Plato
Plato was not the very first fascist, but he was the first to putfascistideals to paper (that we know of). Fascism is not new. It is quite ancient. Mussolini may have coined the term, but the core concepts offascismare all there in Greek Philosophy. Among these concepts: an Ideal state, Meritocracy, Nationalism and Justice.
Biography
Plato was an ethnic greek born in Ancient Greece, either in 428 or 427 BC; more specifically, he was born in Athens, where he would go on to live, work and die. He was the son of Ariston - his father - and Perictone - his mother. He was born in the local aristocracy, which granted him an education under the mentorship of Socrates.
There is some evidence that he traveled later on in life, following the death of Socrates, in Italy, Egypt and possibly even modern day Libya, though this claim is controversial.
He died in either 348 or 347, at 81 years of age, though it's uncertain; generally, the figure is no less than 80 years and no more than 85.
Beliefs
For Plato and Socrates, everything was about producing an objective function. Humans must perform an objective role; that role is individual responsibility. Aesthetic things like entertainment and music must also conform to some objective function. In Plato's eyes, it has no reason to exist if not for this function - which is to promote Nationalism.
The perfect man (Nietzsche's Überman) according to Plato was a soldier, one who would fight and die for his country. This even today is the ultimate expression of Patriotism. The only time in which the truth is not allowed to exist is when that truth contradicts either Nationalism or the Law.
He believed that the highest crimes, worthy of the death penalty, are those commited by the corrupt Officials. If there is some truth that society's criminals live long and happy lives, such a horrible thing should be changed.
State secrets are a necessary evil, but everything else must be true. Art has to be objectively true. Music has to be objectively true. Meaning that paintings and lyrics have to objectively portray what people looked like and behaved like based on the facts available. Which is why Plato was opposed to painting sculptures with purple eyes...because no Greek has purple eyes. (His example) Doing such a thing is no different than lying.
He believed that the upper class should not be allowed to own private property, or at least very little, and should make a vow to use their wealth for the public good. This is a recurring theme among modern fascists. He also believed in eugenics. He thought the upper class could be selectively bred to produce the best genes. So they can be the most perfect soldiers, artists, and leaders.
Plato's Philosophy
Oswald Spengler makes the case that ancient Greece is a separate civilization from the West. He therefore also makes the case that the Athens during Plato’s time was undergoing its own version of modernity, just like how the West is now in the midst of advanced modernity. And given who Plato is responding to, combined with the democratic state of Athens, Spengler might actually be onto something here.
However, Spengler makes one crucial mistake, perhaps because of his influence by Nietzsche: he attributes decadence to a people embracing Being rather than Becoming. This means he views Plato as someone who “goes with the flow of time” of ancient Greek civilization, so to speak. However, if this crucial error is corrected, and instead we say that decadence is caused by a people embracing Becoming over Being, Plato must now be viewed in a very different light. Plato under this correction must be viewed as someone who is “against” time and as one of the heroes in Evola’s Age of Heroes. With this understanding, Platonism can be viewed as Plato mounting an intellectual defence of Tradition against then-modern forces like relativism.
Plato’s Metaphysics
To better understand Plato’s whole thought, it is perhaps best to start from first principles. What better place to start than his metaphysics and Plato’s explanation of the nature of reality itself? First off: Theory of Forms.
Context
To better understand what Plato is doing, it may perhaps be beneficial to outline some context, the historical setting that Plato was operating in when he formulated his explanation of reality. Some might think that Plato began philosophy, but the truth of the matter is that before Plato, there were other philosophers who attempted to explain the nature of reality. There are obviously several others, but the two most noteworthy ones to bear in mind for now are Parmenides and Heraclitus. In short, Parmenides says reality consists of the unchanging One, whereas Heraclitus says reality is always in flux, always changing. This is what would be in Plato’s mind when he was formulating his concepts.
Theory of Forms
Introduction
Plato’s Theory of Forms is easily one of the most famous, yet heavily misunderstood philosophical concepts.
The response obtained from most people when asked about what are Plato’s Theory of Forms, assuming they know anything about it, is that there are two worlds: one imperfect, material, visible world of apparent objects and another perfect, immaterial, invisible world of Forms. Yet, this is an incoherent account of Plato’s conception of reality.
Using the word “reality” implies that there is only one reality. Yet, to say there are two worlds heavily implies there are two realities. Additionally, Plato throughout his other works outside of Republic references the material world as essentially misleading, which lends heavier weight to the thesis that the two-worlds interpretation of his Theory of Forms is incorrect; how can there be two worlds and two realities if one of them is not really real? And if this is not enough, a theme that persists throughout many of Plato’s works is how the many end up being united in the One. With this in mind, the two-worlds interpretation must be regarded as unsound.
With this in mind, Plato with his Forms must be saying the following: reality is ultimately consciousness, just like Brahman in Hinduism.
The Problem of Universals
To better demonstrate Plato’s Forms, it may be much more beneficial to use an example.
Say you have several guns: a Glock 17, a MP5, an AKM, a M4A1, a PKM and a Remington M870. They are all quite different from each other, yet we all call them guns. The reason for this, according to Plato, is that they all have a certain common “look”, a certain “blueprint”, certain attributes that allow you to assign a universal to them all in this case; for this case, we shall assign the attribute of “gun-ness” to all of these guns.
Additionally, these different objects are distinct from gun-ness, which is logical, given that it has already been established that these different objects are not gun-ness, but instances of gun-ness. In other words, these distinct objects must partake in gun-ness without being gun-ness; these distinct objects retain their individuality even as they partake in the universal of gun-ness (a Glock 17 is still a Glock 17, it's not the same as the abstract concept of a gun or gun-ness). Yet, these distinct objects must be in a way subservient to the universal of gun-ness, for according to Plato, it is only through this possession of gun-ness that these distinct objects are intelligibly identifiable as guns.
Bearing in mind the context outlined, the significance of Plato’s work becomes very clear. He has just managed to explain why universals exist in a world that is ultimately populated by particular objects.
Being and Not-Being, Change and Un-Change
Plato in his works says that not-being and change must be admitted into Being (with a capital B), in direct contradiction to Parmenides’ doctrine of the One, which is also unchanging. At the surface, this may sound counter-intuitive, but upon further examination, only such an admission would ensure consistency. For if Being and therefore reality must consist of all things, therefore Being must also admit not-being and change into its ranks, even though the word “being” itself implies being always in the present and therefore unchanging. Additionally, if you can define not-being and change/becoming, it stands to reason that there must be such thought-objects called nothingness and change. In a way, even though both nothingness and change describe things that are not, they themselves are and are therefore part of Being. Doing so would also allow for the existence of false-ness. For what is false is also what is not, therefore false-ness is the same as not-being. If not-being does not exist, false-ness therefore must not exist and therefore no one can make false statements, which has been proven to be false time and time again (irony not intended).
The relation of Plato's position to the work of Parmenides and Heraclitus is also clear here: he is essentially saying both are right in some sense, for reality must contain both being and becoming, change and un-change.
Plato’s Epistemology
To better demonstrate this, another example shall be used.
Say we have two wooden sticks that are both 30cm in length and put them side by side. Why is it that our minds manage to draw the conclusion that both sticks are equal in length when we see both sticks; in other words, we know them as equal? Why do we not just go “I don’t actually see two sticks that are equal in length, I just see stick A that is 30cm in length and stick B that is 30cm in length”?
The answer therefore is that knowledge of things cannot just be limited to sense-perception. Anything that you obtain from sense-perception is the equivalent of raw data, sense-perception cannot give you the intelligibility that you need in order to make sense of this raw data. Therefore, at the very least, some things must be accessible only to thought.
However, to even be able to make sense of this raw data, it goes without saying that you must possess knowledge that is prior to sense-perception and experience. This is exactly why Plato refers to knowledge as recollection many times throughout his works. This is in stark contrast to the common popular understanding of man as being born as a clean slate, a tabula rasa.
Therefore, if objective reality exists and objective knowledge is at all possible, intellectual apprehension of anything must not be the act of an autonomous independent subject viewing a certain object as though you’re absorbing thought content into yourself with the possibility of you taking liberties with said thought content. Rather, intellectual apprehension of anything must be the linking of consciousness with being, with intelligible reality.
Note that Plato does not actually say that knowledge is not at all possible with the senses and that the material world is sheer illusion; that is more of the rationalist position. Rather, Plato is saying that the material world is misleading. While this might sound semantical, the distinction is useful because to say that the material world is sheer illusion is to suggest that the material world, the world perceived through the senses is non-being. This is however not at all Plato's position however: while he does say the material world is "illusory", he also suggests in his works that the material is somewhere between being and non-being, which means to say the material world partially participates in being. This must mean that Plato is saying that the material world has a tendency to mislead, not that it is sheer illusion and therefore complete non-being. In other words, Plato is saying that the senses have a highly imperfect access to ultimate reality, and you still need thought itself, unfettered by other things, to access it.
Plato on Transcendence
Plato does not make explicit mention of this and mostly makes references of it through his famous cave metaphor, however one can still gain insights on his thought on transcendence if the cave metaphor is placed in context.
The best phrase to describe it would be “immanent transcendence”. At first glance, this sounds contradictory, but if you consider what has been said about ultimate reality previously, it is implied that ultimate reality is not separate from us, but with us, for ultimate reality is how we make sense of anything at all. Therefore, transcendence to Plato has more to do with the ascent of the soul, from halfway between being and non-being and dwelling in the realm of opinion (as represented by the prisoners looking at the shadows) to that of being, of ultimate reality, in the realm of knowledge (represented by the prisoner breaking free and apprehending how he actually looks like). In a way, this sort of transcendence is like leaving for another world, for you are no longer living at the level of mere animal existence, but you are living at the level of what Julius Evola may call a “superlife”, a life that is more than life, a type of life where your self has achieved unity with ultimate reality.
Through this, heaven on earth is achieved, in a sense, hence the term “immanent transcendence”.
The Idea of the Good
All men by nature desire what they perceive as good, and good men desire knowledge, possession of true being. Therefore, true being must be good.
However, when we say: “true being is good”, what we call “true being” must be distinct from what we call “good”, or else if “good” is the same as “true being”, we are essentially saying “true being is true being”, which is vacuously circular. Additionally, this must mean that the idea of the good is, in a way, above being.
If you will recall, Plato in his Republic uses the analogy of sight, the seen and the sun to describe his ideas: sight and what is seen ultimately owe their existence to the light of the sun. Additionally, what is seen is seen because of sight, and sight itself becomes possible because of what is seen, for to see suggests that you are seeing something; there must be something there for you to see, else you see nothing and there is no sight at all.
Now, substitute your sight for your thought, your eye for your mind, what is seen for things out in the world, the light of the sun for true being, and the sun itself for the good. In other words, the absolute idea of the good is somewhat apart from true being, which also goes to explain why objective good-ness can be apprehended, yet difficult to describe. You see this theme recurring whenever Plato in his other dialogues discuss things like absolute beauty, absolute friendship et cetera; every single time, the discourses on these issues end in some kind of stalemate with no one being able to truly lock down and define the object in question, yet they know that it exists.
The Demiurge
If there is a reason behind all things, then it stands to reason that there must be a cause behind the creation, the becoming of all things. Also, if material things are in flux, it also stands to reason that there is a time when it came into being, for no material things are permanent and eternal if they are in flux, which lends heavier weight to a cause for creation.
Take for instance an architect. How does an architect produce a towering and beautiful building? The architect must have first formulated the idea of the building in his mind and then when he is sure this is what he must do, his soul then takes this idea and then orders his body to commence construction of the building, with raw matter being shaped into the intelligible form of the building the architect had in mind. In other words, idea and thought precedes the body, the material; the idea, the thought-object for the building must have existed before the physical image itself.
Therefore, if there is a creator, a master artisan, a Demiurge if you will, of all material things and thought precedes material, this creator must be pure Intellect, one who through pure thought is able to think all things into existence.
Plato's Republic
His ideal Republic was hardly a Democracy. It was Fascism and if his ideas were transposed to modern times you'd have a state run by a technocratic-philosopher elite. This can be somewhat compared to modern Fascist governments, particularly Evola-thought.
The idea behind the Republic is fitted with what many Greeks would have believed in: that working people would have no time to consider fully the debates and issues of the day. This still applies to this day.
How was Plato a fascist?
The idea that Plato wasfascistis absolutely correct. Just because the ideology did not exist as a term at the time doesn’t mean it didn’t exist in the mindset.
Plato's ideas followed very closely to the ideology. Some refer to him as a "proto-fascist", but that term teally belongs to Lycurgus, the Spartans, and Socrates.
Plato, as stated in "The Republic" (Plato's original word for hisfascistsystem), believed in an authoritarian state that instilled culturally enriched learning, a strong military, unified people that were against the blight of riots, and eugenics (selected breeding and a hallmark of fascism) in order to further the progress and quality of human kind, also mentioning how his “guardians” would be an elite class of people who were bred to have superior genes and be head of the state, through meritocracy. These beliefs were the very firstfascistbeliefs: an authoritarian, nationalist government that has a strong military power and restrictions on rioting and other destructive activity.
So to make it short, yes Plato was a fascist. Saying otherwise is childish and ignorant to the fact you wish not to assosciate the man with an ideology (the truth being that you just don't like the idea of a figure like Plato being a fascist) all because “the word didn’t exist then”.
Law of Decay
Plato delineates “the law of decay”, the first iteration of the modern "Law of Entropy" (now an established Law of Physics) that he believed underpinned all human societies: a temporarily ideal society inevitably first morphs into a timocracy, where personal honor forms virtuous society; the timocracy which will then result in democracy, where all pursuits are honored equally and the state is at the mercy of relentless tribal conflict. This devenerates into oligopoly, where the avarice of an enriched minority will rule the day; this fiduciary perversion and strife will eventually give rise to authoritarianism or possibly even tyranny, where a strong leader will correct the society, hopefully with love, but possibly ruling without temperance or virtue. To escape this degenerate cycle, Plato argued that society needed the guidance of philosopher-kings, whose biology and education would uniquely equip him to maintain the true Form of the Kallipolis fascism, and stave off the otherwise inevitable societal decay.