Part 3: Democracy, Oligarchy, and Tyranny

As coincidence has it, I was reading Book VIII of Plato’s The Republic and considering a blog post about the interplay of democracy and oligarchy when Biden gave a speech warning Americans of a rising oligarchy. I did not intend my blog post about The Republic to be so timely.

The Republic offers the perfect vehicle for discussing the interplay (and overlap) between democracy, oligarchy, and tyranny. We’ll also find clues about why Socrates was later executed.

As a way to gain perspective on today’s politics, I have set out on a journey and invited you along. Where we’ve been so far:

It’s always best to start at the beginning, but if you want to dip in, each blog post is intended to stand alone.

I hope the Plato purists out there will forgive my summaries.

The Meaning of Justice

Book 1 opens with Socrates out and about Athens, striking up conversations with people and often annoying them. Once more, as in Euthyphro, he gets into a discussion about the meaning of justice, this time with Cephalus, a wealthy elderly man who tells Socrates that the greatest benefit of his wealth is that he was always able to pay his debts and thus he never had deceive others. He concludes that the wealthy can live just and noble lives because they do not need to cheat or deceive others.

But wait, says Socrates. Is living a just life really nothing more than paying one’s debts? Suppose a friend deposits a deadly weapon with me and then, when he is not in his right mind, asks me to give it back. Surely giving it back in that case would not be the right thing to do, even though I literally owe him the weapon. Right?

Cephalus suddenly has to leave. We saw the same thing in Euthyphro. The moment Socrates asked a hard question that Euthyphro couldn’t answer, Euthyphro remembered he had business to attend to and left. This time, another rich guy, Polemarchus, one of the guys hanging around listening, takes up the argument on behalf of Cephalus and gives this definition of justice: Repayment of debt doesn’t mean literally repaying debts. It means “giving every man what is proper to him.”

Socrates had an easy time poking holes in this one because who decides what is proper? What if different people have different ideas? Who is the arbiter?

Throughout this discussion a guy named Thrasymachus kept trying to speak. Eventually, like a “wild beast seeking to devour” the others, he “roared” out, “What folly has taken possession of you all?”

Now that he has grabbed the stage, he offers what he says is the real definition of justice. “Justice,” he says, “is nothing more than the interest of the stronger.” He then (basically) says this:

There are three forms of government: tyranny, aristocracy, and democracy. (The one, the few, and the many.) In a tyranny, the tyrant controls the government. In a  democracy, the ordinary people control government. In an aristocracy, the aristocrats control govenment. Each government makes laws with a view toward its own interests. The government then punishes the transgressors as unjust lawbreakers.

And that is what I mean when I say that in all states there is the same principle of justice: whatever is in the interest of the government, and as the government must be supposed to have power, the only reasonable conclusion is that everywhere there is one principle of justice, which is the interest of the stronger (because that is who controls the government.)

Socrates points out that in saying justice is whatever serves the interests of the strong, Thrasymachus is simply arguing that injustice is a virtue, which reduces all to a competition: The strongest can do as they please, and surely that isn’t right.

Aside: There is a now-outdated legal principle called caveat emptor, which is Latin for “buyer beware.” Caveat emptor places the burden on buyers to examine property before purchase and take responsibility for its condition. It means that the buyer, or consumer, assumes the risks if a product is defective, or if the product isn’t what the consumer wanted.

And now I will tell you a true story about the concept of caveat emptor. In 1804, a man named Mr. Woods—that really was his name—was selling lumber in a market in New York that specialized in a very expensive brand of wood called braziletto wood. Mr. Woods sold some lumber to a Mr. Seixas. When Mr. Seixas bought the wood, Mr. Woods gave him a “bill of parcel” describing the wood as braziletto wood. Mr. Seixas paid a high but fair price for the braziletto wood.

Later, Mr. Seixas discovered that Mr. Woods had in fact sold him inferior-quality wood known as peachum. He brought Mr. Woods to court and demanded his money back in exchange for return of the wood.

The judge thought it was a clear case for Mr. Woods because Mr. Seixas had plenty of opportunity to examine the wood before he bought it. Mr. Woods gave no express written warranty, and—according to the court—the written description in the bill of parcels did not count as a written warranty. Mr. Woods, according to the court, had done nothing wrong under the law and Mr. Seixas was not entitled to his money back. (The case is called Seixas and Seixas v. Woods, 2 Cai. R. 48 (1804).)

Then along came consumer protection laws and laws against false advertisement that protect people from begin taken advantage of by unscrupulous people.

In case you think that Thrasymachus ideas are outdated, lots of people today remain opposed to regulatory agencies and consumer protection laws. They hold to the idea that if you are fooled, it is your problem and justice means the strong (or clever, or tricksters) win.

Socrates, though, isn’t having it. He argues that justice cannot possibly mean “whatever benefits the strong” because all of life isn’t a competition. Sometimes people must work together.

Now it falls on Socrates to offer a definition of justice. To do so, he constructs the ideal state, because, he says, the ideal state will embody the idea of justice.

Socrates begins by explaining that people come together to form political units and live under governments because individuals cannot meet all of their own needs or protect themselves from those who would rob them. In an ideal society, all people do the work for which they are best suited. This means that the wisest people are the rulers, the strongest people protect the city from outsiders and enforce laws, and the others — the craft and artisan class — do whatever work suits them best.

(As a complication, remember that slavery was an accepted institution in Athens. Socrates here is talking about free citizens, not all people.)

The Republic

In the ideal republic that Socrates imagines, the Rulers are philosophers, which literally means that they love wisdom. They are not permitted to own private property because if they do, they might rule in their own economic interests instead of for the benefit of the republic as a whole. They also share wives and children which, presumably eliminates jealousies and rivalries. (Neat way to solve the problem of coveting thy neighbor’s wife.).

The Soldiers protect the city and enforce the laws. The problem is how to prevent them from using their strength to seize power for themselves. Socrates says they must be like dogs: Fierce to outsiders who threaten the city, but gentle and friendly to the residents. They, too, share wives and children and are forbidden to own private property which, presumably, keeps them from becoming greedy.

The Common People are content because there is income equality and a just economic system, so they do not envy or resent the philosopher-kings. They are happy because they work at the craft that best suits them and, because of this efficiency, all citizens prosper. (All citizens also prospers equally.)

Women in Socrates’ ideal society have equal rights and status with men. Women can even become rulers or guardians because many women are every bit as fierce and strong as men.

In a democracy, Socrates says, the leaders are called “rulers.” In a tyranny, they are called “masters.” But, in his ideal state the leaders are allies. There is true unity.

How to establish and maintain this ideal state: Here is where things get sketchy. Governments, Socrates explains, like all things that are part of the mortal world, have beginnings and ends. An ideal state like this one will dissolve because people are human and make mistakes and eventually the wrong people will be selected as rulers or become guardians, and these people will use their power for their own benefit instead of the common good and the downward slope will begin.

To prevent this downward slope, Socrates basically argues that people in his ideal Republic must be tricked into doing what is in their best interest. They are told Big Lies to keep them in their places; a form of eugenics is practiced to make sure that only the strong become guardians and only the wise create the laws. There is also strict censorship. Poets and dramatists are to be banned because people might get the wrong ideas.

Amid this totalitarian ideal, he throws in a bit of wisdom: If people avoid confections and eat only roasted meat, there will be no need for doctors. In his ideal state, therefore, people will eat foods that will keep them healthy.

Socrates avoids the question of how this ideal republic will be established in the first place. What he is presenting, he says, is an ideal. Governments should strive for this ideal, and the closer they come, the more just the government and economic system. Justice for Socrates, therefore, means everyone does the work for which they are best suited, which creates a more prosperous city, and there is complete economic equality.

Much ink has been spilt over the centuries analyzing and criticizing this ideal republic, which has aspects of socialism, Stalinism, and Orwellian totalitarianism. It is certainly not democratic.

We come then to Book VIII, when Socrates explains why he distrusts democracy. In a nutshell, he doesn’t trust people. In fact, the entire Republic is structured around a distrust of people. The rulers and guardians cannot own property because he doesn’t trust them not to get greedy and want more. The common people have no voice in government because he doesn’t trust common people to make the right decisions. He doesn’t even like exclusive sexual relationships, because the next thing you know, neighbors will be coveting each other’s spouses.

To understand Socrates’s dislike of democracy, we must first have a look at Athenian democracy so we can see what Socrates was actually criticizing. All democracies are not alike.The word “democracy,” in fact, is better understood as a concept instead of a concrete noun. Better yet, it’s an adjective as in, “How democratic is the government?”

Athenian Democracy

Athenian democracy was direct rather than representative. All citizens could vote and were required to participate in government. All leadership positions, including judges and military generals, were chosen randomly from the people, which is about as democratic as a democracy can be.

Here’s the catch: “Citizens” included only adult men who were not slaves. The enslaved population in Athens was 15–20 % of the overall population. For comparison, the enslaved population in the United States on the eve of the Civil War was 18% of the total population. I don’t know whether the similarity in numbers was coincidental, or whether it is simply difficult to enslave a higher percentage of the population.

Four Forms of Government, Why they Fail, and What Happens when They Fail

The ideal government — the Republic Socrates described — is not actually possible. What is possible, according to Socrates, are 4 forms of government based on different values.

(1) Timocracy (rule by the military) is based on the value of honor.

The example is Sparta, which was basically a military state, and which Socrates also tells us was “mostly applauded.” All citizens were dedicated to the good of the city, the military ruled on behalf of the city at large, all citizens went through the same rigorous military training, and women had more rights in Sparta than anywhere else in Greece. Socrates praises this government because there is unity. Passions are tamed and harmonized.

The problem with timocracy, Socrates explains, is that if the soldiers can own property, their love of money and wealth will grow, until pretty soon valor and honor will no longer he valued. Instead, what will be valued is wealth.

When love of honor turns to love of money, the government will decline into oligarchy.

(2) Oligarchy (rule by a few) is based on the value of wealth. The root sin of this government is greed.

Oligarchy, Socrates tells us “teems with evils.” Oligarchs get greedier and greedier and pass laws so they can increase their own wealth. The city then ends up divided between the wealthy and the poor, which creates class warfare and strife. Oligarchs become afraid of the common people.

Because of the growing income inequality that occurs when the wealthy govern for their own benefit, there will arise a class of criminals and beggars, some of which will be harmless, but many of which will be dangerous. The dangerous ones will stir the common people to revolution against the oligarchs. When the revolt succeeds and poorest citizens seize power, a government based on the value of money will (according to Socrates) decline into democracy.

(3) Democracy (rule by many) based on the value of freedom. (Brace yourselves. Socrates sees this as a problem.)

Each person is encouraged to do whatever he or she pleases, so there will be chaos. Plain speech is encouraged. Passions are unleashed. People do whatever work they please, which means that there will be waste, and incompetent people will be elected to office. Presumably philosophers become beggars, incompetents run the government, and the weak serve as generals.

Order breaks down. Karen Stenner quotes Eric Fromm who, “In Escape from Freedom,” argued that a portion of humanity finds freedom burdensome. Democracy gets messy. There are people who prefer order.

Another problem with the democratic value of equality, according to Socrates, is that not all people are fit to be military generals, and not all people are fit to be rulers.

The meaning of equality: Today we equate the word ‘equality’ with racial and gender equality. There was no racial, cultural, or religious diversity in ancient Greece. Socrates was speaking strictly of abilities. Moreover, his idea of democracy is not a representative democracy, it is a direct democracy where each person is the literal equivalent of the other. All people are considered equally capable of ruling the land, leading an army, or building a temple.

In a democracy, Socrates tells us, people are driven by “unnecessary desires.” (Necessary desires include food, shelter, and clothing. Unnecessary desires include luxuries and items that lead to a decadent lifestyle.) The oligarch wants to hoard money. The democratic man demands luxuries.

Democracy then divides into a few groups. First, there are the fiercest individuals who become dominant political figures by virtue of their ferocity. Some will become wealthy. Others will remain poor. Because people can do as they please, before long there will be a large group of people who pay no attention to their own government.

(4) Tyranny (rule by one)

Tyranny — Socrates tells us — springs naturally from democracy. It comes about when troublemakers stir the the poor against the rich. A leader of the people (literally a demagogue) leads the people to revolt. They topple the government, and install their leader as a tyrant (who they think will rule on their behalf). The tyrant then kills the good people for fear that they will supplant him.  To distract people from what he is doing, he must constantly make war.

This should call to mind the French Revolution and its aftermath. (With differences, of course. The French overthrew a monarchy, not a democracy. The people executed were the nobility.)

The Overlap (and Interplay) between Democracy and Oligarchy in the United States

One bit of wisdom we find in The Republic is that governments take their personality from the people who control them. Another is that governments are constantly in flux, changing from one thing to another.

The drafters of the United States Constitution read The Republic, understood the criticism the ancients had about democracy, and understood the danger of a demagogue coming to power. They also knew that Athenian democracy ultimately failed when it dissolved into oligarchy.

The drafters created a Constitution that they believed would guard against the danger of a tyrant seizing power. For example, the Electoral College was created as a way to give sensible (well-educated men) a mechanism for preventing a tyrant from coming to office.  Judges appointed for life with a guaranteed fixed income was intended to allow judges to make what they believed to be the best decisions instead of decisions that would enable them to be reelected. Should a tyrant be elected, power was divided to prevent the tyrant from seizing too much power.

The Interplay between Oligarchy and Democracy

Socrates didn’t consider cultural and racial diversity as a factor in how governments change because in his world, city-states were small and homogenous.

The United States was similarly founded by a small homogenous group of white, Protestant, well-educated and mostly wealthy men. During the era of what we call Jacksoninan Democracy (named for Andrew Jackson) “we the people” expanded to include poor white Protestant men as well as wealthy white Protestant men.

Despite enslavement and a ruling elite, the United States was democratic in that the leaders were elected by the voters and served for limited times. Authority was derived from a written constitution instead of the whim of a person. Power was divided to keep any single person from seizing too much of it.

Oligarchy #1: At the same time, antebellum America more closely resembled what today we would call an oligarchy because a small percentage of people controlled all the nation’s wealth and resources. Historian Heather Cox Richardson, in fact, calls antebellum America an oligarchy because wealthy plantation owners, 1% of the population, controlled 90% of the nation’s wealth and (mostly) controlled all three branches of the federal government.

Restoration and the expansion of democracy: After the Civil War, the United States experienced a brief period when democracy expanded, allowing Black men to participate in politics, but the push back was immediate and fierce. In 1896, the Supreme Court, which was mostly sympathetic to the former Confederacy, ruled segregation constitutional.

Oligarchy #2: At the same time, the newly empowered industrial North passed laws that benefited industry, and we entered another oligarchy: The age of robber barons.  A relatively small number of industrialists enjoyed opulent wealth, while most people — those who labored — had very little protection. There was no minimum wage, no social security, and no workers protections. Workers could not break out of the poverty cycle. Racial segregation was legal. Women could vote but were kept from the professions, which kept them dependent on men.

Heather Cox Richardson calls the age of robber barons our second oligarchy.

The New Deal and Civil Rights movements create more democracy: Then along came Franklin Delano Roosevelt with his New Deal, which eliminated much of the income inequality (we had no billionaires in the 1970s), created our first true middle class, and allowed for more democracy by allowing more people to participate in public life. The Civil Rights movement allowed non-whites to participate in public life.

Oligarchy #3: The pushback occurred immediately. Ronald Reagan’s economics and tax cuts for the rich and other Republican economic policies have brought us back to the brink of a new oligarchy as today’s income inequality is approaching pre-1930s levels.

The nature of the cycle: Racial, cultural, and religious diversity creates a dynamic unknown to Socrates. Political psychologist Karen Stenner explains that some people cannot tolerate complexity, and diversity is a form of complexity. As a democracy becomes more democratic and expands to include more people (and thus becomes more diverse) those who are averse to diversity become vulnerable to the promises of a leader who promises to restore “order.” This is what Stenner calls the Authoritarian Dynamic.

What comes next?

If past is prologue, we may be destined to cycle in and out of oligarchy.

*  *  *

I think next, I’ll look at the trial and execution of Socrates, which raises issues of crime, punishment, and how to handle the subversive elements in a democracy.

Subscribe and I’ll tell you when the next blog post is ready.

If you missed my announcement, see Rebels, Robbers, and Radicals: The Story of the Bill of Rights.

I have disabled my comments. Because this is my own website and not a social media site, I feel I must monitor the comments, and monitoring them has become too time-consuming. Instead, I have added share buttons for discussion elsewhere.

 

 

Scroll to Top