Plato on Democracy’s Transition to Tyranny

Perfectly describing our age?:

Come then, tell me, dear friend, how tyranny arises. That it is an outgrowth of
democracy is fairly plain.

Yes, plain.

Is it, then, in a sense, in the same way in which democracy arises out of oligarchy that tyranny arises from democracy?

How is that?

The good that they proposed to themselves and that was the cause of the establishment of oligarchy--it was wealth, was it not?

Yes.

Well, then, the insatiate lust for wealth and the neglect of everything else for the sake of money-making were the cause of its undoing.

True, he said.

And is not the avidity of democracy for that which is its definition and criterion of good the thing which dissolves it too?

What do you say its criterion to be?

Liberty, I replied, for you may hear it said that this is best managed in a democratic city, and for this reason that is the only city in which a man of free spirit will care to live.

Why, yes, he replied, you hear that saying everywhere.

Then, as I was about to observe, is it not the excess and greed of this and the neglect of all other things that revolutionizes this constitution too and prepares the way for the necessity of a dictatorship?

How? he said.

Why, when a democratic city athirst for liberty gets bad cupbearers for its leaders and is intoxicated by drinking too deep of that unmixed wine, and then, if its so-called governors are not extremely mild and gentle with it and do not dispense the liberty unstintedly, it chastises them and accuses them of being accursed oligarchs.

Yes, that is what they do, he replied.

But those who obey the rulers, I said, it reviles as willing slaves and men of nought, but it commends and honors in public and private rulers who resemble subjects and subjects who are like rulers. Is it not inevitable that in such a state the spirit of liberty should go to all lengths?

Of course.

And this anarchic temper, said I, my friend, must penetrate into private homes and finally enter into the very animals.

Just what do we mean by that? he said.

Why, I said, the father habitually tries to resemble the child and is afraid of his sons, and the son likens himself to the father and feels no awe or fear of his parents, so that he may be forsooth a free man. And the resident alien feels himself equal to the citizen and the citizen to him, and the foreigner likewise.

Yes, these things do happen, he said.

They do, said I, and such other trifles as these. The teacher in such case fears and fawns upon the pupils, and the pupils pay no heed to the teacher or to their overseers either. And in general the young ape their elders and vie with them in speech and action, while the old, accommodating themselves to the young, are full of pleasantry and graciousness, imitating the young for fear they may be thought disagreeable and authoritative.

By all means, he said.

And the climax of popular liberty, my friend, I said, is attained in such a city when the purchased slaves, male and female, are no less free than the owners who paid for them. And I almost forgot to mention the spirit of freedom and equal rights in the relation of men to women and women to men.

Shall we not, then, said he, in Aeschylean phrase, say 'whatever rises to our lips'?

[...]

And do you note that the sum total of all these items when footed up is that they render the souls of the citizens so sensitive that they chafe at the slightest suggestion of servitude and will not endure it? For you are aware that they finally pay no heed even to the laws written or unwritten, so that forsooth they may have no master anywhere over them.

I know it very well, said he.

This, then, my friend, said I, is the fine and vigorous root from which tyranny grows, in my opinion.

Vigorous indeed, he said, but what next?

The same malady, I said, that, arising in oligarchy, destroyed it, this more widely diffused and more violent as a result of this license, enslaves democracy. And in truth, any excess is wont to bring about a corresponding reaction to the opposite in the seasons, in plants, in animal bodies, and most especially in political societies.

Probably, he said.

And so the probable outcome of too much freedom is only too much slavery in the individual and the state.

Yes, that is probable.

Probably, then, tyranny develops out of no other constitution than democracy--from the height of liberty, I take it, the fiercest extreme of servitude.

That is reasonable, he said.

Throw Nature out with a pitchfork, / And yet She will return.

Even Alexander the Great, labelled ‘the first globalist’ by one biographer, did not deny the deep-rooted attachments of ethnicity. In the confusion of loyalties of Alexander’s Greece this had tragic implications for the athlete, Dioxippos.

Diodorus Siculus 17.100-101
Circa. 30 B.C.

Alexander the Great held a huge banquet for his friends [325 B. C.]. During the drinking something occurred which is worth mention. Among the companions of the king was a Macedonian named Koragos who was very strong in body and who had distinguished himself frequently in battle. The drink made him pugnacious, and he challenged to a duel one Dioxippos of Athens, an athlete who had won several glorious victories [including one in the pankration at Olympia in 336 B.C.]. As might be expected of those in their cups, the guests egged them on and Dioxippos accepted the challenge. Alexander set the day for the battle, and when the time came for the duel thousands of men assembled for the spectacle. Because he was one of them, the Macedonians and Alexander rooted for Koragos, while the Greeks favored Dioxippos. Koragos came onto the field of honor clad in the finest armor, while the Athenian was naked with his body oiled and carrying a well-balanced club.

Both men were marvellous to see in their magnificent physical condition and their desire for the fight. The spectators anticipated a veritable battle of gods. The Macedonian looked like Ares as he inspired terror through his stature and the brilliance of his weapons; Dioxippos resembled Herakles in his strength and athletic training, and even more so because he carried a club.

As they approached each other, the Macedonian hurled his javelin from the proper distance, but Dioxippos bent his body slightly and avoided it. Then the Macedonian poised his long pike and charged, but when he came within reach, the Greek struck the pike with his club and splintered it. Now Koragos was reduced to fighting with his sword, but as he went to draw it, Dioxippos leaped upon him, grabbed his sword hand in his own left hand, and with his other hand he upset his opponent’s balance and knocked his feet from under him. As Koragos fell to the ground, Dioxippos placed his foot on the other’s neck and, holding his club in the air, looked to the crowd.

The spectators were in an uproar because of the man’s incredible skill and superiority. Alexander motioned for Koragos to be released, then broke up the gathering and left, clearly annoyed at the defeat of the Macedonian. Dioxippos released his fallen foe and left as winner of a resounding victory. His compatriots bedecked him with ribbons for the victory which he had won on behalf of all the Greeks. But Fortune did not permit him to boast of his victory for very long.

The king became increasingly antagonistic toward Dioxippos, and Alexander’s friends and indeed all the Macedonians about the court, envious of Dioxippos’s arête, persuaded one of the servants to hide a gold drinking cup under the pillow of his dining couch. During the next symposion they pretended to find the cup and accused him of theft. This placed Dioxippos in a shameful and disgraceful position. He understood that the Macedonians were in a conspiracy against him, and he got up and left the symposion. When he had returned to his own quarters, he wrote a note to Alexander about the trick which had been played on him, gave this to his servants for delivery to the king, and then committed suicide. He may have been ill-advised to accept the duel, but he was even more foolish to have done away with himself, for it gave his critics the chance to say that it was a real hardship to have great strength of body, but little of mind.

****

Michael Bell at TOQ Online mentions the fight between Dioxippos and Koragos in his excellent post on the similarities between modern MMA and ancient Greek combat sports.

Greeks vs. Gurkhas

Our loyalties are easily manipulated by emotional narratives, but emotional narratives that would lead us astray are no rival to equally powerful calls imploring our allegiance to primary affiliations. Someone just has to make them.

Polybius 27.9.3-13
Circa 130 B.C.

In the gymnikoi agones when a humble and very inferior boxer is matched against a famous and unbeatable opponent, immediately the crowd splits off its support for the inferior man and they call out encouragement and bob and weave and punch together with him. And if he happens to land a punch on the other guy and marks his face, they jump up and down in their excitement. Sometimes they attack the other fellow with insults, not because they hate or scorn him, but becoming curiously sympathetic toward and naturally supportive of the underdog. But if someone gets their attention at the right time, they quickly change their position and resume their impartiality. They say that Kleitomachos did this, for he appeared to be unstoppable in the games, and his fame was worldwide. But King Ptolemy had ambitions of demolishing his fame, and he prepared and sent off with great pride the boxer Aristonikos, who seemed naturally adapted for this sport.

When Aristonikos arrived in Greece and was set up at the Olympic games against Kleitomachos [216 B.C.], the crowd came to be on Aristonikos’s side and cheered him, happy that someone had dared, even for a little, to stand up against Kleitomachos. When, as the bout proceeded, he appeared to be the equal of, and now and then wounded, Kleitomachos, there was applause and the crowd shared in his attacks and shouted out encouragement to Aristonikos. At that point they say that Kleitomachos, who was standing off and catching his breath, turned to the crowd to learn why they wanted to cheer Aristonikos and take his side as much as they could. Did they think that he was not following the rules of the games? Or did they not understand that he, Kleitomachos, was fighting right now for the fame of Greece, but that Aristonikos was fighting for the fame of King Ptolemy? Did they want to see an Egyptian win the crown at Olympia from the Greeks? Or did they prefer that a Theban and Boeotian be proclaimed as victor in boxing in the men’s category? When Kleitomachos had spoken in this way, they say that there was such a change in the crowd’s feelings that it rather than Kleitomachos finally beat Aristonikos.