Frankly, claiming that Plato is fascist is pure nonsense. It’s ignoring the history of political thought (including, notably, Plato) and the economical and societal background that led to fascism.
You can argue that he inspired fascism or that he was a kind of proto-fascist. That would be weird (since it would exclude all the modern causes and influences for fascism), but arguable. But calling him a fascist is just an anachronism.
The Republic is undoubtedly influential in Western philosophy, but you won’t find many contemporary political scientists or philosophers referencing it directly without a very heavy dose of qualification. In this context it’s most often used as a primary historical work more than a philosophical one.
Pretty much the only time you will see someone engaging with it as a work of authoritative or relevant philosophy (and really, just, a handful of notable passages) is in the context of anti-liberal rhetoric which is intentionally exploiting the assumption that the reader does not have a broad background in contemporary politics, but might know the name “Plato.”
It’s kind of like the difference between quoting Newton in the context of general relativity, versus quoting Newton in support of the luminiferous aether.
Wake up babe, new ancient Greek metapolitical lore just dropped
Not so new. For example, see Acton, The Alleged Fascism of Plato (1938).
Frankly, claiming that Plato is fascist is pure nonsense. It’s ignoring the history of political thought (including, notably, Plato) and the economical and societal background that led to fascism.
You can argue that he inspired fascism or that he was a kind of proto-fascist. That would be weird (since it would exclude all the modern causes and influences for fascism), but arguable. But calling him a fascist is just an anachronism.
That’s why I called him “a bit of a fascist.”
You edited my comment to remove the “bit of a.”
The Republic is well known and cited by pretty much every burgeoning autocrat throughout history.
The Republic is cited by everyone.
The Republic is undoubtedly influential in Western philosophy, but you won’t find many contemporary political scientists or philosophers referencing it directly without a very heavy dose of qualification. In this context it’s most often used as a primary historical work more than a philosophical one.
Pretty much the only time you will see someone engaging with it as a work of authoritative or relevant philosophy (and really, just, a handful of notable passages) is in the context of anti-liberal rhetoric which is intentionally exploiting the assumption that the reader does not have a broad background in contemporary politics, but might know the name “Plato.”
It’s kind of like the difference between quoting Newton in the context of general relativity, versus quoting Newton in support of the luminiferous aether.
everyone pushing a western centric from Rome is civilization viewpoint