 25 and 55 for men and 20 and
40 for women. He forbade relationships between mothers and sons, and between
fathers and daughters.

Once children were born, they would be taken care of by the state-maintained nurseries, which
would be equipped with well-trained nurses. Except for the philosopher ruler, none would know
the parentage of these children. Even the biological parents and their children would be oblivious
of their relationship, the idea being that all children would be respectful towards their elders in
the same way as they would, had they been their parents. Conversely, all elders would shower
equal love and affection on all the children, as if they were theirs:
Each generation of children will be taken by officers appointed for the purpose, who
may be men or women or both—for men and women will of course be equally eligible
for office ... . These officers will take the children of the better Guardians to a nursery
and put them in charge of nurses living in a separate part of the city: the children of
the inferior Guardians, and any defective offspring of the others, will be quietly and
secretly disposed of.
Plato’s meritocratic society gave very little importance to birth. He did not believe that skills and
talents were hereditary which passed from one generation to another. Through mock marriages,
rigged lottery and eugenics, individual aptitudes would be sifted and classified, ensuring high
standards of excellence. Eugenics has been popular with many diverse schools like the Fabians,
Nazis and the idea of superman influenced thinkers like Nietzsche. True, as Plato suggested,
disposing of invalids and deformed babies w3s common in the animal world, but it seemed
insensitive to apply the same in the human world, which prides itself as being compassionate and
benevolent. It was also heartless of Plato to propose that medicines were to be abolished to prevent
prolongation of the lives of extreme and chronic invalids.
Plato did not mention the institution of slavery. Far from abolishing it, he merely regarded it as
unimportant. Being a universal institution on which the Athenian/Greek economies were based,
he could not conceive, like Aristotle, that it would be temporary and would change with new
modes of technology.
Critical Evaluation
While Plato’s scheme may apparently seem liberating, it implied excessive regimentation with
very little privacy and individuality. In trying to ensure that family life was not corrupted with
narrow sectarianism and selfishness, Plato went to the other extreme and eliminated the emotional
bonding that the family provided.
Plato certainly challenged some of the cherished conventions within human society. Many of his
critics were disturbed by these proposals. Aristotle was the earliest of those who disagreed, giving
a detailed reason as to why the family and private property were important for the happiness of
the individual and the welfare of the state. Both Grube (1935) and Taylor (1926) dismissed Plato’s
proposals as abhorrent for they did not take into cognizance the deepest human emotions that
marital and family life involved. Strauss (1964) reiterating Aristotle looked to the family as a
natural institution and questioned Plato’s wisdom in abolishing it. However, Plato’s defence of
the abolition of private households and monogamous marriages found strong adherents among
the early socialists like Saint Simon, Owen and Fourier.
Plato insisted that a temperate attitude towards property was necessary for the security and well-
being of the state. Too much acquisitiveness and love for one’s possessions ruined unity, harmony
and moral goodness of the state. Plato clearly perceived the disastrous consequences of combining

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 21