[BurrsWogdon]

I might have a practical answer to the OP's question.

From the intro:

We want a world in which order is kept and the youth are bred to lead. We want a world we can be proud of.

This reminds me of when Meriwether Lewis proposed (demanded) to the Tetons (I think) that they make peace so that they may prosper from the order and goods of the United States, an astute young brave replied, "if we make peace, how will we find our leaders?"

From this I infer that a small nation that sets out to impose it's idea of order on the world will be demolished by the inertia of a more powerful one. So how to start a platonic regime on any scale smaller than the largest available? If it postpones the pursuit of world order with strength it will not have adequate leaders. If it does not wait, success will be the rare feat... I dare say luck.

Maybe I could have put it better, but hopefully my point is clear enough.

[The Immortal Goon]

After Dionysius II was expelled, Dion took over. He should have been much more in Plato's model. It was assassinated as a hated tyrant.

I guess I should admit I don't know the chronology well, but my impression was that Plato came up with the concept of the perfect idea that can't translate into the material world after these failures of using his system. Something of an admission of failure, I suppose. Which is why it probably won't work. It didn't even at the time and place it was supposed to.

[Rei Murasame]

I thought I might as well add:

Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss Neoplatonism, the school of thought founded in the 3rd century AD by the philosopher Plotinus. The Neoplatonists brought a new religious sensibility to bear on Plato's thought, outlining a complex cosmology which linked the human with the divine, headed by a mysterious power called the One. Neoplatonism shaped early Christian, Jewish and Muslim religious scholarship, and remained a dominant force in European thought until the Renaissance. Melvyn Bragg is joined by Angie Hobbs, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Senior Fellow in the Public Understanding of Philosophy at the University of Warwick; Peter Adamson, Professor of Ancient and Medieval Philosophy at King's College London and Anne Sheppard, Professor of Ancient Philosophy at Royal Holloway, University of London.

[Download 20MB | 42 mins]

The show was actually a lot better than the description says it was. Regarding the OP, I am neutral on the issue.

[Wolfman]

It's worth mentioning that Neo-Platonism had really little to do with Platonic thought.

[Rei Murasame]

Well, they do mention that Plato himself might not have agreed with what people did with his ideas, but by then it was inevitable that this would happen. Also, the whole idea of "Neoplatonism" is a distinction that we made centuries and centuries after the fact, but at that time the people who we now call "Neoplatonists" actually perceived themselves as stalwart Platonists and would have been perhaps surprised and offended to be called otherwise.

They saw themselves as a completely logical adaptation to new circumstances, and not a breakaway. While that might be what all people who carry a "neo" prefix on their ideology like to think, it's not without a good reason.

[Amanita]

If such a system was proposed thousands of years ago, why hasn't it been attempted yet?

I disagree with this statement. On the contrary Platonism has been the most common and natural ideology for millennia. Platonism was essentially the re-affirmation or re-discovery of traditional or perennial ideology.

Plato divides society in three classes: Philosophers - Guardians - Producers.

The classes correspond with three different parts of the soul: Reason - Spirit - Appetite.

This is exactly the same as the tripartite division of Proto-Indo-European society which has been mirrored in analogous ways in various societies:

Ancient Rome: Priests (Collegium Pontificum led by the Pontifex Maximus) - Patricians - Plebeans
Medieval Europe: Clergy - Nobility - Commoners
Hindu castes: Brahmans - Kshatriya - Vaishya

Plato's tripartite division of the soul also corresponds with the three Vedic gunas: sattva, rajas, and tamas respectively.

What primarily distinguishes traditional society from a modern one is that the latter is classless. What we have are pseudo-classes whose constituents are fundamentally members of the same appetitive class. Given this aberration, no social harmony is possible in the same way that an individual ruled by the appetite alone cannot help but lead a very wretched existence.

[Potemkin]

What primarily distinguishes traditional society from a modern one is that the latter is classless.

It is? That's news to me.

Now, if you had said that modern society disavows its own class nature, then I would have agreed with you. Therein lies the problem, I feel - modern society is just as class-based as ancient society, but it denies its own nature. Hence you get a ruling class with no sense of responsibility to society as a whole, which in fact refuses to rule.

[Suska]

That's not the only way to interpret the matter. I would have said that modern society suggests that everyone is upper class, this is the way we have come to expect to be treated regardless of our behavior or refinements. I sympathize with the notion that our "ruling class" has no sense of responsibility, I'm not sure I entirely agree though. In my view what we're talking about is utter incompetence across the board - while this is the general case of human kind we are rather invested in the alternative. That puts a wallop of a circumstance very lightly - we not only expect to be treated like aristocrats, we expect we are born with aristocratic virtues, and our entire civilization depends on our being aristocratic, when in fact we beheaded every aristocrat we could find, took their shit, spent all their social capital renamed our peasantry aristocratic and now go about stupider than ever, with ridiculous expectations, crying like infants.

[Figlio di Moros]

Now, if you had said that modern society disavows its own class nature, then I would have agreed with you. Therein lies the problem, I feel - modern society is just as class-based as ancient society, but it denies its own nature. Hence you get a ruling class with no sense of responsibility to society as a whole, which in fact refuses to rule.

Both are right in a sense. What he meant was that the division of rulers, influence, etc. is no longer based on spiritual identity, but that we all belong to the materialist class. Our ruling class, the haute-bourgeosie, are just as materialist as the proles but exist on a different level within that plane, therefore are "pseudo-class".

[Rei Murasame]

Well, it's like, they rule, just not in a way that people would normally describe as ruling. It's like an elaborate kleptocracy that just likes to eat everything.

[Amanita]

It is? That's news to me.

Now, if you had said that modern society disavows its own class nature, then I would have agreed with you. Therein lies the problem, I feel - modern society is just as class-based as ancient society, but it denies its own nature. Hence you get a ruling class with no sense of responsibility to society as a whole, which in fact refuses to rule.

It is not simply a matter of ruling, at least not in a vulgarly-understood way. To be a ruler qua ruler, one must know the Good. The present ruling class does not and cannot know the Good because it is inherently not fit for its position. If you understood ruling in a vulgar way, then I would even disagree with the notion that it refuses to rule. Actually, it is eager to rule a lot and sees to it in practice; only it rules in a way analogous to an individual being ruled by the appetites. Saying that modern politicians refuse to rule makes it sound as if they are modern Cincinnati, dragged in chains to rule against their wishes, when nothing could be further from the truth.

[Potemkin]

It is not simply a matter of ruling, at least not in a vulgarly-understood way. To be a ruler qua ruler, one must know the Good. The present ruling class does not and cannot know the Good because it is inherently not fit for its position. If you understood ruling in a vulgar way, then I would even disagree with the notion that it refuses to rule. Actually, it is eager to rule a lot and sees to it in practice; only it rules in a way analogous to an individual being ruled by the appetites. Saying that modern politicians refuse to rule makes it sound as if they are modern Cincinnati, dragged in chains to rule against their wishes, when nothing could be further from the truth.

What I meant by 'refusing to rule' is that they want all of the traditional privileges and advantages of being a quasi-aristocratic elite, without accepting any of the responsibilities which also traditionally went with such a position. They basically think like lumpen proles, but cavort around as though they are aristocrats whose shit doesn't stink. All they care about is their own appetite, and society as a whole can go hang itself; in fact, they don't believe there is any such thing as 'society'. In reality, of course, they owe their very position of privilege to the existence of 'society'; class privilege is a social phenomenon. What they call 'ruling' is what most people would call 'looting'.

[Amanita]

What I meant by 'refusing to rule' is that they want all of the traditional privileges and advantages of being a quasi-aristocratic elite, without accepting any of the responsibilities which also traditionally went with such a position. They basically think like lumpen proles, but cavort around as though they are aristocrats whose shit doesn't stink. All they care about is their own appetite, and society as a whole can go hang itself; in fact, they don't believe there is any such thing as 'society'. In reality, of course, they owe their very position of privilege to the existence of 'society'; class privilege is a social phenomenon. What they call 'ruling' is what most people would call 'looting'.

In that case, I agree with you. I would however add that even a hypothetically honest ruling class truly intent on helping the rest of society will fail if it approaches the problem "appetitively" (i.e. from an economic stand). One contemporary case in point is the European Union. Its economic worldview and focus and complete dedication to the matter do nothing except worsen the economical crisis. One only needs to set the priorities right. Then everything else falls in place in a "magnetic" sort of way: Wu Wei!

[Potemkin]

In that case, I agree with you. I would however add that even a hypothetically honest ruling class truly intent on helping the rest of society will fail if it approaches the problem "appetitively" (i.e. from an economic stand). One contemporary case in point is the European Union. Its economic worldview and focus and complete dedication to the matter do nothing except worsen the economical crisis. One only needs to set the priorities right. Then everything else falls in place in a "magnetic" sort of way: Wu Wei!

The problem is that the capitalist mode of production has systematically stripped away any other consideration except appetite. This is, of course, an unintended by-product of its unprecedented efficiency as a mode of production and its use of a quasi-Darwinist brutal process of 'natural selection' to weed out inefficient producers. Any social or ethical considerations which do not enhance the efficiency of the capitalist mode of production (measured using the profit metric) are ruthlessly and automatically destroyed. The traditional tripartite Indo-European social divisions you refer to were experienced by the capitalist mode of production as an inefficiency, a blockage preventing the further expansion of the forces of production. They had to be cast aside; they were cast aside. This has left only one social value for modern society: appetite and its satiety.

[Figlio di Moros]

This is, of course, an unintended by-product of its unprecedented efficiency as a mode of production and its use of a quasi-Darwinist brutal process of 'natural selection' to weed out inefficient producers. Any social or ethical considerations which do not enhance the efficiency of the capitalist mode of production (measured using the profit metric) are ruthlessly and automatically destroyed.

It's a rare occasion I get to correct you, Potemkin, but our system does not run on effeciency, it runs on private property and effeciency may be a side effect. However, the promotion of consuming unnecessary goods and services beyond our capacity, of preventing equal access to capital to co-ops, preventing infrastructure and adoption of new technologies, etc. shows that any effeciency is for the purpose of garnering unlimited wealth for the appetite of a few haute-bourgeosie and is as easily discarded when it doesn't benefit them. A minimalist worker might require lower wages and live a happier life, but would be a piss-poor consumer.

[Potemkin]

It's a rare occasion I get to correct you, Potemkin, but our system does not run on effeciency, it runs on private property and effeciency may be a side effect. However, the promotion of consuming unnecessary goods and services beyond our capacity, of preventing equal access to capital to co-ops, preventing infrastructure and adoption of new technologies, etc. shows that any effeciency is for the purpose of garnering unlimited wealth for the appetite of a few haute-bourgeosie and is as easily discarded when it doesn't benefit them. A minimalist worker might require lower wages and live a happier life, but would be a piss-poor consumer.

In capitalism, efficiency is measured using the profit metric. Any particular conformation of capitalism which maximises profitability can be described as 'efficient', even if it impoverishes the majority of the population while enriching a tiny elite. You're applying criteria other than profitability in order to define 'efficiency', something which is fundamentally alien to capitalism. Essentially, you have a pre-capitalist mode of thought.

[Figlio di Moros]

Not so, California's 4th largest tomato company is a co-op, and certainly more profitable than private businesses. However, it's not profitable for private interests.

Your argument seems to be that whatsoever provides income to the haute-bourgeosie should be considered effecient, despite requiring it be economically inneffecient in it's nature. Your statement was-

The problem is that the capitalist mode of production has systematically stripped away any other consideration except appetite. This is, of course, an unintended by-product of its unprecedented efficiency...

No one gets to redefine language just to save face, Pot. Not even you. Effeciency was an unintended consequence of appetite, and was dismissed when it began inhibiting it.

[Decky]

Essentially, you have a pre-capitalist mode of thought.

Or a post capitalist mode of though.

[Amanita]

The problem is that the capitalist mode of production has systematically stripped away any other consideration except appetite. This is, of course, an unintended by-product of its unprecedented efficiency as a mode of production and its use of a quasi-Darwinist brutal process of 'natural selection' to weed out inefficient producers. Any social or ethical considerations which do not enhance the efficiency of the capitalist mode of production (measured using the profit metric) are ruthlessly and automatically destroyed. The traditional tripartite Indo-European social divisions you refer to were experienced by the capitalist mode of production as an inefficiency, a blockage preventing the further expansion of the forces of production. They had to be cast aside; they were cast aside. This has left only one social value for modern society: appetite and its satiety.

I don't think there need be any recourse to efficiency or values other than appetite itself. As FdM has rightly pointed out, such values are ultimately subordinate to the satiety of appetite. Also, in doing so, you will be in danger of objectivizing the values produced by the capitalist mode of production specifically to suit and justify itself as values that permeated throughout the ages when that is obviously not the case. This is ultimately one of the faults of all the major, contemporary critiques of capitalism. In upholding values like efficiency (only to the many instead of to the few) and historical progress (which would itself require recourse to metaphysical supplements which are beyond their explanatory range and, this, I argue, is one of the reason capitalism was and is still is strongly tied to Judaeo-Christian beliefs -- they provide that metaphysical supplement), they are ultimately playing into the hands of what they detract and fail to truly understand the problem "autonomously".