Perhaps, I have misunderstood you, but you do seem to have found fault with Corbyn because of how he was portrayed in the press, which I don't think is fair. To me, it seems like it would have been a lot more important for a person to facilitate the Good Friday Agreement than it would for them to win an election. Granted, I should probably just take your word for that you were giving a mere analysis of his depiction in the press as you have explicitly stated.

Though now willing to take your word for that you were giving a mere analysis of how Corbyn was portrayed in the press. I do think that doing something like facilitating the Good Friday Agreement is kind of more important than winning an election.

Edit: Oh, it posted the first one. Well, whatever.

Granted, I should probably just take your word for that you were giving a mere analysis of his depiction in the press as you have explicitly stated. — thewonder

I don't think it would be bad if you did. I was just making a general point about Labour and about the fact that it hasn't really recovered after Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Another issue Labour had was the way it handled the banking crisis in 2008, selling off the country's gold reserves at rock-bottom prices and making rich gold speculators and traders even richer in the process, etc. Brown who had been regarded as an expert on economics, was seen to have failed miserably.

Perhaps Labour was treated unfairly by the press on this point as well, but that's how the cookie crumbles. What matters at the end of the day is that Labour lost the trust of the voters and it's still struggling to catch up. And internal frictions aren't helping either.

I don't know. I think you may be too concerned with electoral politics. On some level, if no one is in office, what can be done? By the same token, however, I think that we ought to consider just what we elect politicians for.

Engaging in dialogue so as to bring a resolution to a conflict is precisely the sort of thing that I not only entrust a public official to do, but also respect. If we are to do without the difficult tasks that some characterize as being contentious in kind of a condescending appeal to a somewhat illusory mass audience in the name of winning an election, why is it that we should even vote in an election? I also wonder as to whether such a middle of the road strategy is even effective. I think that there's a strong argument to make for that voter apathy exists because of that politicians via some form of pragmatism or another, often concede too much.

As far as political candidates go, I think that Corbyn was a good choice and don't think it was a mistake on the part of the Labour Party to choose him as a candidate. I don't live there, but I'd guess that his loss had more to do with kind of a spurious meta-narrative concerning Neo-Liberalism and the United Kingdom's longstanding alliance with the United States, one that is often never explicitly addressed, as it relates to the British exit from the European Union than it does with anything that The Daily Mail or The Telegraph has to say about Corbyn's alleged sanction of political terrorism.

By the same token, however, I think that we ought to consider just what we elect politicians for — thewonder

Well, that's what seems to be less and less clear. Personally, I tend to think we're being taken for a ride.

I don't mean to be cynical but political life is becoming so complex and there are so many and multiplying competing interest groups that it is nearly impossible to achieve anything of value except short-term, cosmetic "results" that are promptly undone or cancelled the minute the opposition comes to power.

I think that you are grossly mistaken. It is just this kind of cynicism that de facto makes me an Anarchist and not a Liberal.

I am an Anarcho-Pacifist. Though not a single-issue voter, I do tend to put a person's general attitude towards human rights first, their likelihood of involving the nation of which I am a citizen in a war second, and the rest to follow. Were I to live in Israel, for instance, were I think that this or that Israeli politician, let's say a fairly conservative member of Yesh Atid, to be more likely to bring an effective and lasting resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, I would certainly consider voting for them over this or that Labor Zionist. The Left is operating under the assumption that such people do not exist, which is just simply false. There are people, from all walks of life, who are willing to engage in the difficult tasks, such as what has come to be referred to as "dialogue", that are requisite to make the world that we live in the kind of place where such conflicts do not occur. Such tasks ought to be considered as noble. All too often, however, within partisan politics or this or that adherence to this or that ideology, people lose sight of the purpose of Politics in general, namely to do things like facilitate conflict resolution. We fail to value what is truly important and, because of this, it becomes all too easy to rely upon an odd kind of pragmatic cynicism that, as a generalized pathology, becomes as if it were true via a form of self-fulfilling prophecy. If people are ever to elect politicians who are worthy of respect, then they will have to be willing to respect that which is ethical and that which is pertinent.

If people are ever to elect politicians who are worthy of respect, then they will have to be willing to respect that which is ethical and that which is pertinent. — thewonder

I think most people are. Unfortunately, politicians seem strangely unable to deliver. So, why waste billions on elections and politicians instead of eradicating poverty?

Wouldn't it be better to get rid of political parties and have governments run by philosopher-kings as suggested by Plato?

I never been one to accept Plato's rejection of the Athenian democracy, despite what was untenable of it, and hypothetical noocracy. Philosophers, for what they have going for them, often don't have all too great of political ideas or make for great politicians. I will avoid citing the most obvious one and point to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's notion of absolute idealism culminating in the Prussian state as evidence of this.

I am, perhaps, more pessimistic than you are. I think that it is quite common for people, particularly those engaged in politics, to dismiss all kinds of ideas as being somehow "idealistic" or to justify any number of concessions, however anyone would like to interpret that, as necessitated because of some form of pragmatism.

Were Liberal democracy to genuinely be what people who care about liberty, equality, and all that could believe that it is, I would see no reason to be an Anarchist.

Were Liberal democracy to genuinely be what people who care about liberty, equality, and all that could believe that it is, I would see no reason to be an Anarchist. — thewonder

Agree. And if we think democracy is a hard thing to get right - how about philosopher-kings? How on earth would the quality of this be determined and how would we avoid getting a well-read 'Putin' rather than a Socrates? It seems to me that what is true for Presidents might be true for philosopher-kings - the kinds of people who want to be one should be instantly dismissed from the list of contenders. And the kinds of people who might be great, would never accept the position.

It seems to me that what is true for Presidents might be true for philosopher-kings — Tom Storm

Might be true but not necessarily so. Not if the philosopher-kings are specially raised and trained for that particular purpose. All that needs to be done is for the people to decide what qualities, abilities, and virtues the philosopher-kings should possess and for them to be educated and trained accordingly. There would be no need for elections, corruption and aberrant political ideologies would be eradicated, and many billions would be saved and distributed among those who need it most or otherwise used for the public good. And @thewonder would finally be released from the burden of being an Anarchist

All that needs to be done is for the people to decide what qualities, abilities, and virtues the philosopher-kings should possess and for them to be educated and trained accordingly. — Apollodorus

I hear you but right there is the crux to all our problems.

I hear you but right there is the crux to all our problems. — Tom Storm

Correct. And that's why I'm beginning to think that we haven't progressed much since Plato.

As I said, spending more and more billions on elections and politicians does not appear to provide us with better politicians, better elections or better democracy. On the contrary, it seems to me that this only serves to increase the undemocratic influence and power of self-interested oligarchic circles. The "Open Conspiracy", "Fabian Conspiracy" or whatever we choose to call it, seems to have driven us in the same direction. As shown by Orwell's 1984 this was quite predictable and we can't really feign surprise.

I don't know, I feel kind of like training philosopher kings would be sort of like training artistic savants within Classical music. The entire intellectual edification would revolve around far too few of people. If you really wanted to predicate governance by Philosophy, it would have to be the case that everyone could become a philosopher. Within a political context, that seems kind of like some form of participatory democracy. Only an Anarchist commune can free me of the burden of being an Anarchist. It's a paradox of apotheotical disenchantment.

If you really wanted to predicate governance by Philosophy, it would have to be the case that everyone could become a philosopher. — thewonder

I didn't mean that there must be an exclusive elite group. But we're talking about quality, not quantity. Obviously, candidates would have to be selected according to certain criteria and this would necessarily limit the number of those selected. However, any citizen with the right aptitude can apply for selection and if successful be included in the general pool of philosophers from among whom one would become the leader and others his advisers. I can see no reason why this shouldn't be applied at least on a trial basis. At the very least, the experiment could start with a village or town and if successful reproduced at regional and national level. I don't see how it could be any worse that what we've got now and with a bit of luck it might turn out to be better. Just think of the many billions that could be saved on elections and politicians. I think it would greatly contribute to eradicating poverty and other societal problems. And, who knows, philosopher kings might even serve as a model and inspiration for the rest of the population and this would help combating antisocial behavior, crime and anti-culture.

usher in Armageddon. — Fooloso4

Yes. There will be seat-sales, when Armageddon strikes. Security, police presence. Searches by the entrance for concealed weapons. Celebrity seats, red carpet. Before you enter the auditorium, where Armageddon is to be held, ushers will check your invitation to your seat assignment. They will point you in the right direction, and tear your ticket in half. Maybe stamp your hand, so you can go to cash bar and the washroom during the show.

I would like to watch Armageddon from Caesar's seat in the Colosseum. First act: Christians vs. Lions. That is, an exhibition ball game of Tampa Bay Christians, vs Kansas City Lions. Second act: Marxists-Leninists vs Menshevik forces. Third act: all of humanity against human stupidity.

There will be seat-sales, when Armageddon strikes. — god must be atheist

As I understand it, they have all been reserved by the elect. Not even standing room for the likes of me.

Correct. I've slightly edited the OP (2nd post, actually) to clarify how Fabianism has come to be associated with "conspiracy". The Fabians were attacked from the start by other socialists, from leading ideologists like Engels to common folk, for being disingenuous and self-interested or "unprincipled spiders" as some called them.

And yes, property is a powerful motivating factor in all political movements. Leading Fabians, although members of the Liberal Party, were often Marxists and some still are. However, they realized early on that abolition of private property as advocated by strict Marxists wasn't too attractive a proposition to the common people. Farmers and other land owners were definitely against the idea and ever factory workers wanted higher wages in the hope to one day own their own property.

So, the Fabians who were highly intelligent and educated people, were forced to modify their political program in order to accommodate the interests of the majority and win the support of bankers and industrialists whose aim was to water down the more revolutionary currents of socialism. This is why they dubbed socialism "a business proposition" and were viewed by other socialists with suspicion and disdain. But the Fabians' intellectual work, their influence on education, and the support they enjoyed from economic interests enabled them to outmaneuver other socialists and impose their own agenda.

The internal situation within the British Labour Party, where right-wing Fabians are at loggerheads with left-wing unionists, is a microcosm of the wider tensions and conflicts between Fabianism and other socialist currents throughout the world.

But, as I said, there is quite a bit to explore and assimilate. So, do take your time. There is no rush. — Apollodorus

When I got involved with a group of grandparents fighting for grandparents' rights, I was horrified by the fighting for control that almost destroyed our united effort, and I notice in the reading that there were divisions in the socialist movement for the same reason. We are highly motivated when we feel important to the movement, and like churches break up into different sects, political activist groups seem to do the same thing. Strong leaders need followers, they tend to compete against each other.

For sure owning one's own property is desirable. There are some benefits to renting, but I rather have control over property choices and who can live in my home, than feel like I am still living with my parents because the owners and managers have all the rights, not the renters. Not to neglect, when we own we build equity and when we rent, not only do we not have equity but the cost of renting goes up and up, preventing renters from getting economically ahead and preparing for retirement. Those are important differences.

"This is why they dubbed socialism "a business proposition"" I really like your explanation of that and I must ponder it. It makes perfect sense to me to work with economic interests instead of against them.
And it seems to me, some of the important Fabians were educators, not industrialists. That might be important to their take on things? Education is essential to liberty and I think liberty is very important. It goes with owning land and having property rights, versus renting and living under rules made without us having a say in them.

I think I favor the democratic model for industry. I like the idea of worker-owned industry but there must be strong leadership as in a republic, not the inefficiency of democracy that lacks strong leadership. Thank you for making the issue comprehensible.

When I got involved with a group of grandparents fighting for grandparents' rights, I was horrified by the fighting for control that almost destroyed our united effort, and I notice in the reading that there were divisions in the socialist movement for the same reason. We are highly motivated when we feel important to the movement, and like churches break up into different sects, political activist groups seem to do the same thing. Strong leaders need followers, they tend to compete against each other.

For sure owning one's own property is desirable. There are some benefits to renting, but I rather have control over property choices and who can live in my home, than feel like I am still living with my parents because the owners and managers have all the rights, not the renters. Not to neglect, when we own we build equity and when we rent, not only do we not have equity but the cost of renting goes up and up, preventing renters from getting economically ahead and preparing for retirement. Those are important differences.

"This is why they dubbed socialism "a business proposition"" I really like your explanation of that and I must ponder it. It makes perfect sense to me to work with economic interests instead of against them.
And it seems to me, some of the important Fabians were educators, not industrialists. That might be important to their take on things? Education is essential to liberty and I think liberty is very important. It goes with owning land and having property rights, versus renting and living under rules made without us having a say in them.

I think I favor the democratic model for industry. I like the idea of worker-owned industry but there must be strong leadership as in a republic, not the inefficiency of democracy that lacks strong leadership. Thank you for making the issue comprehensible. — Athena

You are quite right about private property and for very good reasons which we can address later. Suffice it to say for now that the vast majority of people were and still are against the abolition of private property and this induced the Fabians to distance themselves, at least in public, from more radical forms of socialism.

The danger of activist movements is that they involve many different people with different outlooks, interests and agendas and this can make those movements vulnerable to infiltration and manipulation by other interests.

The Fabians' involvement with corporate interests did make sense for several reasons, the principal one being that their projects required the kind of moneys that the Fabians simply did not have. The downside to that is that Fabian projects being increasingly larger and more costly, Fabianism over time became totally dependent on corporate donors and ended up representing the interests of the corporate community over those of the general public. This would be one key point to keep in mind.

The London School of Economics (LSE) is a case in point. Originally owned and controlled by the Fabians, control soon passed from the Fabians to the corporations whose directors currently sit on its board and decide policy.

I think education was where this discussion originally started. I communicate with university students and professors on an almost daily basis. When I mention Fabianism and its influence there is first perplexed silence but after consulting the sources they all end up thanking me for bringing it to their attention.

It would have been impossible to clarify this point in a few sentences. Education was absolutely central to the Fabian project. There is an excellent study by Fabian Society archivist Patricia Pugh, Educate, Agitate, Organize: 100 Years of Fabian Socialism, which makes this point more than clear. I will post a link if I find one, but here is a review of it Review: [Untitled] on JSTOR

The LSE was founded in 1895 and was the first big project started by the Fabians. It later merged with and took over the University of London. But the Fabians were taking over the entire education system. They initiated education reform in the whole of England. Shaw in his paper “Educational Reform” (1889) wrote that the aim was “control over the whole education system, from the elementary school to the University and over all educational endowments”.

The word “endowments” itself speaks volumes. The Fabians had the backing of leading bankers and industrialists and were given free hand by the King to do virtually as they pleased in the name of “enlightenment” and “progress”. They took control of the London School Board, the London County Council, university societies, students’ unions, top institutions like Imperial College and Royal Economic Society, foundations, endowments, and pretty much everything that had to do with education.

Beatrice Webb wrote in her diary that the LSE was “stealthily establishing itself as the English school of economics and political science” and concluded that thanks to the activities of the Fabian Society, the LSE, the London County Council Progressives (allies of the Fabians) and the influence of Fabian books, “no young man or woman who wanted to study or work in public affairs could fail to come under Fabian influence”.

In a nutshell, this was the Fabian plan or “conspiracy”: to systematically, and in their own words “stealthily”, take over education and, through education, also culture, politics and governance. And, as explained by R. Martin, they replicated this in America and throughout the British Empire. In other words, these are the practical details to Wells' more general outlines.

If people want to know why the education system in England and America is the way it is, Fabian and corporate influence or control is a big part of the answer.

In any case, it is clear that Fabianism is not a democratic enterprise. The people have absolutely no say in it. If we want to change culture we need to change education. But we can't do that when education is in someone else's hands.

I'll say what someone once quoted from the film, Heathers, to you, which is that "it's all about the inherent inequality to a game of croquet."

To go back to the Classical music metaphor, within an orchestra, you have a person who plays the first violin and someone who plays an accompanying viola part. I would imagine that a person who plays the viola, at some point or another, is likely to wonder as to how much they really contribute to the orchestra as a whole, whether or not nearly every orchestral piece ought to showcase virtuosic violin playing, and if it's really fair for the orchestra to be designed in such a manner that does.

If we are to give such a preference for intellectual savants, which we already have done, I would imagine that similar sentiment would arise.

I don't play Classical music, but do play Experimental Rock and Roll. I have theorized that the standard Rock and Roll line-up, consisting of four members, one lead guitar player, one rhythm guitar player, one bassist, and one drummer, doesn't fully encompass what a Rock and Roll band could be capable of. What I think is that there should be something like a first guitar, second guitar, a lead singer and synthesiziser play, a bassist, and a drummer. Given this set-up, where the first guitarist obviously plays a Gibson Les Paul through a Marshall half-stack and Marshall head-stock, the second guitar player plays a silver Gibson hollowbody through a Fender Twin Reverb and a Tone Master headstock, the lead singer and synthesizer player somehow convinces Moog to create a digital synthesizer for them that is designed to reproduce the sounds of the original analog Moog, the bassist plays a Fender Jazz Bass through whatever equipment they so desire, and the drummer has a similar set-up to that of Steve Shelley of Sonic Youth, it would seem to be the case that most of the songs would probably be written by either the first or second guitarist or lead singer. It would also seem to be the case that the band would be led by one of those three people. What, were I to be in such a band, I would find to be kind of vexing were that the bassist, within a song that they didn't write, to believe for themselves to be the person who should lead the band. The reason that a person play the bass is so that they don't have to take the spotlight on stage, mill about in this or that corner of the venue after the fact, look standoffish and cool and be capable of finding partners by virtue of being in an Experimental Rock and Roll band.

I am not an idiot. Even though I, too, agree that "the abolition of any form of either evident or implicit hierarchy" is the only agreeable definition of Anarchism, I understand that, within any given social situation, there are people who will take on some form of leadership role and everyone else.

What you are proposing, however, is just a society akin to what academia is already like. Though I see enough within the cultivation of the life of the mind to participate within it, I am willing to admit that there is a certain degree of wealth and class that comes with academia and, though it can result in the creation of great works, it is already kind of absurd for Philosophy to be like Classical music. To make a comparison within the arts, I think that it should be more like Abstract Expressionism or Free Jazz. If it is not the case that just about anyone can learn to become a philosopher king, then, there will be created certain classes and society will not differ too much from what already exists today.

I would also like to note that my theoretical genres for such a band are Baroque Shoegaze, Postmodern Punk, and Dream Rock, but kind of think that it'd just be cooler if all that it said on bandcamp, and, as bandcamp will save the independent music industry, there is only bandcamp, was "experimental rock and roll".

If it is not the case that just about anyone can learn to become a philosopher king, then, there will be created certain classes and society will not differ too much from what already exists today. — thewonder

Well, I kind of like that type of music myself although I prefer to exchange ideas to listening to music and for some reason people tend to keep asking me questions.

As for the creation of certain classes, I don't think that would be a major problem as classes tend to emerge naturally in more complex societies anyway. More important would be what classes do and what they contribute to society. Plus, you can't tell that a system will be worse than the existing one until you try it out.

I'm not trying to press you for anything or anything. I just thought that you created an interesting thread that, admittedly, offered me a forum to go on about all sorts of things that I just have kind of a vested interest in going on about.

What I am saying of your idea for philosopher kings, however, is that it just seems like it'd be as a society similar to that of academia today. Though I do view academia somewhat favorably, I think that there are implicit inequalities within it, which, if we are to imagine an ideal political scenario, we could just as soon do without. I also kind of think that academics would probably just kind of create a slightly better version of the Liberal democracy that exists already. It'd be an improvement, but, if we're going to imagine the best of all possible worlds, why not imagine an effective participatory democracy wherein everyone can be as a philosopher?

To continue with the music metaphor, though I would prefer that people just take the older guys in the band up on whatever wisdom, if you will, and common sense that they're trying to dish out, why recreate a situation where only really those dudes have all too good of an idea as to just what it is that is going on? It's like how it'd only be cool for a person to discover the band, The Hunches, as a teenager. Society being as such, has certain circumstantial advantages for some which are ultimately unfair. What people generally dislike about the music community, even the parties involved, is a tendency for people to be overly critical, judgmental, and form cliques. I'd bet that you can somehow trace this back to the social ecology of Classical music. When we're going to imagine an ideal music industry, why recreate the very inherent flaws which resulted in what people generally dislike about it?

What I'm suggesting is that the training of philosopher kings is kind of nepotistic and almost vaguely aristocratic. I'm not trying to level too much of a dig at you, but I am of the opinion that it just wouldn't be all too great of an idea. When nepotism and aristocratic excess eventually led to what people dislike about the form of Liberalism that we have today, what would be the point of recreating the circumstances from which they were born?

I think that that's kind of a glib way to put that, typical of the very hipsters I am trying to critique.

What I'm suggesting about your idea of philosopher kings is that it is something like what the aristocracy already thought. As I assume for you to be a left-wing Liberal and not some sort of cryptic monarchist, what I'm trying to explain is that to put it into effect in the ideal sense that you are proposing could only result in a better form of the Liberalism that we already have today. What's the point of just recreating the circumstances for the very inefficiencies and inequalities that already exist? Were you to set up such a society now, thirty years later you'd have two political camps, one in favor of something like Neo-Liberalism, and one in favor of something like the Nordic Model. I'm not pressing you for information, but am merely asking a rhetorical question when I say, "What would be the point?"

That's exactly what I was saying. As the classes already exist, there would be no point recreating them It's enough to replace their old members with new improved ones. I doubt that Stalinism would be a solution seeing that it has failed everywhere. So, putting philosophers in charge wouldn't be a bad idea.

"Communism is a red herring."

Within academia, there are all kinds of petty intellectual squabbles, neuroses, chauvinist disputes, sectarian ideological camps, Mentalist prejudices, somewhat arbitrary formal credential requirements, and pomp and circumstance that people, usually intellectuals who are keen on such things, bemoan, and rightfully so. The Western intelligensia hazards a certain malaise, despite what is tenable of it. When the source of this malaise are the various forms of class that both become created or have been inherited because of either social or material capital, why should we recreate the circumstances which brought them about? What I am not saying is that society has no need for specialists or that there haven't been great thinkers whom we ought to laud for their life's work. What I am saying is that what the aristocracy in the Nineteenth Century generally thought was something along the lines of that society should be ruled by philosopher kings and that this very same aristocracy set in motion the course of events which have resulted in the form of Liberalism that exists today. In a way, that kind of a lot of politicians have taken Plato at his word for that the Athenian democracy would eventually culminate in tyranny has created all kinds of plights throughout the general course of human history. In the field of Nuclear Engineering, I can understand how it comes to be that much of what goes on revolves around the theories of only a few specialists. When it comes to the organization of human society, however, there only being a few intellectuals whom are let to cultivate an intelligensia will necessarily result in the formation of an intellectual class, with what limited good and all of the general bane that comes with it.

I think you misunderstood what you were saying.

What I was saying was something else. I said philosopher kings not aristocracy. Obviously you couldn't have presidents because there will be nothing to preside over hence the designation of "king". However that would be just a title because they will be elected by the people. Better than Stalin and Mao Zedong who weren't elected and appointed themselves. Plus they were murderers not philosophers. IMO that proves my point.

The aristocracy had adopted this kind of millenarian, technocratic, Neo-Classical, Aristotlean, substitution of the Liberal democratic project à la constitutional monarchy that effectively relied upon the only so well meaning invocation of the aforementioned "philosopher kings". As intuitive as it could be for anyone to think that people who believe in the cultivation of wisdom ought to be the sort of people to guide the general organization of society, what this philosophical interloping within the Liberal democratic project was is precisely what produced the various forms of class that exist today.

I have quoted the film, Clue, before and I will quote it again, "Communism is a red herring." Neither you nor I live in the Russian Federation or China and, regardless as to what historical lessons there are to learn from the humanitarian catastrophes that occurred there, the abuse of power on the part of either Josef Stalin or Mao Zedong, neither of which you have provided any support for that I am somehow defending, is just simply completely irrelevant within this discussion.

What I am suggesting is that electing philosophical kings wouldn't be terribly different from the only so functional form of representative democracy that already exists today. I have also pointed out that doing so would fail to eliminate one of the fundamental flaws with the general culture of the intellect, being the creation of various classes. What I have posited is that, rather than only having a few intellectual savants to rely on for spiritual guidance, if you will, that it ought to be the case that just about everyone ought to be able to become a philosopher. What I suspect there is to draw from this supposition of mine is that it would just simply be some form of participatory democracy or another. I, further, theorize that Anarchism, as per my interpretation of it, is a kind of Liberal apotheosis and have highlighted a certain paradox to my general political inclinations, being that I don't tend to get on very well with Anarchists, but see its full reification as the culmination of all that is veritable of civilization as a whole.

What I am suggesting is that electing philosophical kings wouldn't be terribly different from the only so functional form of representative democracy that already exists today. — thewonder

If it wouldn't be terribly different then why object to it?

As I said, it is imperative to understand yourself. There is no point understanding others or believing that you understand them if you don't understand yourself in the first place. That's why it has been said "Know thyself".

You seem to be objecting to the designation of "king" on psychological grounds. But that is your issue that only you can resolve.

It doesn't matter what we call philosopher kings. You can call them "wise rulers" if you prefer or use the Greek word that most people wouldn't understand and wouldn't associate with "aristocracy".

But I bet you would object to that too, and that suggests to me that your reasons are psychological not logical. In order to look at things in a philosophical light we must begin by pulling our heads out of the psychological, cultural and political garbage and analyze reality objectively, not put some psychotic or neurotic spin on it.

Why should we be ruled by a conspiracy of Fabians and oligarchs? Both politics and business are about power and self-interest. In contrast, philosophy is about wisdom or common sense. Therefore, governance should be based on philosophy, not on politics or business.

I don't understand what this has to do with the Democratic Party. — thewonder

I never speak of the Democratic Party. I speak of the democratic process and my ideas of that come from the ancient Greeks. I am also in favor of sports events and the winners of the game get things their way until next year when the games are played again.

Why should we be ruled by a conspiracy of Fabians and oligarchs? Both politics and business are about power and self-interest. In contrast, philosophy is about wisdom or common sense. Therefore, governance should be based on philosophy, not on politics or business.
4 hours ago — Apollodorus

I think the big mistake communist made is to eliminate the business people. Philosophy just is not the subject to study for a good economy and if the economy isn't good, nothing will be good. We might want to care more about logic and worry less about being "nice".

I think the big mistake communist made is to eliminate the business people. Philosophy just is not the subject to study for a good economy and if the economy isn't good, nothing will be good. We might want to care more about logic and worry less about being "nice". — Athena

Well, philosophy does include logic. Plus, a philosopher king or whatever we choose to call a ruler would have economic advisers, exactly as existing heads of state do.

I think there is a big difference between having a sound economy and having a country controlled by vested business interests.

But I do agree that communism shot itself in the foot by eliminating the business class. Communist China learned from Russia's mistakes and introduced some capitalist methods but under the strict control of the Communist Party.