Section 5: Selections from the
BOOK II (368c-383c)
Glaucon and the others told me not to drop the matter but to answer Thrasymachus, who had asserted that there is no such thing as justice but who had asserted, rather, that the strong shall rule and the weak shall serve. They wanted to what the truth was concerning justice and injustice and their relative advantages. I told them, what I really thought, that we were in for a long night and little sleep. . .
Socrates: Now is it not true, I said, that sometimes we speak about an individual being 'just,' or acting justly, and at other time we discuss whether or not a government is 'just' or else whether it is acting justly or unjustly?
Adeimantus: True, Adeimantus replied, we speak of each being just or unjust.
Socrates: Isn't a State or government much bigger than an individual?
Adeimantus: It is.
Socrates: Then justice is more likely to be seen in the greater matter than in the smaller. So let's talk about justice in the State and later we can determine what it means for an individual to be just.
Adeimantus: Okay.
Socrates: Now if we imagine what it takes to set up a State in the first place we should then also be able to figure out how it acquires justice in the first place.
Adeimantus: All right, he said.
Socrates: So let's set about in our minds to create a State from scratch. Governments and state arise because they help mankind to achieve those wants, needs, and desires that we cannot achieve working alone as isolated individuals.
Adeimantus: Fair enough.
Socrates: However each of us does not have exactly the same needs as the next person. So there needs to be a number of different occupations so we can all provide for our mutual needs.
Adeimantus: Granted, he replied
Socrates: Well somebody once said that "Necessity is the mother of invention," so let's see what sorts of things we'll need in our State. First of all we need food. What else can you think of?
Adeimantus: After food you need clothing and shelter, he replied.
Socrates: Well then, we conclude that we need to have a farmer to grow food, a carpenter to build houses and sheds, and a weaver to make clothing. What else can you think of?
Adeimantus: Maybe you should throw in a shoemaker as well, he added.
Socrates: So our most minimally-sufficient State must include four or five men.
Adeimantus: Clearly.
Socrates: Well should each person only produce what is sufficient for his needs or should we have a division of labor? What I mean is that if the farmer does not build his own house, make his own clothes or boots shouldn't he produce enough food for the four or five men in our State as a way of compensating them for providing his house, clothes and the like? Likewise shouldn't the builder concentrate on building homes, sheds and stables of all of them rather than just for himself?
Adeimantus: I think each workman should concentrate on his own task.
Socrates: So we have to conclude that by a division of labor in our state and having each workman specializing in his own trade we will have the things we need in better quantity and better quality for all of us?
Adeimantus: Undoubtedly.
Socrates: Well then we need more than just four people: The farmer needs plows and shovels and the like. Your weaver needs scissors, sewing machines and the like. The carpenter needs a saw and a drill. The same with your shoe-maker. So we will need a tool-maker and probably a black-smith.
Adeimantus: True.
Socrates: It looks like our State is beginning to grow a little more. It looks like we'll need cattle-herders to provide the farmer with the oxen he needs for his plow. Our carpenter will need loggers to get the timber for building with. We'll need tanners as well to turn the hides of the cattle into leather that our boot-maker can use.
Adeimantus: Oh, I suppose so, he said. He added, what else do we need?
Socrates: Well, let's admit that we may not be able to provide for all of the needs of our State but that with the little agriculture and industry we do have that we might be able to trade with other States for those commodities that we can't produce on our own. So we will also need to have professional traders and salesmen, to arrange exporting our surplus good and importing needed goods. Is that fair enough?
Adeimantus: Sure, he said.
Socrates: Well then they will need offices and a market-place to conduct their business. But they will also need some form of money to arrange these transactions.
Adeimantus: Certainly.
Socrates: Well we have just created the commercial class of retailers and wholesalers in our city. They don't necessarily produce anything themselves but they are of great value to others in their work as middle-men, finding markets for the produce of the farmers so that his milk and vegetables don't spoil while he waits for buyers to show up. After all, those who are specialized in producing goods can't also be expected to be specialists in marketing, can they?
Adeimantus: Quite right.
Socrates: Well if your merchants and traders are usually weaklings whose smarts make up for their lack of strength on the other end of the scale you'll find a number of dummies who aren't very bright but who have broad backs, big muscles, and lots of strength. These can provide their "labor" for those who need strong backs. So these can be our wage-earners who move the lumber for the carpenter, load and unload goods for the merchants and who can help the farmer collect his harvest. Do you have any objection to having a class of unskilled laborers when everyone else in our State has some skills?
Adeimantus: No objection, he said, we want to find some work even for the unskilled, after all.
Socrates: And now, Adeimantus is our State sufficiently complete?
Adeimantus: I think so.
Socrates: Where, then, is justice and where, is injustice, and in what part of the State did they spring up?
Adeimantus: Probably in the citizens' dealings with each other. Where else could you find them?
Socrates: You're probably right. . . . . .
Socrates: So Glaucon, can you think of anything we've overlooked?
Glaucon: Why, he said, they need some others comforts as well. To be comfortable people need nice furniture and dinner-ware, as well as good food and drink.
Socrates: Now here is the point: The real question is not "what is
justice in a
Glaucon: True, be said.
Socrates: We'll need even more people and callings in our state. We'll need hunters, actors, special effects technicians, poets, musicians, dancers, building contractors, dress-makers, and, of course, lots of personal servants, maids, grooms, and the like. We'll need tutors, nannies, washer-women, and barbers, as well as confectioners and cooks; and butchers, too, who were not needed and therefore had no place in the former edition of our State, but are needed now. They must not be forgotten: and foodstuffs of all sorts, if people want them.
Glaucon: Certainly.
Socrates: And eating and drinking to excess won't we also need doctors to treat our self-inflicted illnesses?
Glaucon: No doubt.
Socrates: And the surrounding land that was enough to support the original inhabitants would now be too small to provide all this, don't you think?
Glaucon: Quite true.
Socrates: Then we will want a slice of our neighbors' land for pasture and tillage, and they will want a slice of ours, if, like ourselves, they aren't satisfied with the simple life but want the "good life" without limits. Not so?
Glaucon: That, Socrates, would be inevitable.
Socrates: Well sooner or later won't this mean war, Glaucon?
Glaucon: Most likely, he replied.
Socrates: Now even before we had decided to discuss whether warfare itself was necessary or not, or good or bad in itself, isn't it clear that we have shown that war comes from the same causes that produced all other kinds of troubles in governments?
Glaucon: Undoubtedly.
Socrates: Well then, it looks like we are going to have to add another special class of workers to our state, namely those folks who are going to have to go out to do all that fighting for us so we can live the good life.
Glaucon: Why can't the citizens do the fighting themselves?
Socrates: No they can't because, remember that in our state everyone is a specialist in what he does. All of the citizens whom we described so far have civilian occupations as their specialty.
Glaucon: True enough.
Socrates: But isn't warfare a special skill?
Glaucon: Certainly.
Socrates: Doesn't it require at least as much skill as boot-making?
Glaucon: It does.
Socrates: Well if we require our boot-makers to be skilled and competent specialists, does it make sense to require our soldiers to be amateurs? . . . just a bunch of civilians who pick up a sword only when danger strikes? Don't we want to have an army of professional soldiers who specialize in the skills of soldiering and war-making and who are as adept as wielding a sword or a spear as a boot-maker is in using his awl? If it takes skilled craftsmen years to learn their trade do we really except a bunch of civilians to acquire the needed skills of soldiering in a day?
Glaucon: I never said soldiering was so easy!
Socrates: And the more important are the duties of these guardians then the more their training and specialization must be valued?
Glaucon: No doubt, he replied.
Socrates: And not everyone is suited for this job . . . it requires some natural aptitudes as well as skills, doesn't it?
Glaucon: Certainly.
Socrates: Well aren't the young men who are strong and full of spunk just the sort of "guard-dogs" that we need?
Glaucon: Guard-dogs? I thought we were talking about soldiers.
Socrates: I'm being poetic . . I mean just as guard dogs have to have sharp senses and be able to run down and catch a prey and be able to fight with it once they've got it, so too must our soldiers be alert and swift and able to engage and overpower any enemy they encounter.
Glaucon: Sure!
Socrates: But the main thing is that he must have courage! Physical strength alone won't do. But even a terrier can overpower a bigger animal if it's absolutely fierce and fearless! Of course we do want soldiers who are strong and powerful but the main thing has to do with their attitude and their spirit of courage and the will to fight and to win.
Glaucon: Well that seems reasonable enough.
Socrates: But if they're that psyched up and primed to fight doesn't that also mean that they're likely to fight with each other as well?
Glaucon: That would be a problem.
Socrates: So how do we put the two together: make a guardian who is fierce towards his enemies but gentle and considerate to his fellow-soldiers? On first sight it might seem impossible but I have a proposal. Let's select the strong and aggressive young men but engage them in the sort of training that makes ordinary men into intellectuals and deep thinkers!
Glaucon: Well that's a novel thought!
Socrates: Can't we safely say that those who have learned to love wisdom and to enjoy intellectual pursuits are the best suited to form human company?
Glaucon: No doubt about it!
Socrates: So isn't it obvious that if we combine the correct physical training with the correct intellectual training that we can produce guardians who are both fierce fighters and the best of companions for each other?
Glaucon: no doubt about it!
Socrates: And what about their education? Can we find a better than the traditional sort? That is gymnastic training for the body, and music and poetry for the soul.
Glaucon: True.
Socrates: Should their education begin with music, and go on to gymnastics afterwards?
Glaucon: By all means.
Socrates: And when you say music, don't you mean literature as well?
Glaucon: Of course.
Socrates: But of course literature does include fiction, does it not?
Glaucon: True.
Socrates: Now if we're going to allow the guardians as children to begin their education by hearing stories and other forms of fiction, isn't it important that they hear the right kinds of stories from the right kind of people?
Glaucon: I'm sorry but you lost me . . . .
Socrates: I mean that we're going to have to impose a little bit of censorship. If you've heard some of the stories that are currently being told to children you'd realize that they're not at all the sorts of things that we want our young guardians to be fed upon while their minds are too tender and impressionable. We need censors to screen the stories and mothers and nurses must be kept under surveillance to see that they tell the young only approved stories.
Glaucon: Now what stories did you think we'd have to censor.?
Socrates: I mean all the trash written by Homer and Hesiod!
Glaucon: Homer and Hesiod! They're the greatest writers of the Greek language! What do you did so objectionable in them??!
Socrates: They're full of lies!
Glaucon: Wait a second? Isn't all fiction, story-telling - so isn't any story a "lie?"
Socrates: I don't mean an ordinary lie. I mean a lie so damnable that it destroys whatever other value their art might have, and admittedly their's is some of the greatest art in our language!
Glaucon: What lies are so damnable?
Socrates: Their lies against the holy and almighty gods of
Glaucon: Hmmm! You have a point there!
Socrates: Now if you remember that the last thing we want is to see our guardians fighting and killing each other then the last thing we should be telling them about are the glorious wars among the gods in Heaven or the wars of the Titans against the gods and against each other! We need to tell them tales that will inspire brotherly love, not fratricidal hatred!
Glaucon: Well, then. Where are we going to find these nice, politically correct tales?
Socrates: Well remember, Glaucon and Adeimantus, we are speaking about the beginning of a hypothetical new state. We don't need to be the poets and tale-tellers themselves but we can set down the guidelines for what can or cannot be told. The poets can string together whatever verses they like and the tale-tellers can spin any yarns they like---so long as they follow our guidelines!
Glaucon: And what are those guidelines?
Socrates: First and foremost, whenever God or any gods are mentioned they must always be represented as good and holy and worthy of respect and worship.
Glaucon: Well that seems good enough.
Socrates: But that also means that God cannot be represented as the "author of all things." We want Him to be seen only as the author of all good things but anything evil or bad must not be attributed to Him. Evils must be attributed to other causes.
Glaucon: Hmm. This seems reasonable enough.
Socrates: Then God, if he be good, is not the author of all things, as the many assert, but he is the cause of a few things only, and not of most things that occur to men. For few are the goods of human life, and many are the evils, and the good is to be attributed to God alone; of the evils the causes are to be sought elsewhere, and not in Him.
Glaucon: That appears to be me to be most true, be said. . . .
Socrates: Nor can God be portrayed as too intimately involved in human affairs. If we tell tales about how He awarded certain persons for their virtue that might imply that people should be virtuous merely in expectation of a reward from Him. We want them to be virtuous with virtue itself as its own reward. After all many people are virtuous and get no reward for it apart from the reputation for virtue. If we tell children that God rewarded some people with blessings for their virtue that would imply favoritism on His part. Nor can we say that when wicked people suffer punishments on account of their wickedness that God is punishing them. That would make Him the author of some evils. Vetter just to say that they are reaping the fruit of their own wickedness than to portray God as our own torturer or executioner.
Glaucon: I agree. Those tales would have a bad effect on our young people.
Socrates: Nor must we permit any sort of tale that portrays God as taking on human form or becoming incarnate among us. We don't want our children credulously thinking that strangers in their midst might be one of the immortal gods. Moreover the notion of the notions adopting a frail human form must itself be censored as blasphemy.
Glaucon: Why so?
Socrates: If the gods are superior, being unlimited by material forms and unchangeable, and themselves neither deceiving nor capable of being deceived, how can we allow people to say that they could shed their divine forms to assume a frail human forma and thereby deceive ordinary humans into mistaking them for ordinary mortals? Wouldn't that be a form of lying? And if the gods are themselves the Supreme Truth doesn't this myth of them representing themselves as they are not consist of the supreme lie---to allege that the Supreme Truth would lie about His own divinity before men?
Glaucon: Oh you're absolutely right!
Socrates: And is this not the worst of lies not only deserving of being hated by the gods but also by all men?
Glaucon: Yes.
Socrates: Of course, while men and gods detest such lies isn't it also true that there are times when some lies are useful and therefore good?
Glaucon: Whoa! You lost me again!
Socrates: I mean suppose one of your friends was suffering a bout of insanity and it was necessary to tell him something false to calm him down to prevent him from harming himself or others-- wouldn't that lie be useful and good? Similarly because written records do not go back to the beginnings of human history we have fabricated myths to teach people that we exist for noble purposes. In fact such myths are lies because we don't know about the real origins of man but because they guide people to be moral and just we consider them noble lies.
Glaucon: That's true. . . .
BOOK III (388d - 389e)
Socrates: Well now, my dear Adeimantus, if it is clear that we must not teach our young guardians any false regarding the gods we must also guard them against another evil.
Glaucon: Which evil?
Socrates: The evil of having a SENSE OF HUMOR!!!!! Laughter, giggling, joking and the like are UNDIGNIFIED! The poets, by portraying the gods as a bunch of laughing fools have brought the gods in disrespect. Humorists poke fun at the sacred and dignified things and we don't want our guardians to have such an irreverent attitude.
Glaucon: Of course not!
Socrates: Besides, our physicians teach us that excess laughter may cause the spleen to split to the great harm of the person laughing.
Glaucon: A most horrible way to die1
Socrates: Not only must we never represent the holy gods as laughing. Neither must we allow any representation of moral and just men as given to laughter or joking or smiling. Even being cheerful must be frowned upon. If any man tells or joke or laughs in public he must be forbidden from holding any trust or public office.
Glaucon: Most assuredly!
Socrates: . . . Truth must be highly valued. If it's true that lies are not needed by the gods and necessary among men only to prevent evil then the proper use of lies should be restricted to those entrusted to prevent public evils.
Glaucon: That is clear, he said.
Socrates: Then if any one at all is to have the privilege of lying, the rulers of the State should be the persons; and they, in their dealings either with enemies or with their own citizens, may be allowed to lie for the public good. But nobody else should meddle with anything of the kind. Although the rulers have this privilege, for a private man to lie to them in return is to be deemed a crime more serious than for the patient or the pupil of a gymnasium not to speak the truth about his own bodily illnesses to the physician or to the trainer, or for a sailor not to tell the captain what is happening about the ship and rest of the crew, and how things are going with himself or his fellow sailors.
Glaucon: Most true.
Socrates: If, then, the ruler catches anybody beside himself lying in the State, he should punish him for a practice which is equally subversive and destructive of the ship of State.
Glaucon: Most certainly, if our idea of the State is ever carried out.
Socrates: In the next place our youth must be self-controlled?
Glaucon: Certainly.
Socrates: Are not the chief elements of self-control, speaking generally, subordination to commanders and restraining oneself from sensual pleasures? Nor should they be easily swayed or persuaded to disobey orders or else to give in to their sensual desires . . .
Glaucon: True. . .
413c - 417b
Socrates: . . .I only mean that some men allow themselves to be swayed by persuasion or desire and that others forget their duties. Argument subverts the loyalties of one class, and good times overcome the other; and this I call theft. Now you understand me?
Glaucon: Yes.
Socrates: Those again who break under force are those whom the violence of some pain or grief compels to change their opinion.
Glaucon: I understand, and you are quite right.
Socrates: And do you also acknowledge that men who lack self- control are those who most readily will change their minds either under the softer influence of pleasure, or the sterner influence of fear?
Glaucon: Yes, everything that deceives may be said to undermine their self-control.
Socrates: Therefore, as I was just now saying, we must find out who best holds their conviction that what they know the interest of the State to be as going to be the rule of their lives. We must watch them from their youth upwards, and to subject them to tests to see whether they crack under pressure or boredom or under the influence of false information...those candidates who remember their duties and are not deterred from them by threat, bribe or false information are to be selected. Those who fail such tests are to be rejected. That will be the way?
Glaucon: Yes.
Socrates: And they should also be forced to endure trials, toils, pains and conflicts in which they will be made to give further proof of the same qualities.
Glaucon: Very right, he replied.
Socrates: And then, I said, we must test them with tests of deception---that is the third sort of test---and see what will be their behavior: like those who train colts amid noise and tumult to see if they are of a timid nature, so must test our youth with terrors of some kind, and again lure them with pleasures, and so doing to test their character more severely than gold which is purified in the smelter, that we may learn whether they are armed against all attempts to derail them from their duty, and that their character holds up under all circumstances so that they are known to be good guardians of themselves and of the music which they have learned, and retaining under all circumstances a rhythmical and harmonious nature, such as will be most serviceable to the individual and to the State. And he who at every age, as boy and youth and in mature life, has come out of the trial victorious and pure, shall be appointed a ruler and guardian of the State; he shall be honored in life and death, and shall receive a state funeral and other memorials of honor, the greatest that we have to give. But him who fails, we must reject. I am inclined to think that this is the sort of way in which our rulers and guardians should be chosen and appointed. I speak generally, and not with any pretension to exactness.
Glaucon: And speaking generally, I agree with you.
Socrates: And perhaps the word 'guardian' in the fullest sense ought to be applied to this higher class only who preserve us against foreign enemies and maintain peace among our citizens at home, that the one may not have the will, or the others the power, to harm us. The young men whom we before called ‘guardians’ may be more properly designated 'soldiers' and supporters of the principles of the rulers.
Glaucon: I agree with you.
Socrates: Now then to do all this shouldn't we be permitted to devise one of those necessary falsehoods of which we lately spoke-- -just one royal lie which may deceive the rulers, if that be possible, and at any rate the rest of the city?
Glaucon: What sort of lie?
Socrates: Well, then, I will speak, although I really know not how to tell you this silly lie which I propose to propagate gradually, first among the rulers, then among the soldiers, and lastly among the people. They are to be told that their life up until now has been a dream, and the education and training which they received from us, an illusion; in reality during all that time they were being formed and fed in the womb of the earth, where they themselves and their arms and limbs were manufactured; when they were completed, the earth, their mother, sent them up. Now since their homeland is their ‘mother’ and also their nurse, they are bound to advise for her good, and to defend her against attacks, and her citizens they are to regard as children of the earth and as their own brothers.
Glaucon: You had good reason to be embarrassed about the lie which you were going to tell.
Socrates: True, but there is more. I have only told you half of it. Citizens, we shall say to them in our tale, you are brothers, yet God has framed you differently. Some of you have the power of command, and in the composition of these he has mingled gold, so they should have the greatest honor. Others he has made of silver, to be soldiers. Others again who are to be farmers and craftsmen he has composed of brass and iron, and their metal will generally be preserved in their children. But as all are of the same original stock, a golden parent will sometimes have a silver son, or a silver parent a golden son. And God proclaims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which they should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race. They should observe what elements mingle in their offspring. If the son of a golden or silver parent has an admixture of brass and iron, then nature orders a transposition of ranks, and the eye of the ruler must not be pitiful towards the child because he has to descend in the scale and become a farmer or a craftsman, just as there may be sons of mechanics who having an admixture of gold or silver in them are raised to honor, and become guardians or auxiliaries. For a prophecy states that when a man of brass or iron guards the State, it will be destroyed. Such is the tale; is there any possibility of making our citizens believe in it?
Glaucon: Not in the present generation. No way! But the very young might be made to believe in the tale, and their sons' sons, and their children after them.
Socrates: I see the difficulty. Yet fostering this belief will make them care more for the city and for one another. Enough, however, about the lie. Let's think about our earth-born heroes, and how they should be led them forth under the command of their rulers. Let them look round and select a spot whence they can best suppress insurrection, and also defend themselves against enemies, who like wolves may come down on the fold from without. There let them encamp, and when they have encamped, let them sacrifice to the proper gods and prepare their living quarters.
Glaucon: Just so.
Socrates: This living quarters should be able to shield them against the cold of winter and the heat of summer.
Glaucon: I suppose that you mean houses, he replied.
Socrates: Actually I had plain old wooden barracks in mind.
Glaucon: Why not ordinary homes?
Socrates: Well wouldn't it be improper for a shepherd to keep watchdogs, who, for lack of training or too little to eat, or some evil habit or other, turn upon the sheep and eat them, and behave not like dogs but wolves?
Glaucon: Not proper at all.
Socrates: Likewise care must be taken that our soldiers, being stronger than our citizens, may not grow to be too much for them and become savage tyrants instead of friends and allies.
Glaucon: Yes, great care should be taken.
Socrates: Would not a really good education furnish the best safeguard?
Glaucon: But they are well-educated already, he replied.
Socrates: I cannot be so confident,
Glaucon. I am much more certain that they ought to be, and that true education, whatever that may be, will have the greatest tendency to civilize and humanize them in their relations to one another, and to those who are under their protection.
Glaucon: Very true.
Socrates: But apart from their education, their style of living should be such as will neither impair their worth as soldiers, nor tempt them to prey on the others. Any man of sense must acknowledge that.
Glaucon: He must.
Socrates: Then let's see what life-style they need to live up to our ideal. First of all, none of them should have any property of his own beyond what is absolutely necessary. Neither should they have a private house or any privacy for that matter. Their provisions should be only such as are required by trained soldiers, who are self-controlled and brave men. They should agree to receive from the citizens a fixed rate of pay, enough to meet the expenses of the year and no more. They will eat only in a mess- hall and billet together like soldiers in a camp. We will tell them that they already have gold and silver from God. Since their pure hearts are made of gold they have no need of the dross which is current among men, and ought not to pollute the divine by any such earthly admixture; for those commoner metals have been the source of many unholy deeds, but their own is undefiled. They alone of all the citizens may not touch or handle silver or gold, or be under the same roof with them, or wear them, or drink from them. And this will be their salvation, and they will be the saviors of the State. But should they ever acquire homes or lands or funds of their own, they will become housekeepers and husbandmen instead of guardians, enemies and tyrants instead of allies of the other citizens, hating and being hated, plotting and being plotted against, they will pass their whole life in much greater terror of internal than of external enemies, and the hour of ruin, both to themselves and to the rest of the State, will be at hand. For all these reasons may we not say that thus all our State be ordered, and that these shall be the regulations appointed by us for our soldiers concerning their shelters and all other matters?
Glaucon: Yes, of course.
BOOK IV (428b - 433b)
Socrates: First among the virtues found in the State, is wisdom, and in this I see a certain distinction.
Glaucon: What is that?
Socrates: Can we call the State which we have been describing, as wise, meaning good in counsel?
Glaucon: Indeed.
Socrates: And good counsel is clearly a kind of knowledge, for is it not by knowledge that men counsel well?
Glaucon: Clearly.
Socrates: And the kinds of knowledge in a State are many and diverse?
Glaucon: Of course. . .
Socrates: Well, is there any knowledge in our recently-founded State among the citizens which advises, not about any particular thing in the State, but about the whole, namely how a State can best deal with itself and with other States?
Glaucon: There certainly is.
Socrates: And what is this knowledge, and among whom is it found?
Glaucon: It is the knowledge of the guardians which is found among those whom we were just now describing as perfect guardians.
Socrates: And what is the reputation which the city derives from the possession of this sort of knowledge?
Glaucon: The reputation of being "good in counsel" and "truly wise."
Socrates: Will there be more true guardians or more smiths to be found in this city?
Glaucon: The smiths will be far more numerous.
Socrates: Will not the guardians be the smallest of all the classes who receive a name from the profession of some kind of knowledge?
Glaucon: Much the smallest.
Socrates: So by reason of the smallest part or class, and of the knowledge which resides in the ruling part of itself, the whole State, being thus constituted according to nature, will be wise. This, which alone is the knowledge worthy to be called wisdom, has been ordained by nature to be of all classes the smallest.
Glaucon: True.
Socrates: Thus the nature and place in the State of one of the four basic virtues has somehow or other been discovered.
Glaucon: And, in my humble opinion, very satisfactorily discovered.
Socrates: Again, there is no difficulty in seeing the nature of courage. Where does that quality reside which gives the name of "courageous" to the State?
Glaucon: How do you mean?
Socrates: Why, every one who calls any State courageous or cowardly, will be thinking of the part which fights and goes out to war on the State's behalf. The rest of the citizens may be courageous or may be cowardly, but their courage or cowardice will not, as I conceive, have the effect of making the city either the one or the other.
Glaucon: Certainly not.
Socrates: The city will be courageous in virtue of a portion of herself which preserves under all circumstances that opinion about the nature of things to be feared and not to be feared in which our legislator educated them; and this is what you term courage.
Glaucon: I should like to hear what you are saying once more, for I do not think that I perfectly understand you.
Socrates: I mean that courage is a kind of salvation.
Glaucon: Salvation of what?
Socrates: Of the opinion respecting things to be feared, what they are and of what nature, which the law implants through education; and I mean by the words 'under all circumstances' to intimate that in pleasure or in pain, or under the influence of desire or fear, a man preserves, and does not lose this opinion. . . Then now, you understand why we selected our soldiers, and educated them in music and gymnastic. We were contriving influences which would prepare them to absorb the laws perfectly, and their opinion about dangers and of every other opinion was to be indelibly fixed by their nurture and training, not to be weakened by pleasure or by sorrow, or by fear or by desire. And this sort of universal staying power of true opinion in conformity with law about real and false dangers I call and maintain to be courage, unless you disagree.
Glaucon: Of course I agree. Forgive me if I seemed to think you meant mere uninstructed courage, such as that of a wild beast or of a slave---this, in your opinion, is not the courage which the law ordains, and ought to have another name.
Socrates: Most certainly.
Glaucon: Then I may infer courage to be such as you describe?
Socrates: Why, yes, you may, and if you add the words 'of a citizen', you will not be far wrong. Now if you like we will carry the examination further, but at present we are seeking not for courage but justice.
Glaucon: You are right.
Socrates: Two virtues remain to be found in the State: First, self-control, and then justice which is the object of our search.
Glaucon: Very true.
Socrates: Now, can we find justice without troubling ourselves about self-control?
Glaucon: I do not know how that can be accomplished, nor do I want to pursue justice without knowing something about self- control. So let's find out where self-control is found.
Socrates: Certainly, I agree. As far as I can see, the virtue of self-control has more of the nature of harmony and sympathy than the preceding.
Glaucon: How so?
Socrates: Self-control is the ordering or controlling of certain pleasures and desires. This is curiously enough implied in the saying of 'a man being his own master' and other traces of the same notion may be found in language.
Glaucon: No doubt.
Socrates: There is something ridiculous in the expression 'master of himself' for the master is also the servant and the servant the master. In all these modes of speaking the same person is meant.
Glaucon: Certainly.
Socrates: The meaning is that in the human soul there is a better and also a worse principle. When the better has the worse under control, then a man is said to be master of himself. This is a term of praise. But when, owing to evil education or association, the better principle, which is also the smaller, is overwhelmed by the greater mass of the worse. In this case he is blamed and is called the "slave of his desire" and "unprincipled."
Glaucon: Yes, there is reason in that.
Socrates: But now look at our newly-created State, and there you will find one of these two conditions realized. For the State, as you will acknowledge, may be justly called the master of itself, if the words 'self-control' and self-mastery' truly express the rule of the better part over the worse.
Glaucon: Yes, I see that what you say is true.
Socrates: Let me further note that many complex pleasures and desires and pains are generally found in children and women and servants, and in the so-called freemen who are of the lowest and more numerous class.
Glaucon: Certainly.
Socrates: On the other hand the more pure and moderate desires which follow reason, and are under the guidance of mind and true opinion, are to be found only in a few, and those the best born and best educated.
Glaucon: Very true.
Socrates: These two, as you may perceive, have a place in our State but the less pure desires of the many are held down by the virtuous desires and wisdom of the few.
Glaucon: That I perceive.
Socrates: Then if there is any city which may be described as master of its own pleasures and desires, and master of itself, isn't that our city?
Glaucon: Certainly, he replied.
Socrates: Shouldn't it also be considered "self-controlled" for the same reasons?
Glaucon: Yes.
Socrates: If there be any State in which rulers and subjects will be agreed about who should rule, isn't that again our State?
Glaucon: Undoubtedly.
Socrates: Since the citizens all agree on this among whom is self- control found--in the rulers or in the subjects?
Glaucon: In both, I think.
Socrates: Do you see that we were not far wrong in our intuition that self-control was a sort of harmony?
Glaucon: Why so?
Socrates: Why, because self-control is not like courage and wisdom, each of which resides in a part only, the one making the State wise and the other valiant. Instead self-control extends to the whole, and runs through all the notes of the scale, and produces a harmony of the weaker and the stronger and the middle class, whether you suppose them to be stronger or weaker in wisdom or power or numbers or wealth, or anything else. Most truly then we can consider self-control to be the agreement of the naturally superior and inferior, as to the right to rule of either, both in states and individuals.
Glaucon: I entirely agree with you.
Socrates: And so, I said, we may consider three out of the four virtues to have been discovered in our State. The last of those qualities which make a state virtuous must be justice, if we only knew what it was.
Glaucon: The inference is obvious. . .
Socrates: Well we must be pretty stupid not to see it staring us in the face.
Glaucon: Why so?
Socrates: Remember at the beginning of our inquiry, ages ago, there was justice tumbling out at our feet but we never saw it. Nothing could be more ridiculous. Like people who go about looking for what they have in their hands we overlooked it at the start but kept on right past it..
Glaucon: What do you mean?
Socrates: I mean to say that in reality for a long time past we have been talking about justice without realizing it.
Glaucon: Please explain this for me . . .
Socrates: Well then, tell me whether I am right or not: You remember the original principle which we were always laying down at the foundation of the State, that one man should practice one thing only, the thing to which his nature was best adapted. Now justice is this principle or a part of it.
Glaucon: Yes, we often said that one man should attend only to his own business.
Socrates: Further, we affirmed that justice was doing one's own business, and not being a busybody. We said so again and again, and many others have said the same as well.
Glaucon: Yes we said so.
Socrates: Then to do one's own business in a certain way may be assumed to be justice. Can you tell me how we arrived at this conclusion?
Glaucon: I cannot, but I should like to be told.
Socrates: Because I think that this is the only virtue which remains in the State when the other virtues of self-control and courage and wisdom are accounted for. In fact this is the condition that allows the existence of all of them. If the other three virtues are discovered by us then justice must also be present otherwise the others could not be present.
Glaucon: That follows of necessity.
Socrates: If we are asked to determine which of these four qualities by its presence contributes most to the excellence of the State, whether the agreement of rulers and subjects, or the preservation in the soldiers of the opinion which the law ordains about the true nature of dangers, or wisdom and watchfulness in the rulers, or whether this other which I am mentioning, and which is found in children and women, slave and freeman, craftsman, ruler, subject, the quality, I mean, of every one doing his own work, and not being a busybody, would be the obvious answer----and yet the question is not so easily answered.
Glaucon: Certainly, there would be a difficulty in saying which.
Socrates: Then the power of each individual in the State to do his own work appears to compete with the other political virtues, wisdom, temperance, courage.
Glaucon: well, yes.
Socrates: And the virtue which enters into this competition is justice?
Glaucon: Exactly.
Socrates: Let us look at the question from another point of view: Are not the rulers in a State those to whom you would entrust the office of determining suits at law?
Glaucon: Certainly.
Socrates: And are suits decided on any other ground but that a man may neither take what is another's, nor be deprived of what is his own?
Glaucon: Yes; that is their principle.
Socrates: Which is a just principle?
Glaucon: Yes.
Socrates: Then on this view also justice will be admitted to be the having and doing what is a man's own, and belongs to him. . .
Glaucon: Is such an order of things possible, and how, if at all? For I am quite ready to acknowledge that the plan which you propose, if only feasible, would do all sorts of good to the State. I will add what you have omitted, that your citizens will be the bravest of warriors, and will never leave their ranks, for they will all respect one another, and each will call the other father, brother, son. And if you allow the women to join their armies, whether in the same rank or in the rear, either as a terror to the enemy, or as reserves in case of need, I know that they will then be absolutely invincible. And there are many domestic advantages which might also be mentioned and which I also fully acknowledge. But, as I admit all these advantages and as many more as you please, if only this State of yours could actually exist. But unless such a state does come into existence isn't all of this hypothetical and speculative? . .
Socrates: Let me begin my reminding you that we found our way here in the search after justice and injustice.
Glaucon: True, but what of it?
Socrates: I was only going to ask whether, if we have discovered them, we are to require that the just man should in nothing fail of absolute justice; or may we be satisfied with an approximation, and the attainment in him of a higher degree of justice than is to be found in other men?
Glaucon: The approximation will be enough.
Socrates: We were inquiring into the nature of absolute justice and into the character of the perfectly just, and into injustice and the perfectly unjust, that we might have an ideal. We were to look at this ideal standard in order that we might evaluate our own happiness and unhappiness according to the standard which they exhibited and the degree in which we resembled them. None of this required that such a standard had to exist in fact.
Glaucon: True.
Socrates: Would a painter be any the worse because, after having created with consummate art an ideal of a perfectly beautiful woman, he was unable to show that any such woman could ever have existed?
Glaucon: He would be none the worse.
Socrates: Well, and were we not creating an ideal of a perfect State?
Glaucon: To be sure.
Socrates: And is our theory bad simply because we are unable to prove the possibility of a city being ordered in the manner they we have described?
Glaucon: Surely not.
Socrates: That is the truth, I said. But if, at your request, I am to try and show how and under what conditions this is a possibility, I must ask you the following: I want to know whether any ideals are ever fully realized in language. Does not the word express more than the fact, and must not the actual, whatever a man may think, always, in the nature of things, fall short of the truth? What do you say?
Glaucon: I agree.
Socrates: Then you must not insist on my proving that the actual State will in every respect coincide with the ideal: if we are only able to discover how a city may be governed nearly as we proposed, you will admit that we have discovered the possibility which you demand and with this you should be contented. I am sure that I would be contented. Wouldn't you be too?
Glaucon: Yes, I would.
Socrates: Let me next try to show what is that fault in States which is the cause of their present terrible administration, and what is the least change which will enable a State to pass into the truer form; and let the change if possible, be of one thing only, or, if not, of two; at any rate, let the changes be as few and slight as possible.
Glaucon: Certainly.
Socrates: I think, I said that there might be a reform of the State if only one change were made, which is not a slight or easy though still a possible one.
Glaucon: What is it?
Socrates: Namely this UNTIL PHILOSOPHERS ARE KINGS, OR THE KINGS AND PRINCES OF THIS WORLD HAVE THE SPIRIT AND POWER OF PHILOSOPHY, AND POLITICAL GREATNESS AND WISDOM MEET IN ONE, AND THOSE COMMONER NATURES WHO PURSUE EITHER TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE OTHER ARE COMPELLED TO STAND ASIDE, NATIONS AND GOVERNMENTS WILL NEVER HAVE RELIEF FROM THEIR TROUBLES,-----NO, NOR WILL THE HUMAN RACE, I BELIEVE,---AND THEN ONLY WILL THIS OUR STATE HAVE A POSSIBILITY OF LIFE AND BEHOLD THE LIGHT OF DAY. Such was the thought, my good friend
Glaucon: I would like to have said this if it had not seemed too extreme. For to be convinced that there be no happiness in any nation or political system private or public is indeed a hard thing. . . .
BOOK VIII -
Socrates: So, Glaucon, we've concluded that in our ideal State wives and children are to be possessed in common; and that all education and the pursuits of war and peace are also to be public property, and the best philosophers and the bravest soldiers are to rule?
Glaucon: I guess so.
Socrates: Yes, and we further decided that the governors will house their soldiers in common barracks, with nothing private or individual. And do you remember what we decided about their property?
Glaucon: Yes - they weren't supposed to have any of the ordinary comforts of life. They were to be soldier-athletes and guardians who would receive only a subsistence allowance instead of a salary, sufficient to take care of themselves and the entire State.
Socrates: Now where did we leave off before this tangent?
Glaucon: Well, you said that such a State was good, and that if this was the ideal form than all others were defective. I think you said there were four main types of defective states due to four types of human flaws among their citizens, each progressively worse than the other. I'll let you resume your description of them.
Socrates: The four governments I spoke of were, first, either monarchy or
aristocracy - rule by the noble people -, such as those of Crete and
Glaucon: I've heard of strange mixed forms of governments both among Greeks as well as non-Greeks.
Socrates: Now you realize, don't you, that human governments are no better than the people who make them up. They are not like iron or wood.
Glaucon: Yes, the States are like their citizens; they grow out of human characters. . .
Socrates: Then let us proceed to describe the defective states, one being drive by conflict and ambition, such as the Spartan state; and also the oligarchic, democratic, and dictatorial types. Let us compare and contrast the ideal form against the most defective form. Then we can conclude who is most happy: he who leads a life of pure justice or he who leads a life of pure injustice. We will have answered our original question: we shall know whether we ought to pursue injustice, as Thrasymachus advised, or following the conclusions of our argument, whether we should prefer justice.
Glaucon: Certainly, we must do as you say. . .
Socrates: First, then, let's see aristocracy arises out of the ideal state. Clearly, all political change begins with conflicts within the state. A government which is united, however small, cannot be moved.
Glaucon: Very true.
Socrates: So how does the change begin in the ideal state? Will the two classes of soldiers and rulers disagree among themselves or with one another? ---A city which is thus constituted can hardly be shaken; but, seeing that everything with a beginning has also an end, even a constitution such as yours will not last for ever, but will in time be dissolved. And this is how the dissolution occurs: . . . When your rulers are ignorant of the proper principles of selective breeding and unite bride and bridegroom out of season, the children will not be genetically perfect. Even though only the best of them will be appointed by their predecessors, still they will be unworthy to take their fathers' places, and when they come into power as rulers, they will soon be found to fail, first by undervaluing music and then by neglecting gymnastics. The young men of your State will be less well-trained. In the succeeding generation rulers will be appointed who have lost the rulers' ability to discern the "metal" of your different races, which, like Hesiod's, are of gold and silver and brass and iron. And so iron will be mingled with silver, and brass with gold, and from this there will arise dissimilarity and inequality and irregularity, which always and in all places are causes of hatred and war. . . When discord arises, then the two races will be drawn different ways: the iron and brass will go after acquiring money and land and houses and gold and silver; but the gold and silver races, not wanting money but having the true riches in their own nature, will still be inclined towards virtue and the ancient order of things. Once they fight among themselves and at last agree to distribute their land and houses among individual owners then they will enslave their friends and maintainers, whom they had formerly protected as freemen, but who will now be subjects and slaves. They themselves will be engaged in a constant civil war of keeping a watch over them.
Glaucon: I believe that you have correctly described how this change will occur.
Socrates: This new State will be distinguished by its leaders' reluctance to admit philosophers to power but will be inclined to follow passionate and less complex characters, who are by nature better suited for war rather than peace. They will value military stratagems and the waging of everlasting wars.
Glaucon: Alright, and so?.
Socrates: Well these sort of men desire money. They have a hidden longing for wealth just as the money-bags of the oligarchies do. They would like to hoard up silver and gold to spend on their wives or in any way they would please.
Glaucon: That is most true.
Socrates: However they are miserable because they cannot openly acquire this money they desire. They will have to rob it from others and so they are lead to desert the law, which is their father. They have been trained not by gentle influences but by force, for they have neglected reason and philosophy and have honored physical conditioning more than the training of the mind.
Glaucon: Undoubtedly the government you are describing is a mixture of good and evil.
Socrates: A mixture? Why yes, but the one thing that predominates is the spirit of conflict and competition due to the prevalence of the passionate or spirited element.
Glaucon: Assuredly.
Socrates: This is the origin and character of this State, which has been described in outline only. Just a sketch of it is enough to show the type of the most perfectly just and most perfectly unjust. To describe every state according to minute degradation of the character of men would take too long and too much energy.
Glaucon: True enough.
Socrates: I believe that oligarchy follows next. And what is an oligarchy? It is a government based on property, in which the rich have power and the poor are deprived of it.
Glaucon: I understand.
Socrates: This is how it comes about: The accumulation of gold in the hands of private individuals ruins your aristocracy. The rulers spend it in ways prohibited by the law, for what do they or their wives care about the law?
Glaucon: Yes, indeed.
Socrates: And when one sees another growing richer than himself, he in turn seeks to rival him. And so the great mass of the citizens become lovers of money.
Glaucon: Likely enough.
Socrates: And as they grow richer and richer, the more they think about making a fortune the less they think about virtue. For when riches and virtue are placed together in the scales of the balance, the one always rises as the other falls.
Glaucon: True.
Socrates: The more riches and rich men are honored in the State, then the more are virtue and the virtuous dishonored.
Glaucon: Clearly.
Socrates: Finally instead of being lovers of war and glory, men become lovers of trade and money. They honor and look up to the rich man and make him their ruler, and dishonor the poor man.
Glaucon: They do so.
Socrates: They next proceed to make a law which fixes a certain net worth as the qualification of citizenship. This qualification is higher in one place and lower in another, as the oligarchy is more or less exclusive. No one whose net worth falls below the amount fixed can have any share in the government. They force this change in the constitution by force of arms, if intimidation has not already done their work.
Glaucon: Yes, but what are the characteristics of this form of government, and what are its defects?
Socrates: First of all, consider the nature of the qualification. Just think what would happen if captains of ships were chosen according to their property, and a poor man were refused permission to steer, even though he were a better navigator?
Glaucon: You mean there would be a shipwreck?
Socrates: Yes, and is not this true of the ship of state? Isn't a city or a nation even more difficult to steer than a ship at sea? Isn't this the first great defect of oligarchy?
Glaucon: Clearly.
Socrates: And there is another defect just as bad.
Glaucon: What defect?
Socrates: Such a State is not one nation, but two nations: one made up of poor men, and the other made up of rich men. Even though they live in the same territory they are enemies and plot against each other.
Glaucon: That, surely, is at least as bad.
Socrates: Another discreditable feature is, that, due to their idleness they are incapable of carrying on any war. Either they must arm the multitude, and then they are more afraid of them than of the enemy, or they would have to hire mercenaries in that case. But at the same time their fondness for money makes them unwilling to pay taxes so they lack the means to hire paid troops.
Glaucon: I think it is contemptible for them to refuse to pay taxes to support the very state from which they benefit themselves!
Socrates: As we said before, under such a constitution the same persons who hold power have too many callings---they are plantation owners, tradesmen, warriors, all in one. Does that look good?
Glaucon: Anything but good.
Socrates: There is another evil, perhaps the greatest of all, and to which this State is liable.
Glaucon: What evil?
Socrates: A man may sell all that he has, and another may acquire his property. Yet after the sale he may dwell in the city of which be is no longer a part, being neither a trader, nor an artisan, nor a horseman, nor a soldier, but only a poor, helpless creature.
Glaucon: Yes, that evil originates in this State.
Socrates: The evil is certainly not prevented there, for oligarchies have both the extremes of great wealth and utter poverty.
Glaucon: True.
Socrates: But think again: In his wealthy days, while he was spending his money, was a man of this sort of any worth to the State as a citizen? Or did be only seem to be a member of the ruling class, although in truth he was neither ruler nor subject, but just a spendthrift?
Glaucon: As you say, be seemed to be a first rate citizen, but was only a spendthrift.
Socrates: May we not say that this is a parasite upon the state just as a louse is a parasite on the body, and that the one is the plague of the city just as the other is a plague of the body?
Glaucon: Right you are, Socrates.
Socrates: And God has created all kinds of parasites and vermin,
Glaucon. There are the harmless, stingless, kinds, like cockroaches and lice, which we crush under foot or whom we pinch to death without a qualm. But then there are dreadful vermin and parasites with stings and fangs, such as scorpions and venomous spiders, that you scarcely dare to near, unless you have a club or a torch. The poor and wretch of the city corresponds to the harmless vermin but the criminal class are those who have stings and venom.
Glaucon: Most true, .
Socrates: Clearly then, whenever you see lots of poor people in a State, somewhere in that neighborhood there are hidden away thieves, cut-throats, and robbers of temples, and all sorts of evil-doers.
Glaucon: Clearly.
Socrates: Well, in oligarchical States do you not find plenty of poor people?
Glaucon: Yes, nearly everybody is poor who is not one of the ruling class.
Socrates: May we assert that there are also many criminals to be found among them, rogues who have stings, and whom the authorities are careful to restrain by force?
Glaucon: Certainly, we can safely assert this.
Socrates: Can the existence of this criminal class be blamed on the lack of public education, public-spiritedness and the evil constitution of this State?
Glaucon: Certainly!.
Socrates: Such are the evils of oligarchy, and there may more as well.
Glaucon: Very likely.
Socrates: Next comes democracy whose origin and nature we must now consider . . . Well how does the change from oligarchy to democracy occur? Isn't this what happens---when everyone in the State is bent on becoming as rich as possible isn't it a foregone conclusion that not everybody can become rich?
Glaucon: Okay, so then what?
Socrates: The rulers, knowing that their power is based on their wealth, refuse to restrain the spendthrift youth by law since they themselves profit by ruining these youngsters.
Glaucon: Of course.
Socrates: Without doubt love of wealth cannot coexist with the spirit of moderation - one or the other has to give.
Glaucon: That's clear enough.
Socrates: In oligarchical states, due to the general lack of concern for the common good coupled with personal extravagance, many people of good families will be reduced to bankruptcy.
Glaucon: Yes, that often happens.
Socrates: Still they remain in the city, fully armed, in debt up to their ears, in danger of losing their civil rights, and alongside them are others who have already lost their civil rights who are also bankrupt, already in both predicaments. And so they hate and conspire against those who have taken away their property, and against everybody else, and are eager for revolution.
Glaucon: That is true.
Socrates: 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 some one else who is not on his guard against them, and play the loan-shark once again: and so they make poor men and parasites to abound in the State.
Glaucon: Yes, there are plenty of them-that is certain.
Socrates: This evil builds up like an uncontrolled fire. They will not extinguish it, either by restricting a man's use of his own property, or by another remedy:
Glaucon: What other?
Socrates: One which has the advantage of compelling the citizens to control themselves. Let there be a general rule that every one enters into voluntary contracts at his own risk, and allow those hopelessly in debt to declare bankruptcy. The there will be less of this scandalous borrowing and loan-sharking, and the evils of which we were speaking will be greatly lessened in the State.
Glaucon: Yes, that would work, except the oligarchs wouldn't hear of it.
Socrates: Right you are. Since the rulers are motivated completely by greed treat their subjects badly. Meanwhile they and their hangers-on, especially the young men of the governing class, are addicted to a life of luxury and idleness both of body and mind. They do nothing, and are incapable of resisting either pleasure or pain.
Glaucon: Very true.
Socrates: They themselves care only for making money, and are as indifferent to the plight of the poor in their midst as they are to the cultivation of virtue in their own lives.
Glaucon: Yes, quite as indifferent.
Socrates: Such is the state of affairs which prevails among them. And often rulers and their subjects may come into each other's presence, whether on a journey or on some other occasion of meeting, on a pilgrimage or a march, as fellow-soldiers or fellow- sailors. Then they may observe each other's behavior in times of danger---for where there is danger, there is no fear that the poor will be despised by the rich. Very likely the wiry sunburnt poor man may be placed in battle at the s ide of a pale, overweight rich man. When he sees this magnate 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 stand up to them and take their wealth away from them? And when they meet in private will not people be saying to one another, 'Our army commanders are not good for much'?
Glaucon: Yes, I am quite aware that this is how they talk.
Socrates: Just as a body weakened by infection can fall ill under the slightest stress, sometimes even when there is no external provocation a commotion may arise within the state. In the same way wherever there is weakness within the State there is also likely to be an infection of which the occasion may be very slight --- the oligarchic and the democratic parties are soon in a state of civil war, even when there is no external threat or foreign intervention.
Glaucon: Yes, surely.
Socrates: And once the democracy comes into being after the poor have conquered their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing others, while to the remaining wealthy they give share of freedom and power no more than that possessed by the ordinary poor people. In this form of government the offices of state are not well-paid and so no one wishes to serve in them who is already well-off. In fact just as jurors are selected by lot from a list of citizens so too are other offices filled by random selection.
Glaucon: Yes, that is the nature of democracy, whether the revolution has been won by arms, or whether fear of revolution has caused the opposite party to capitulate.
Socrates: Now what is their manner of life, and what sort of a government do they have? 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?
Glaucon: So they say.
Socrates: And where there is liberty, isn't the individual clearly able to lead his own life as he pleases?
Glaucon: Clearly.
Socrates: Then in this kind of State won't there be the greatest diversity in life-styles and individuals?
Glaucon: There will.
Socrates: This, then, seems like the most wonderful of possible States, almost like an embroidered robe which is decorated with every sort of jewel. Just as women and children think a variety of colors to be of all things most charming, so there are many men who would find this highly diverse state to be the most charming of all.
Glaucon: Yes.
Socrates: And, of course, this will be the best place to go shopping for a government.
Glaucon: Why do you say that?
Socrates: Because of the liberty which reigns there---the democracies have every kind of constitution you could think of. So whoever wishes to establish a State, as we have been doing, must go to a democracy just as he would go to a bazaar at which they sell them, and pick out the constitution that suits him. Then, when he has made his choice, he may found his State.
Glaucon: He will be sure to have patterns enough.
Socrates: And there is no need for you to govern in this State, even if you have the capacity, or to be governed, unless you wish to be governed, 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 to be. Everyone does exactly as he wishes, regardless of what the laws may say. Isn't this perfectly wonderful?
Glaucon: So far so good.
Socrates: These and other 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.
Glaucon: We know it all too well. . .
Socrates: So then in what manner does tyranny arise? That it originates in democracy is evident.
Glaucon: Clearly.
Socrates: And does not tyranny spring from democracy in the same manner as democracy does from oligarchy?
Glaucon: Namely?
Socrates: The highest good which oligarchy sought and the means by which it was maintained was excessive wealth. Am I not right?
Glaucon: Yes.
Socrates: And the greed for money the neglect of all other things for the sake of getting more money was also the ruin of oligarchy?
Glaucon: True.
Socrates: And what is the highest good of democracy which in turn leads to its destruction?
Glaucon: I don't know---what is it?
Socrates: Freedom, which, as they tell you in a democracy, is the glory of the State, and that therefore only in a democracy do you find true freedom.
Glaucon: Yes, that's what they keep telling us.
Socrates: Now I m going to argue that it is the pursuit of liberty to the detriment of public law and order that finally brings about the dictatorship.
Glaucon: How so?
Socrates: When a democracy which is thirsting for freedom has crooked bartenders presiding over the feast, and has drunk too deeply of the strong wine of freedom, then, unless her rulers are very generous and give them more free rounds to drink, she calls them to account and punishes them, and accuses them of being accursed oligarchs.
Glaucon: Yes, this seems to be a very common occurrence.
Socrates: Yes, and loyal citizens are insulted by her slaves who hug their chains and by others of no account. Soon she has citizens who act as if each of them was a ruler, and she has rulers who act like timid citizens. These are men after her own heart whom she praises and honors both in private and public. Now, in such a State, can anyone dare to put limits on liberty?
Glaucon: Certainly not.
Socrates: By degrees this spirit of lawlessness begins to find its way into private homes, and ends by getting among the animals and infecting them.
Glaucon: How do you mean?
Socrates: I mean that the father grows accustomed to descend to the level of his sons and to fear them, and the son is on a level with his father, having no respect or reverence for either of his parents. Well, after all, isn't this his freedom? And the slave is legally elevated to the level of a citizen while the citizen has no more right than the slave. Eventually the resident alien is legally equivalent to either of them.
Glaucon: Yes, that is the way.
Socrates: These are not the only problems. There are several lesser ones: In such a society the university professor fears and flatters his students, while these students despise both their professor and their graduate assistants. Young and old are all held to be equally respectable. The young man considers himself on a level with the old, and is ready to compete with him in word or deed. Old men condescend to the young and try to be warm and full of good humor; they do not want to be considered humorless and authoritarian, and therefore all of the older generation mimic the speech and manners of the younger generation.
Glaucon: Quite true.
Socrates: The last extreme of popular liberty, is when the slave bought with money, whether male or female, is declared to be as free as his or her purchaser. Nor must I forget to mention the liberty and equality of the two sexes in relation to each other. . . . Above all, and as the result of all, see how touchy and oversensitive the citizens become! They bristle at the slightest hint of authority, and at length, as yon know they cease to care even for the laws, written or unwritten; they will have no one over them.
Glaucon: Yes, I know it too well.
Socrates: This is the wonderful and glorious ground from which the weed of tyranny springs forth.
Glaucon: Yes, quite wonderful. But what is the next step?
Socrates: What ruins this oligarchy is also what ruins a democracy. The same disease magnified and intensified by liberty overmasters democracy. The truth of the matter is that an immoderate indulgence in anything produces a reaction in the opposite direction. If you drink too much your pleasure and euphoria will be followed the next day by nausea, headache and hang-over. The same principle applies to governments as well.
Glaucon: True.
Socrates: An excessive indulgence in liberty and equality, whether in States or individuals, seems only to pass into an opposite excess of slavery and domination.
Glaucon: Yes, that seems natural enough.
Socrates: And so tyranny naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme form of liberty?
Glaucon: As we might expect.
Socrates: That, however, was not your question. Don't you need to know what is that "disorder" I was referring to that is generated alike in oligarchy and democracy, and is the ruin of both?
Glaucon: Yes, do tell.
Socrates: Well, I was referring to the class of idle spendthrifts, the more courageous of whom are the leaders and the more timid of whom are the followers. These are the one I called "parasites," some of whom are mere nuisances but the others of whom have stingers and fangs.
Glaucon: An interesting comparison.
Socrates: These two classes plague every city where they are found, being like a poisonous bile in the body. The good lawgiver of the State ought, like the wise physician, to diagnose them and, if possible, to prevent their taking hold in an infection. And if they have infected the body, then be should have them and their cells cut out as speedily as possible.
Glaucon: Yes by all means.
Socrates: Let us imagine democracy to be divided, as indeed it is, into three classes. In the first place freedom creates rather more parasites in the democratic than there were in the oligarchical State.
Glaucon: That is true.
Socrates: And in the democracy they are certainly more vigorous.
Glaucon: How so?
Socrates: You see, in the oligarchical State they were disenfranchised and driven from office, and therefore could not train or gather strength. However in the democracy they are almost the entire ruling power, and while the keener sort speak and act, the rest keep buzzing about the public square and do not suffer a word to be said on the other side. Hence in most democracies almost all public affairs are managed by the parasites.
Glaucon: Very true.
Socrates: Then there is another class which is divorced from this ruling mass.
Glaucon: What is that?
Socrates: They are the successful and established merchants, which in a nation of traders is sure to be the richest.
Glaucon: Naturally so.
Socrates: They are the most squeezable persons and yield the largest amount of blood for the parasites to feed upon.
Glaucon: One would think there would be little left to be squeezed out of people who have little.
Socrates: But this is what is now called the wealthy class, and the parasites feed upon them.
Glaucon: That is pretty much the case.
Socrates: Among the people are a third class, consisting of those who work with their own hands. They are not politicians, and have little to live upon. This, when assembled, is the largest and most powerful class in a democracy.
Glaucon: True, but then the multitude is seldom willing to join together in mass action unless they are hungry and smell blood.
Socrates: And are they not generous? Do not their leaders deprive the rich of their estates and distribute them among the people, at the same time taking care to preserve the larger part for themselves?
Glaucon: Why, yes, to that extent the people do share.
Socrates: And the persons whose property is taken from them are compelled to defend themselves before the people as best they can?
Glaucon: What else can they do?
Socrates: And even when they have no thought of resisting, the others charge them with plotting against the people and being "friends of the counter-revolution?"
Glaucon: True.
Socrates: And the end result is that when they see the people seeking to harm them, thanks to the instigations of informers and demagogues, then finally they are forced to become oligarchs in reality. They do not wish to be, but the bites of the parasites torments them leads them towards counter-revolution.
Glaucon: That is the exact truth.
Socrates: Then come impeachments, trial, judgements and mutual recriminations.
Glaucon: True.
Socrates: The people have always some champion whom they set up as their leader and nurse into greatness.
Glaucon: Yes, that is their way.
Socrates: This is the ground from which a dictatorship springs. When he first appears above ground he is seen as a protector.
Glaucon: Yes, that is quite clear.
Socrates: But this is how the protector changes into a tyrant: Once the protector of the people has a mob entirely at his disposal, he doesn't hesitate to shed the blood of his kinsmen. By the favorite method of false accusation he brings those who are targets of the envy of the mob into court and murders them on trumped-up charges. Informers soon have a material incentive to present false accusations and perjured testimony. The tyrant kills some and banishes others of his victims, at the same time hinting to the mob about the abolition of debts and giving them title to the lands he has confiscated. But after taking this step what will be his destiny? If his enemies don't succeed in killing him off first, he will develop into a tyrant full grown.
Glaucon: That is clear.
Socrates: And if the rich are unable to expel him, or to get him condemned to death by a public accusation, they conspire to assassinate him.
Glaucon: Yes, that would be their way.
Socrates: Then comes the famous request for an elite body-guard and security force. This is the standard device of all those who have got this far in their tyrannical career. "Let not the benefactor of the people," as they say, "be lost to them."
Glaucon: Exactly.
Socrates: The people give their consent: They are more concerned for him than they are for themselves.
Glaucon: Very true.
Socrates: After he disposes of his rivals among the party of the rich, this protector of whom we are speaking, is perceived not as a new overlord but rather as the overthrower of many other overlords. In fact he is the sole master of the State holding the reins of power in his hands, no longer just a 'protector,' but an absolute dictator, which is what is meant by the word 'tyrant.'
Glaucon: No doubt about it!
Socrates: Consider the happiness of this man, and also of the State which produce such a creature as himself. In the early days of his power, he is always smiling, and he cheerfully greets every one he meets. Now who is going to call him a "tyrant" when he is busy canceling everyone's debts, distributing land to the people and his followers, and wanting to be so kind and good to every one?
Glaucon: Not a soul!
Socrates: But when be has pacified foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, nonetheless there he is stirring up new wars, in order that the people may continue to require a leader.
Glaucon: To be sure.
Socrates: But doesn't he also have another motive, which is that the pressure of the wartime economy will distract and pre-occupy the people who are compelled to devote themselves to their daily tasks and therefore less likely to conspire against him?
Glaucon: Clearly.
Socrates: And if he suspects any of them of having notions of freedom, and of resisting his authority, he will have a good pretext for destroying them by accusing them of treason in time of war and collusion with the enemy. For all these reasons the tyrant must be always keeping the country in a state of war.
Glaucon: He must.
Socrates: But soon he begins to grow unpopular.
Glaucon: A necessary result.
Socrates: Then some of those who joined in setting him up, and who are in power, speak their minds to him and to one another, and the more courageous of them begin to challenge his conduct and his policies.
Glaucon: Yes, that's to be expected.
Socrates: And the dictator, if he is to rule, must get rid of them. He cannot rest as long as he has a friend or an enemy who is good for anything.
Glaucon: He cannot.
Socrates: He must always be on the outlook to spot anyone who is valiant, who is noble, who is wise, or who is wealthy. He considers all of them potential enemies, and must seek pretexts to destroy them whether he wants to or not, until he has purged the entire State.
Glaucon: If he is to continue ruling, I suppose he has no choice.
Socrates: Lucky man! Either he must choose to live with miserable, cowardly, good-for-nothing people or else he faces the likelihood of being overturned and killed by whatever decent citizen is left alive!
Glaucon: Yes, that is the alternative.
Socrates: And the more detestable his actions are to the citizens the more devotion he will require from a growing pack of flunkies.
Glaucon: Certainly. But where will he find them?
Socrates: If he cannot hire mercenaries from other lands he will rob the citizens of their slaves. He will set them free, arm them, and enroll them in his body-guard.
Glaucon: Well I suppose he will, but can he trust them?
Socrates: What a lucky men this dictator is! He has put to death the only people who could have been good, true and noble companions, and is left with a pack of turn-coat slaves as his trusted friends!
Glaucon: Yes, but in a way they are fit for each other.
Socrates: Yes, and these are the "new citizens" and "new men" whom he has created, who admire him and are his companions, while the good hate and avoid him.
Glaucon: Of course.
Socrates: Now how will the dictator be able to feed, clothe, house and keep contented this wonderful, numerous and ever-changing army of his?
Glaucon: Well if there are pension funds or trust funds belonging to charitable foundations in the city, he will confiscate and spend them. Also the more he confiscates the properties of those whom he has imprisoned or murdered for political reasons, the fewer taxes will he be obliged to impose upon the rest of the people.
Socrates: But what happens when he runs out of his enemies' estates?
Glaucon: Well clearly, then he and his flunkies will feed off of their father.
Socrates: You mean to say that he will begin to plunder the people, the very same people who set him up as dictator?
Glaucon: Of course, what else can he do?.
Socrates: But what if the people become fed-up and argue that, as a grown son, he should earn his own living and not freeload off of them? Why should they support him and his crown of hangers-on? What if they say they did not throw the rule of aristocrats and fat-cats just to be tyrannized over by one aristocratic fat-cat? What if they order him and his companions to get lost and leave the home of their father?
Glaucon: Good heavens! At that point they'll discover that he has grown too strong for them and that they will not be able to get rid of him!
Socrates: Oh no! You're not suggesting that the tyrant would use violence? What! The 'benefactor of the people,' oppressing the very same people!
Glaucon: If he has disarmed the people then he could use violence without fear of reprisal.
Socrates: Then he is no better than one who murders his own father. He is a cruel guardian of an aged parent. This is the reality of tyranny, about which there can be no doubt. There's a saying, "The people have escaped the frying-pan of freedom [under democracy] and fallen into the fire of slavery [under tyranny.] Thus liberty, which, when pushed beyond all reasonable limits became a false freedom from all order and reason, turns into the worst form of slavery.
Glaucon: True.
Socrates: Very well; and have sufficiently discussed the nature of tyranny, and how democracy inevitable leads to tyranny?
Glaucon: Yes, all too well.