This paper examines David Richter's anthology of critical thought as a framework for comparing the philosophical systems of Plato and Karl Marx. Beginning with Plato's treatment of the mimetic arts in the Republic and his vision of an ideal society, the paper traces the internal contradictions in Plato's condemnation of artistic imitation. It then turns to Marx's Communist Manifesto and his materialist critique of capitalism, evaluating the theoretical appeal and practical limitations of communist utopia. The paper ultimately argues that both philosophies founder on a shared miscalculation: an overly optimistic view of human nature that underestimates selfishness and the individual drive for personal reward.
David Richter's anthology is absolutely indispensable, as it is one of the few collections willing to acknowledge the existence of — and include well-chosen examples from — the long history of critical thought and how it helps us understand what we read, why we read, and what we value.
The greatest strength of Richter's work is that it simply starts at the beginning of classical literature and moves forward until about the mid-nineteenth century, charting a course through what is aptly termed "the critical tradition." This movement provides a broad context in which one can more usefully engage contemporary thinkers. Present-day debates over representation, for example, and the dangers thereof, carry far greater weight when one is familiar with the long history that underpins them, from Aristotle to Horace, Plato to Marx.
The critical tradition in Richter is shaped so as to select the contemporary essays well. They are organized in such a way as to give a sense of a debate taking shape. This not only helps the readings speak to each other more directly, but it also forces the reader to keep in mind that the critical tradition is never a finished product. This paper examines the ideas of Plato as defined in the Republic and compares them to Marx's Communist Manifesto. These two thinkers' ideas regarding the nature of society and its ideal structure arise from their conceptions of human nature. If man is a moral creature who has a natural inclination toward the greater good of his fellow citizens and society in general, then either of these philosophers could have penned the outline for a perfect society. However, this paper will ultimately propose its own view of human nature, and in doing so will expose the flaws in both Plato's and Marx's philosophies and offer reasons for the failure of each.
Plato's Republic attacks the mimetic arts. He believed that the arts were merely copies of the natural realities around them and therefore did not contribute to the betterment of humankind. Plato's belief was that art is fundamentally based on imitation, and it was this imitation that made art inferior — combined with the unsuitable moral content of some works. Plato's condemnation of art is seen by some as excessively rationalist; in striving for pure idealism, he was depriving art of its charms and its value in simply improving life through pleasantness and beauty.
Modern objections to Plato's theory of art assert that he failed to discover the specific nature of artistic creation. In the creation of art, the process of imitation is necessary: creating a new reality from the artist's own imagination. Did Plato really intend imitation to mean a slavish copy, or is there intrinsic value in the process of imagining a world that is better than the one we possess?
In Plato's rush to judgment on the mimetic arts, he seems to have overlooked an important contradiction. Did Plato himself not participate in the very art he condemned? Plato's writings, in particular the Republic, are his own copy of the ideal society, set down in writing. His ideal did not exist, nor were all his theories practical. He contributed to the theories by which the common person could aspire to become more ideal. But this idealized vision of reality did not exist. This approach to literature is identical to the sculptor's approach to clay as he seeks to shape the perfect human bust. His purpose in describing the perfect society — in which men and women worked with pure motives to create a perfect, functional community — was no different from the stage actor's goal of capturing perfect passion or emotion in portraying life as they saw it.
On poetic inspiration, Plato writes in the Ion: "God takes away the mind of these men and uses them as his ministers… in order that we who hear them may know that it is not they who utter these words of great price when they are out of their wits, but that it is God himself who speaks and addresses us through them." Plato's presupposition is that as a person seeks the higher ideal that abides deep within, he will move from the self-seeking, vulgar realities of life to a "higher plane" of consciousness — one which seeks only the good of self, others, and society in general. Thus, the person would begin to speak with the mind of God himself.
This contradiction, into which Plato steps with full force, is one he only partially sees and only partly resolves: "We can only conclude that the artist himself is to blame for confusing the inspiration of the Muse" (Verdenius) — thus the artist is not in a state of total possession by the Muse, and the artist's own feelings and character influence the work of art. Plato recognizes the artist's dependence on the Muse; hence he calls the artist the Muse's "interpreter." As the Muse, in the Greek mind, was one of the gods, the artist was therefore an interpreter of divine will. In Plato's view, since the goal of humanity was to create the perfect society, only when the individual stepped aside for the gods could he work toward a perfect republic — and therefore a perfect world.
In the process of inspiration, the divine element is filtered by the artist. Plato calls the poet a less capable "maker" than his Muse. Any criticism Plato levels at art must therefore be based on the human element of its production, which can only interfere with and confuse the work: this interference is as inseparable as it is essential — a message lost in the language of the interpreter. For this reason, Plato seems to regard art as an instruction manual containing errors — readers of poetry should similarly be aware of the sometimes erroneous knowledge that may be derived from it.
Plato selects several examples drawn from mythology — examples of gods behaving in morally perverted ways — and fears that these will encourage vice in those who read or witness them. Plato was arguably the first real advocate of the "closed society," that is, censorship, with no freedom of thought or discussion. Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, and Porphyry all believed their task was to address the perennial problems that beset human beings in their attempt to live the just life and obtain happiness (Addey, 1997).
From the other end of the political spectrum, Karl Marx was essentially working from the same hypothesis when he wrote the Communist Manifesto. Marxism was originally formulated to analyze stress and contradiction within society. Just as Plato used literature as his chosen vehicle to guide and influence society, the Marxist also sees literature as intimately linked to social power. For this reason, Marxist literature is linked to larger social questions. However, Marxist criticism targets the materialistic nature of human beings, as opposed to the carnal nature that Plato attempts to identify. Marx has more in common with theories that focus on how literature functions within political and economic structures than with theories focused solely on the social environment of humanity. Marx believed that in a perfect political and economic system, social conditions would also evolve toward utopia.
Marx believed that capital was not personal but rather social power and product. Therefore, by controlling the capital and economic engines of a society, social power would likewise be controlled and diverted toward the benefit of all. Karl Marx was the first to articulate the principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Perhaps one of the most influential philosophers in history, Marx is widely remembered for the revolutionizing ideologies he presented in the Communist Manifesto. Marx was certainly a person of great intelligence and vision. His many insights about capitalist development are constantly reflected in contemporary society. To most people, work rather than happiness is the meaning of life; nothing is ever enough — everyone wants more. The bourgeoisie dominate affairs, as a large portion of the world's resources and wealth remains in the hands of a select few.
It is toward this tendency that Marx hypothesized that if every person worked toward the benefit of the common good, and money and power were held by a governing system also in place to serve the common good, then the betterment of society would become the goal and aim of all levels of the community. In this utopia, one person would give to another without regard to personal reward or personal cost. The reward would be the well-being of fellow citizens.
The immediate question that comes to mind is whether this is advantageous to society. To answer this question correctly, one must weigh the pros and cons of the socialist ideology. In theory, socialism has several observable benefits. For one, the equality of humankind presents itself as an important theme. The capitalist bourgeois/proletariat relationship is destroyed. Consequently, the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie becomes non-existent. Work takes on a different meaning — instead of being the result of greed and necessity, work becomes a means of helping and interacting with society. In the truest form of communism, acquiring wealth is an unnecessary evil; instead, society provides the individual with an adequate standard of living, and vice versa.
"Practical limits of socialist and communist systems"
"Both philosophers misjudged human selfishness"
You’re 78% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.