Matière et Révolution

Bien des gens se sont dits ou se disent encore « marxistes » sans que leurs thèses aient le moindre rapport avec les théories, principes, conceptions et objectifs des auteurs originaux, à savoir Marx et Engels. Bien entendu, chacun a le droit de s'attribuer l'étiquette qui lui plait sans que nous n'ayons ni le droit ni l'envie de la leur contester. Nous tenons seulement à conserver notre manière à nous d'étudier, c'est-à-dire de continuer à construire le marxisme sans souhaiter que l'on nous attribue les élucubrations d'auteurs qui n'ont pas du tout les mêmes buts ni la même philosophie. Et, tout d'abord, il convient de remarquer que ces gens-là qui se disent mensongèrement marxistes ont rompu avec le souci théoriquement, programmatique, scientifique et philosophique de Marx et Engels parce qu'ils ont aussi rompu avec le but de transformer le monde et ne ressentent pas, du coup, le besoin de le repenser.

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7537

Qu'est-ce que le marxisme ?

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxisme

Le marxisme, scientifique

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article3223

Le marxisme philosophique

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article3309

Philosophie marxiste

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article4039

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article6780

Un matérialisme dialectique

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article6574

Le marxisme révolutionnaire, matérialiste, dialectique et internationaliste

Le marxisme de Marx

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article6242

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7698

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article6087

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article4687

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article3470

Le marxisme d'Engels

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article3161

Le marxisme de Lénine

https://www.marxists.org/francais/lenin/works/1908/04/vil19080403.htm

Le marxisme de Rosa Luxemburg

https://www.marxists.org/francais/luxembur/works/1908/03/rlux_19080315.htm

Le marxisme de Trotsky

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article607

Les fausses interprétations du marxisme

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article2549

Y a-t-il une continuité des organisations révolutionnaires de Marx à Lénine et Trotsky ?

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article1328

Le marxisme doit rester vivant. En rester au texte de Marx, c'est tuer la démarche de Marx.

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article2855

Le marxisme des sociaux-démocrates qui se disaient marxistes

Le marxisme de Kautsky

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article4373

Le marxisme de Kautsky et celui de Bernstein

https://www.marxists.org/francais/kautsky/works/1900/00/kautbern1.pdf

Le marxisme de Plekhanov

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article5572

L'austromarxisme de Adler et Bauer

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austromarxisme

Le centrisme

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxisme_centriste

L'opportunisme

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article3946

Le sectarisme

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article2333

Le marxisme des staliniens

Le marxisme de Staline

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article6103

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article2025

Le marxisme des faux trotskistes

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article8156

Le marxisme de Mandel

https://www.marxists.org/francais/mandel/works/1983/00/mandel_19830000.htm

POI-PCI

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article3738

Lutte ouvrière

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7566

Révolution permanente

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?breve1037

Fraction Etincelle

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article6904

NPA

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7721

Le marxisme des gauchistes (gauche communiste)

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7728

Le marxisme de Bordiga

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article3912

Le marxisme de Korsch

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7173

Le marxisme de Pannekoek

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article4962

Le marxisme de Mattick

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article6040

Le marxisme de Cliff

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article6357

Le marxisme de Souyri

https://www.marxists.org/francais/souryi/works/1970/index.htm

Le marxisme de Victor Serge

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article5124

Le marxisme du CCI

https://fr.internationalism.org/icconline/1998/gauche-communiste

Défense du marxisme

https://www.marxists.org/francais/trotsky/livres/defmarx/defmarx.pdf

Principaux écrits marxistes ou de référence pour des marxistes

https://www-marxists-org.translate.goog/subject/philosophy/marxist.htm?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=fr&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=sc

https://www-marxists-org.translate.goog/reference/subject/philosophy/index.htm?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=fr&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=sc

La terminologie de Hegel - Glossaires

Robert Paris — 2026-06-20T22:41:00Z

La terminologie de Hegel

L'Italie était-elle mure en 1919 pour les soviets ?

Robert Paris — 2026-06-19T22:47:00Z

Italie 1919-1920 : la révolution abandonnée à elle-même, battue, puis oubliée…

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article4597

La révolution italienne de 1919

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article278

Prendre l'usine ou prendre le pouvoir ? (Italie 1919-1920)

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article6145

Italie 1919 : conseils d'usine

http://quefaire.lautre.net/que-faire/que-faire-no01-aout-octobre-2009/article/italie-1919-1921-les-conseils-d

Amadeo Bordiga

mai 1919

Est-ce le moment de former des « soviets » ?

Deux des articles de notre dernier numéro, l'un consacré à une analyse du système de représentation communiste et l'autre à un exposé des tâches actuelles de notre Parti, concluaient en se demandant s'il est possible ou approprié de créer des organisations ouvrières et paysannes. » conseils aujourd'hui, alors que le pouvoir de la bourgeoisie est encore intact. Le camarade Ettore Croce, dans une discussion sur notre thèse abstentionniste dans un article d' Avanti ! , demande que nous disposions d'une nouvelle arme avant de nous débarrasser de l'ancienne arme de l'action parlementaire et attend avec impatience la formation des soviets.

Dans notre dernier numéro, nous avons clarifié la distinction entre les tâches technico-économiques et politiques des organes représentatifs soviétiques et nous avons montré que les véritables organes de la dictature du prolétariat sont les soviets politiques locaux et centraux, dans lesquels les travailleurs ne sont pas subdivisés selon les critères. à leur métier particulier. L'autorité suprême de ces organes est le Comité exécutif central, qui nomme les commissaires du peuple ; parallèlement à eux naît tout un réseau d'organes économiques, fondés sur les conseils d'usine et les syndicats, qui culminent dans le Conseil central de l'économie.

En Russie, répétons-le, s'il n'y a pas de représentation commerciale au sein de la CEC et du Soviet des Soviets, mais seulement une représentation territoriale, il n'en est pas de même du Conseil de l'Économie, l'organe chargé de la mise en œuvre technique de la socialisation. mesures décrétées par l'assemblée politique. Dans ce Conseil, les fédérations professionnelles et les conseils économiques locaux jouent un rôle. Le numéro du 16 août de L'Ordine Nuovocontenait un article intéressant sur le système de socialisation de type soviétique. Cet article expliquait comment dans une première étape, qualifiée d'anarcho-syndicaliste, les conseils d'usine prendraient en charge la gestion de la production, mais que par la suite, dans des étapes ultérieures de centralisation, ils perdraient de leur importance. En fin de compte, ils ne seraient rien d'autre que des clubs et des sociétés de secours mutuels et d'instruction pour les ouvriers d'une usine particulière.

Si nous portons notre attention sur le mouvement communiste allemand, nous voyons dans le programme de la Ligue Spartacus que les conseils d'ouvriers et de soldats, les organes qui doivent remplacer les parlements bourgeois et les conseils municipaux, sont tout à fait différents des conseils d'usine. les conseils, qui (article 7 de la section III) réglementent les conditions de travail et contrôlent la production, en accord avec les conseils ouvriers, et prennent finalement en charge la gestion de l'ensemble de l'entreprise .

Dans la pratique russe, la direction des usines était composée à hauteur d'un tiers seulement de représentants du conseil d'usine, d'un tiers de représentants du Conseil suprême de l'économie et d'un tiers de représentants de la Fédération centrale de l'industrie. les intérêts de la main-d'œuvre, les intérêts généraux de la société et les intérêts d'un secteur industriel particulier).

En Allemagne également, les élections aux conseils ouvriers sont organisées selon la formule : un membre du conseil pour 1 000 électeurs. Seules les grandes usines de plus de 1 000 ouvriers constituent une seule unité électorale ; dans le cas des petites usines et des chômeurs, le vote a lieu selon des modalités établies par la commission électorale en accord avec diverses organisations professionnelles.

Il nous semble que nous avons rassemblé ici suffisamment d'éléments pour pouvoir nous déclarer partisans d'un système de représentation clairement divisé en deux divisions : économique et politique. En ce qui concerne les fonctions économiques, chaque usine aura son propre conseil d'usine élu par les ouvriers ; celui-ci aura un rôle à jouer dans la socialisation et la gestion ultérieure de l'usine selon des critères appropriés. En ce qui concerne la fonction politique, c'est-à-dire la formation des organes de pouvoir locaux et centraux, les élections aux conseils prolétariens auront lieu sur la base de listes électorales dans lesquelles (avec l'exclusion rigoureuse de tous les bourgeois, c'est-à-dire les personnes qui vivre de quelque manière que ce soit du travail des autres) tous les prolétaires sont inclus sur un pied d'égalité, quel que soit leur métier, et même s'ils sont (légitimement) au chômage ou frappés d'incapacité. Compte tenu de tout cela, est-il possible, ou souhaitable, de créer des Soviétiques maintenant ?

S'il s'agit de conseils d'usine, ceux-ci se répandent déjà sous la forme de commissions internes, ou du système anglais des « shop stewards ». Comme il s'agit d'organismes qui représentent les intérêts de la main-d'œuvre, ils devraient être créés même lorsque l'usine est encore aux mains du capital privé. En fait, il serait certainement avantageux pour nous d'insister sur la création de ces conseils d'usine, même si nous ne devons pas nous faire d'illusions quant à leur capacité révolutionnaire innée. Ce qui nous amène au problème le plus important, celui des soviets politiques. Le soviet politique représente les intérêts collectifs de la classe ouvrière, dans la mesure où cette classe ne partage pas le pouvoir avec la bourgeoisie, mais a réussi à la renverser et à l'exclure du pouvoir. C'est pourquoi la pleine signification et la force du soviet ne résident pas dans telle ou telle structure, mais dans le fait qu'il est l'organe d'une classe qui prend en main la direction de la société. Chaque membre du soviet est un prolétaire conscient qu'il exerce une dictature au nom de sa propre classe.

Si la classe bourgeoise est encore au pouvoir, même s'il était possible de convoquer les électeurs prolétariens pour désigner leurs délégués (car il n'est pas question d'utiliser pour cela les syndicats ou les commissions internes existantes), ce serait simplement donner une imitation formelle d'une activité future, une imitation dénuée de son caractère révolutionnaire fondamental. Ceux qui peuvent représenter le prolétariat aujourd'hui , avant qu'il ne prenne le pouvoir demain , sont des travailleurs conscients de cette éventualité historique ; en d'autres termes, les travailleurs membres du Parti communiste .

Dans sa lutte contre le pouvoir bourgeois, le prolétariat est représenté par son parti de classe , même si celui-ci ne constitue qu'une minorité audacieuse. Les soviets de demain doivent provenir des branches locales ou du Parti communiste. Ce sont eux qui pourront faire appel à des éléments qui, dès que la révolution sera victorieuse, seront proposés comme candidats devant les masses électorales prolétariennes pour constituer les Conseils des délégués ouvriers locaux.

Mais s'il veut remplir ces fonctions, le Parti communiste doit abandonner sa participation aux élections des organes de la démocratie bourgeoise.. Les raisons qui soutiennent cette affirmation sont évidentes. Le Parti ne doit avoir comme membres que des individus capables de faire face aux responsabilités et aux dangers de la lutte pendant la période d'insurrection et de réorganisation sociale. La conclusion selon laquelle nous ne devrions abandonner notre participation aux élections que lorsque nous disposons de Soviétiques est une erreur. Un examen plus approfondi de la question conduit plutôt à la conclusion suivante : tant que le pouvoir bourgeois existe, l'organe de la révolution est le parti de classe ; après l'effondrement du pouvoir bourgeois, c'est le réseau des conseils ouvriers. Le parti de classe ne peut pas remplir ce rôle, ni être en mesure de mener l'assaut contre le pouvoir bourgeois afin de remplacer la démocratie parlementaire par le système soviétique. à moins qu'il ne renonce à envoyer ses propres représentants dans les organes bourgeois. Ce renoncement, qui n'est négatif que dans un sens formel, est la condition première à remplir pour mobiliser les forces du prolétariat communiste. Ne pas vouloir faire un tel renoncement équivaut à abandonner notre position de volonté de déclarer la guerre de classe à la première occasion disponible.

Réponse de Clara Zetkin à Karl Kautsky sur la révolution russe

Robert Paris — 2026-06-18T22:49:00Z

Clara Zetkin
De la dictature à la démocratie

(1919)

Dans un article récent intitulé Démocratie contre Dictature , le camarade Kautsky s'est opposé à la dictature du prolétariat et de la paysannerie telle qu'elle a été instaurée en Russie par le renversement bolchevique de l'autorité de l'État. Il a exprimé son désaccord avec les opinions des socialistes qui soutiennent que, dans les circonstances actuelles, cette dictature est historiquement justifiée. Pour l'essentiel, les opinions de Kautsky sont identiques à celles récemment publiées par Martoff, un camarade menchevik, dans son ouvrage Marx et le problème de la dictature du prolétariat . Ma réponse aux critiques de Kautsky à l'égard des bolcheviks est la suivante :

Le bolchevisme et la main forte

L'usage de la main forte est la caractéristique essentielle de l'activité bolchevique. Ce n'est pas idéal, mais inévitable. Cela peut être contraire aux prescriptions de la démocratie, mais cela sert pourtant les intérêts de la démocratie. Si, pour tous ceux qui vivent en Russie, la démocratie doit devenir une réalité socialiste diffusant de l'énergie, les bolcheviks ne pourront échapper à la nécessité de sacrifier, à titre de mesure transitoire, les droits de certains individus et de certains groupes sociaux. Que cela se produise est une caractéristique inévitable de l'évolution historique. La démocratie est de double nature, étant à la fois le moyen et la fin de l'évolution historique. En tant que fin ou but de l'évolution historique, elle peut entrer en conflit avec elle-même en tant que moyen d'évolution historique. La dictature du prolétariat et de la paysannerie en Russie porte les marques de cette contradiction. Les voix plaintives de Russie, les critiques émises par les adversaires du « bolchevisme » dans d'autres pays, nous assurent que depuis que les bolcheviks sont arrivés au pouvoir, ils ont partout violé et sacrifié les principes démocratiques. La démocratie, nous dit-on, a été mise à l'épreuve à plusieurs reprises : avec la dissolution de l'Assemblée constituante ; dans les privations des droits civils annoncées dans la constitution soviétique ; et dans la déclaration de la terreur de masse. Sans aucun doute ! Mais sans de telles violations, la révolution aurait-elle pu être sauvée, aurait-elle pu aller plus loin, les révolutionnaires auraient-ils pu continuer à œuvrer pour le socialisme, qui seul garantit la démocratie pour tous ? C'est la question cruciale, et pour moi la réponse va de soi, compte tenu des circonstances entourant la révolution russe.

Dissolution de l'Assemblée constituante

Je considère que la dissolution de l'Assemblée constituante, loin d'impliquer un sacrifice de la démocratie, a rendu la démocratie plus efficace. Il ne fait aucun doute que cette assemblée avait été élue sur la base du suffrage démocratique, mais les élections avaient eu lieu avant que les mots d'ordre bourgeois et le programme de compromis bourgeois-socialiste n'aient perdu leur attrait pour les larges masses ouvrières. Elles avaient eu lieu avant le moment historique décisif où la révolution de novembre et l'acceptation du gouvernement soviétique par les ouvriers, les paysans et les soldats organisés avaient effectivement « condamné comme partiaux et inadéquats » les programmes des deux phases d'ouverture de la révolution. et des partis qui avaient proposé ces programmes. Il faut ajouter que, pendant les premières périodes, la puissance économique et sociale des classes possédantes était encore suffisante pour exercer une influence considérable sur les résultats électoraux. L'Assemblée constituante ne saurait être considérée comme une expression non falsifiée des opinions et de la volonté des travailleurs. Dans la mesure où l'on peut parler en Russie d'une volonté populaire, cette volonté était indubitablement incorporée dans les décisions des soviets. Le gouvernement soviétique provisoire allait-il abdiquer son pouvoir réel en faveur de la démocratie du feu follet de l'Assemblée constituante ? Le gouvernement soviétique devait-il confier le travail de la révolution aux mains de la bourgeoisie, à des mains désireuses d'entraver, voire d'étrangler, cet intrus indiscipliné ? Ou fallait-il remettre le pouvoir aux socialistes-révolutionnaires, qui s'étaient révélés trop faibles pour protéger la révolution ? Prendre une telle mesure aurait été aussi insensé que criminel.

Vin révolutionnaire et bouteilles parlementaires

Il y a un autre point à considérer. La révolution n'avait pas arrêté sa progression dans le but d'une révolution bourgeoise. Au-delà de tout tel objectif, elle avait révélé la figure titanesque d'une révolution prolétarienne, visant une réorganisation socialiste. S'ils avaient accepté le parlementarisme, les bolcheviks auraient accepté une institution qui, si importante soit-elle, n'a qu'une valeur très limitée ; une institution qui, même en période d'évolution pacifique, s'est révélée manifestement inadaptée aux besoins de la lutte prolétarienne pour l'émancipation ; une institution qui, adaptée aux exigences de l'ordre capitaliste, doit nécessairement échouer à répondre aux nécessités de ceux dont le but est de renverser cet ordre. Il est indéniable que le prolétariat doit tirer tous les avantages que l'on peut tirer des institutions parlementaires. Mais le Parlement est une de ces institutions d'État qu'un prolétariat victorieux ne peut pas simplement s'emparer et utiliser à ses propres fins. Le nouveau vin révolutionnaire ne doit pas être versé dans de vieilles bouteilles. Dans cette perspective, le « bolchevisme » était assurément justifié en remplaçant l'Assemblée constituante par les soviets, en remplaçant l'activité d'une assemblée déterminante et législative par l'activité d'organisations sur la base démocratique la plus large possible et simultanément législative, administrative et exécutive. .

Dictature du Prolétariat Provisoire

Il est indéniable que la démocratie créée par la constitution soviétique est incomplète ; il est incontestable que de grands groupes de personnes sont ainsi exclus du suffrage. Mais les critiques semblent oublier que ces exclusions ne sont que provisoires, qu'elles ne seront appliquées que pour la période pendant laquelle la dictature du prolétariat et de la paysannerie persiste et doit persister. La Constitution ne laisse aucun doute à ce sujet. La dissolution de l'ancienne Russie et l'avènement de la Nouvelle Russie ne sont pas encore assez avancés pour permettre au gouvernement soviétique, d'un seul trait de plume ou d'un seul coup puissant, d'abolir la propriété privée des moyens de production. En Russie, le glas de la propriété privée n'a pas encore sonné, l'heure de l'expropriation de tous les expropriateurs n'a pas encore sonné. Les minorités possèdent toujours le pouvoir économique et le pouvoir social et peuvent toujours utiliser et abuser de ces pouvoirs contre l'écrasante majorité des travailleurs. Le pouvoir politique doit-il être ajouté pour leur permettre de poursuivre leurs objectifs égoïstes au mépris des intérêts de la communauté dans son ensemble ? Vidons notre esprit des phrases ; libérons-nous des formalités ; cessons de réitérer le slogan selon lequel « les masses ont le droit et le pouvoir » de contrecarrer les machinations antisociales des minorités possédantes. N'est-il pas évident qu'en réalité, les choses seront très différentes jusqu'à ce que la liberté économique et l'égalité économique aient doté la nation entière de liberté et de maturité spirituelles ? Qui ne se moquerait pas d'un commandant militaire assez imprudent pour envoyer de l'artillerie et des obus en cadeau à l'armée ennemie ? Pourtant, les bolchevistes sont censés avoir commis un péché mortel en refusant d'armer et d'équiper les minorités réactionnaires pour la lutte contre la révolution. Cela aussi au moment même où la révolution et la contre-révolution étaient aux prises avec une question de vie ou de mort ; à une époque où la contre-révolution n'était pas seulement soutenue par toutes les énergies réactionnaires de la Russie, mais était également fournie par les gouvernements alliés en troupes, en argent et en soutien moral.

Mesures de nécessité militaire

La dissolution de l'Assemblée constituante, le recours à la force contre les opposants, la déclaration de la terreur de masse sont les fruits amers de la dictature du prolétariat et de la paysannerie. Elles doivent être considérées comme des mesures de nécessité militaire. "A la guerre comme la guerre." (Quand vous faites la guerre, faites la guerre.) Les dirigeants bolcheviques de la Russie révolutionnaire sont engagés dans une guerre d'une importance sans précédent. Ici, les normes morales et politiques de la vie quotidienne ne nous parviennent pas. Sur cette scène colossale, les mesures individuelles et les phénomènes individuels sont réduits à l'insignifiance. Il s'agit d'un drame d'une portée historique écrasante et il doit être accepté ou rejeté dans son ensemble. Celui qui veut la fin ne doit pas reculer devant les moyens. Une révolution prolétarienne visant le socialisme ne peut se réaliser sans dictature. Cela est particulièrement vrai dans les conditions actuelles en Russie.

L'appel à Marx

Les critiques désobligeantes de nos amis russes ne rejettent en effet pas absolument la dictature par principe. Ce qu'ils perçoivent mal, c'est le caractère de la dictature en Russie. Karl Kautsky s'efforce de prouver que dictature et démocratie doivent aller de pair. La dictature ne doit pas sacrifier les principes démocratiques mais doit les mettre en œuvre. La dictature doit être une émanation de la démocratie. Il sert au mieux la volonté et les intérêts de la majorité. Selon les critiques, aucune de ces conditions n'est remplie en Russie. La petite minorité bolchevique, nous dit-on, emploie des mesures brutales et énergiques. contraint l'écrasante majorité des Russes à accepter la politique bolchevique. Cette politique, loin de sauvegarder la révolution, la met en danger ; loin de faire progresser le socialisme, il compromet le socialisme. C'est là le noyau des assauts critiques dirigés contre un domaine au-delà du « bolchevisme » et visant à clarifier, à réviser la théorie de la dictature du prolétariat. On nous présente des chaînes d'inférences logiques, des tentatives pour une nouvelle conception du concept de dictature, par opposition à l'ancienne théorie, qui est rejetée comme « blanquiste » ou « jacobine ». Les arguments sont, bien sûr, parsemés d'appels à Marx et Engels, et avec des citations de ces auteurs. J'ai lu attentivement les exposés, mais ma vision générale de la question, de l'application de la doctrine au cas particulier de la révolution russe et du rôle joué par les bolcheviks dans cette révolution, reste inchangée. En ce qui concerne les questions controversées de notre époque, qu'importe que les phénomènes historiques dont Marx a été témoin de son vivant l'aient amené à codifier sa conception de la dictature du prolétariat ; qu'importe si, après avoir été d'abord enclin à une vision « jacobine », il en soit venu ensuite à adopter plutôt une vision « évolutionniste et parlementaire ». Malgré tout le respect que je dois à la vaste connaissance qu'a le camarade Martoff de la théorie marxiste et à la perspicacité incontestable avec laquelle il applique cette théorie, nous pouvons néanmoins nous sentir enclins à remettre en question ses déductions et la manière dont il oppose son interprétation de Marx à la théorie marxiste. dictature exercée par les bolcheviks. Mais même si nous pensons que Martoff a raison concernant les opinions de Marx et quant à l'applicabilité de ces opinions à la situation russe, il reste un fait simple à retenir, c'est que l'évolution historique ne s'est pas arrêtée lorsque la plume est tombée des mains de Marx. .

Le nouveau capitalisme

Depuis ce jour, l'économie capitaliste n'a pas seulement connu une croissance, elle a également manifesté des phénomènes entièrement nouveaux, d'une importance notable. Pour en énumérer quelques-unes, nous avons : la formation de réseaux, de fiducies et de syndicats ; la prise de la première place dans l'industrie par les produits sidérurgiques à la place des textiles ; la transformation révolutionnaire opérée par les améliorations de la technologie électrique ; les entrelacs du capital industriel, du capital commercial et du capital bancaire pour constituer le capital financier, et la domination mondiale de ce dernier, etc. Dans la politique intérieure et la politique étrangère de tous les États les plus évolués, on peut retracer l'influence de un capitalisme plus développé et plus mature. Même si en apparence les conditions de vie semblent s'être améliorées, la lutte des classes entre le prolétariat et la bourgeoisie s'est en réalité intensifiée. Parmi les classes en lutte, nous voyons un mélange et une confusion d'impulsions vers des colonies de grande envergure et de peur de telles colonies, de grands projets et de petites actions. Les classes dominantes sont de plus en plus enclines à s'accrocher à un passé politique fugitif. Nous constatons le déclin du parlementarisme bourgeois et son incapacité de plus en plus évidente à aider la lutte prolétarienne pour la liberté vers des questions décisives. Nous sommes surtout impressionnés par la puissante expansion de l'impérialisme, avec sa soif insatiable de domination mondiale, avec ses armements excessifs, ses entreprises coloniales et ses guerres, sa politique extrémiste d'exploitation et d'oppression tant à l'intérieur qu'à l'extérieur.

Le marxisme, une doctrine progressiste

Qui oserait soutenir que face aux développements des dernières décennies, Marx, penseur résolument révolutionnaire, n'aurait pas modifié sa conception de la dictature du prolétariat conformément à l'enseignement de faits imposants ? Si nous supposons que le camarade Martoff a raison quant à la théorie défendue par Marx il y a plus de quarante ans, ne pouvons-nous pas être assurés que Marx aurait révisé cette théorie s'il avait été en vie aujourd'hui. Pour Marx, la théorie était quelque chose de plus grand qu'un moyen d'élucider le monde ; c'était un moyen de transformer le monde. Mais, pour cette raison même, il n'a jamais considéré ses théories comme des vérités éternelles et immuables auxquelles la réalité devait se conformer ; pour lui, la réalité restait toujours l'objet de recherche, la chose à étudier consciencieusement, la chose à partir de laquelle ses théories étaient acquises et en fonction de laquelle ses théories devaient, en cas de besoin, être modifiées. Je suis convaincu qu'à ce stade, la conception de Marx de la dictature du prolétariat présenterait remarquablement peu de similitudes avec l'idéal doux et humble, l'idéal de ceux qui ne visent que l'harmonie et la coopération de toutes les personnes de « bonne volonté, » l'idéal qui nous moque timidement des exposés des adversaires du bolchevisme. L'intelligence révolutionnaire de Marx était aussi tranchante qu'une épée ; son cœur brillait d'un feu révolutionnaire ; sa volonté révolutionnaire était dure comme l'acier. Marx a toujours été un combattant révolutionnaire, un homme d'action, et je ne peux pas croire qu'on le retrouve aujourd'hui parmi les critiques du bolchevisme.

Sur le papier, « la dictature du prolétariat » et « l'idéal d'une démocratie complète » peuvent être liés à la simple copule. Dans le monde de la réalité, il en va autrement. L'essence historique de la dictature est la domination – une domination dure et coercitive. Sans porter atteinte aux droits et intérêts des minorités, cela est aussi impossible que la quadrature du cercle. La justification historique de la dictature du prolétariat réside dans le fait que la dictature s'exerce dans l'intérêt de l'immense majorité de la population, et qu'elle n'est qu'un moyen de transition, car elle vise à se suspendre, à rendre impossible, en soi, de réaliser l'idéal de la démocratie : un peuple libre, dans un pays libre, vivant de travail libre.

La pérennité du bolchevisme

Nos anti-bolcheviks nient que la dictature actuelle en Russie possède ces justifications. Ils déclarent que la dictature bolchevique est l'œuvre d'une minorité inconsidérable de dogmatiques et de fanatiques qui, dans l'intérêt de conceptions partisanes étroites et d'une politique partisane étroite, souhaitent contraindre, par l'exercice brutal de la force, l'immense majorité du peuple russe. avaler les prescriptions bolcheviques, maintenant et pour l'avenir. D'où viennent ceux qui défendent de telles vues avec la certitude que la politique bolchevique est celle d'une infime minorité d'ouvriers et de paysans russes ? A mon avis, le nombre, l'ampleur et la passion des attaques contre le régime coercitif des bolcheviks ne devraient pas nous faire surestimer l'étendue ou l'importance d'une hostilité sérieuse à l'égard de la politique du gouvernement soviétique. C'est une expérience ancienne et facilement explicable que, dans les luttes de factions, les minorités qui sont largement inférieures en nombre sont susceptibles de faire preuve d'une violence particulière. C'est pour eux un besoin naturel de convaincre le monde qu'en dépit de la défaite, ils ont le pouvoir et ont raison.

Qui nierait qu'une grande partie des ouvriers, de nombreux paysans et surtout la majeure partie de l'intelligentsia ne partagent pas les vues ni ne soutiennent la politique des bolcheviks ? Néanmoins, une très grande proportion, sinon la majorité, des prolétaires et des paysans qui s'intéressent activement aux questions politiques soutiennent les bolcheviks, et il en va de même pour les socialistes-révolutionnaires de gauche. Cette opinion est confirmée par le fait que ceux qui constituent, prétend-on, une infime minorité, bien qu'on leur reproche des erreurs, des actes de violence, des manquements aux principes, etc., auraient conservé le pouvoir pendant une période bien plus longue que celle pendant laquelle ils les gouvernements provisoires des deux premières phases de la révolution dominent. De plus, cela s'est produit dans des conditions de difficulté presque sans précédent, pendant la terrible épreuve de la paix de Brest-Litovsk et face à la menace toujours présente de famine. Les anti-bolcheviks peuvent dire ce qu'ils veulent, mais le simple recours à la force ne peut expliquer la pérennité du gouvernement soviétique – qui a duré bien plus longtemps que d'habitude en période de révolution. Aucune minorité dont le pouvoir ne reposait que sur la force ne pouvait continuer, dans de telles circonstances et pendant si longtemps, à s'asseoir sur les baïonnettes.

De la dictature à la démocratie

La persistance du régime soviétique, qui, comme nous l'ont assuré les prophètes confiants, ne pourrait pas durer plus de quelques semaines, nous permet de déduire avec certitude que ce gouvernement est soutenu par les larges masses du peuple russe. Les bolcheviks et les socialistes-révolutionnaires de gauche qui coopèrent avec eux constituent la structure solide de l'armée révolutionnaire russe. Par leur disponibilité à l'action et par leur capacité, ils inspirent confiance aux masses et les rallier à leur soutien. La nécessité d'une dictature nous montre en effet qu'il ne faut en aucun cas sous-estimer le nombre et l'importance des opposants au gouvernement soviétique. Il faut utiliser le pouvoir pour réprimer le pouvoir. Notre espoir est que la dictature du prolétariat et de la paysannerie se maintiendra assez longtemps pour s'abolir lorsqu'elle aura rempli sa fonction et atteint son objectif. Car tandis que pendant les deux premières périodes de la révolution, le chemin des gouvernements menait du bel idéal de la démocratie à la dure et cruelle réalité de la dictature, le chemin de la domination soviétique mènera de la dure et cruelle réalité de la dictature à la belle réalité. et réalisé un rêve de démocratie.

The second trial of Socrates, that of his friends

Robert Paris — 2026-06-18T04:06:00Z

The second trial of Socrates, that of his friends

In 399 BC, more than 2400 years ago, Socrates died from poison, condemned to death by Athenian justice, and his trial still generates much discussion, as it did in Greek society…
The assassination of the philosopher Socrates is one of the first crimes of the nascent Greek state in Athens... and all the more striking because it was committed by the "Greek democracy" ! But who was this thinker of ancient Greece that the ruling classes preferred to get rid of him ? Those who considered themselves his disciples will answer that question.
The second trial of Socrates, that of his friends

Xenophon : I believe everyone has now found a place to settle or sit. Since I am the one who initiated our meeting, I will take the liberty of speaking at length in introducing our assembly. First, I wish to warmly thank Critias of Megara, whose father, a sculptor, has kindly agreed to host our gathering here in his shop, a year after the death of our teacher, Socrates. Let us hope that the sculptures surrounding us, like so many figures of stone and marble, inspire noble thoughts ! And let us remember that our teacher, Socrates, himself excelled in the field of sculpture, and that his "Three Graces," in front of the Acropolis, provided a fine example of his art, even though he later changed his profession entirely.

And, of course, I also pay tribute to our hosts : Euclid of Megara and his friends Eubulides of Miletus, Ichtyas of Megara, and Thrasymachus of Corinth, who tirelessly spread the philosophy of Socrates and thanks to whom we are all safe and well in Megara. We thank them for this. Everyone remembers that Euclid is known for having continued to attend Socrates' university despite the Peloponnesian War, traveling from Megara to Athens disguised as a woman, even though one of the causes of this war was the decree forbidding the inhabitants of Megara from entering Athens... He thus risked his life so as not to miss Socrates' teachings.

Here, we have all, at one time or another, attended his school in the street, or his open-air academy, as you prefer to call it. I will make brief introductions, since some of us have never met before, and sometimes our only commonality is having been students of Socrates, at different times and under different circumstances. Philosophy is well represented here, but so are the arts, including the art of theater, the art of science, the art of mathematics, and also the art of politics and the art of war, the art of the lawyer as well as that of the sculptor, and our friends come from many Greek cities. Thank you all for being here, thus demonstrating that the trial of Socrates in no way diminished the validity of his ideas or the credibility of his person, and that his death did not cause him to be forgotten.

To my right, three friends from Athens whom I need not introduce : Plato, Hermogenes and Alcibiades. On my left, Apollodorus of Phalerum, Phaedo of Elis, Cebes of Thebes, Simmias of Thebes, Crito of Athens and his sons Critobulus, Epigenes and Ctesippus, Antisthenes whom we all consider a citizen of Athens, even though the city still refuses him full citizenship, Lysanias of Sphettos, Echecrates of Tarentum, Hermocrates of Syracuse, Terpsion of Megara, Ctesippus of Paeaneus, Menexenus of Athens, Aristippus of Cyrene, Aristodemus of Athens, Coriscus of Scepsis, Metrodorus of Lampsacus, Clombrotus of Aegina, Charmides of Athens, Lysias of Athens, now adopted by Megara, Theaetetus of Athens, one of our great mathematicians, and finally Spintharus of Tarentum, our music teacher. Paris of Troy will be responsible for memorizing our debates.

As you all know, we are but a small fraction of those who have embraced Socrates' philosophy, and if all of Socrates' students were to be here, the city of Megara itself would struggle to accommodate them all ! Many of our friends are absent for various reasons, including the wars ravaging our region. Some of Socrates' greatest disciples are no longer with us, such as Euripides of Salamis, whose plays moved us so deeply and who passed away eight years ago. Among his merits, let us remember that he alone dared to tell Athens that its myths were lies and that its supposedly heroic era was nothing but mud and blood, particularly in the war against the Trojans. Far from seeking to liberate Greek women abducted by the Trojans, he showed in his play that the war's primary aim was to enslave Trojan women and their children. Euripides always showed his plays to Socrates. And this is because they were in complete agreement on political and social goals, even though Socrates, unlike Euripides, did not believe that society could be transformed by theater alone. We also mourn Chaerephon of Athens, Socrates' childhood friend, whose brother, Chaerecrates, is with us, and whom Socrates loved most of all his disciples, and with whom he enjoyed exploring his ideas. Chaerephon died a few years before his master. As we all know, Chaerephon's impassioned temperament made him the most passionate defender of Socrates' theories. It is remembered that he was the one who consulted the Pythia of Delphi for her opinion on Socrates, and that opinion declared that "Socrates is the wisest man in Athens." And Prodicus of Ceos, whose teachings Socrates had followed, has also just passed away. In fact, it is Socrates' dearest friends who have died with him.

We are still reeling from the shock of the trial that befell our master Socrates, condemning him to death, and, a year later, we remain concerned about the significance of this condemnation and its potential consequences. Indeed, this is why many of his disciples in Athens have sought refuge here in Megara, fearing further persecution of Socrates' friends.

Some of us were with Socrates in his final moments. Others, myself included, were not present at the trial or with him before his death, except in spirit. Each of us has been able to gather a fragment of these painful events, which we wished to discuss, and, beyond a brief moment of reflection, we can exchange these few pieces of information and opinions. I hardly need to say it, and we will all agree on this, Socrates was the best among us : neither bribed nor deceived by hypocritical praise, nor weakened by gifts. It is scarcely believable that he could have been condemned based on reproaches concerning his person and his conduct. We are certainly divided on the interpretation of this decision by Athens and its consequences for Greece. But I must say that I do not understand at all what persuaded the Athenians to condemn him, and I understand even less what led Socrates to refuse to defend himself, and, faced with the iniquity of the judgment, it is even more incomprehensible to me that Socrates refused to flee as some of you had suggested.

Personally, I left Athens long before that to join the army of Cyrus the Younger, because the demagogic political regime that reigned in my city no longer suited me. But I wonder if I didn't only witness the beginning of a profound and harmful change. We will surely have the opportunity to discuss this. I would simply like to say by way of introduction that, while many of us, like myself and Alcibiades, owe our lives to Socrates, who saved us in the war, we all owe him true life—the life of ideas, the life of philosophy, into which he so happily introduced us…

To begin our meeting, I would like someone to explain to me what could have led the citizens of Athens to attack Socrates in this way. I was absent, and it seems to me that I no longer understand our city.

Hermogenes : Since you ask, Xenophon, I will briefly recall the circumstances : Athens had just been militarily defeated by Sparta, and a tyrannical regime subservient to the victor had been imposed upon it. It was morally humiliated, economically devastated, and politically violated—ravaged in every sense of the word. With the end of the Peloponnesian War came the end of the proud city's illusions of glory : its army defeated, its fleet dissolved, its walls demolished, its fields destroyed, its olive oil production wiped out, and its agricultural output so low that it could not even feed the city. The economy, particularly with the Laurium mines idle due to the escape of more than 20,000 slaves, was in a catastrophic state, and the coffers of the proud city were empty. Merchants had fled Piraeus, the population was decimated by the plague, the citizens' bodies were broken by war… Morale was at rock bottom, and so were the prospects. To overcome this, the city's leaders needed a culprit, a scapegoat, represented by Socrates. In his play, "The Clouds," Aristophanes had already laid the groundwork by demonizing Socrates and his companions in harsh terms in the eyes of the citizens : "Ugh ! Scoundrels, yes, I know. You mean those charlatans, those sallow-faced individuals, those barefoot vagrants, among whom is that evil genius Socrates…" By portraying Socrates as a figure falsely associated with the Sophists, Aristophanes had prepared the accusations of atheism and corrupting the youth that formed the basis of the trial. After hearing the accusations levelled against Socrates, he defended himself, as was his custom. He refused to let Lysias write his speech. The results speak for themselves : 280 judges condemned him and 221 acquitted him. It was therefore up to Socrates to propose a punishment, but since he was, in his own eyes, guilty of nothing, he proposed that he be fed at the Prytaneum, like the heroes and victors of the city. The judges, thinking that Socrates was mocking them, condemned him to death. Socrates proclaimed to the judges that his death would not end the suffering of Athens and that others would take his place. To condemn Socrates was, above all, to condemn defeat, not to find a solution to Athens' predicament, and it would not prevent people from philosophizing after him. This is a summary, which I hope is accurate, of the recent events that made Socrates a scapegoat, and others will certainly add to my account.

Apollodorus : It is scarcely believable that, on the word of three liars and fools—the accusing poet Meletus and two of his friends, the orator Lycon and the politician Anytus, three proven incompetents—our Socrates, known to all, could have been condemned to death for mere remarks that might have caused offense. The statements of these three false witnesses, whose accusations were clearly driven by hatred and jealousy, were confused, sometimes contradictory, and obviously unreliable. They appeared so clearly as pure and simple denigration that the court should have condemned the accuser and his witnesses for slanderous denunciation, with the intent to harm others. It is an incredible miscarriage of justice ! I feel utterly lost at the thought that we were unable to save his life...

Phaedo : To accuse Socrates, they used people who had grievances not against Socrates himself, but against Socrates' former friends, like Critias. For example, take Anytus. Remember that his former friend was Theramenes. Theramenes had participated, alongside Critias, in the government of the Thirty Tyrants, before being eliminated by Critias. Anytus resented Socrates because Critias was a former student of Socrates. But Socrates had nothing to do with the government of the Thirty Tyrants and did not support tyranny, even refusing to obey its orders at the risk of his life. Socrates had never considered that his group participate in this government of the Thirty Tyrants. He had even dissuaded Plato, who had briefly been involved. It was Theramenes himself who was close to Critias, much closer than Socrates ! That is the whole basis of Anytus's hatred ! Other accusers were jealous of Socrates' abilities and resented his harsh remarks about them, as was the case with Meletus. But in Aristophanes' case, it is clearly a matter of social and political hatred. In "The Birds," he mocks Socrates' admirers, accusing them of admiring Sparta above all else. In "The Assemblywomen," which Aristophanes was preparing, it is the Socrates who favored women's freedom who is accused of fomenting revolutionary unrest in which women would seize power. And in "The Clouds," it is the youth whom Socrates is accused of corrupting and turning against their parents, destroying the family, the official foundation of the state. He is portrayed there as an atheist sophist, which in Athens was a very serious accusation.

Xenophon : Socrates had publicly reproached Anytus for wanting his son to succeed him in government and for having educated him with that goal in mind. It was therefore out of personal resentment that Anytus accused Socrates of corrupting the youth. This wealthy Athenian, enriched by his tannery, belonged to the democratic party that had succeeded the tyranny and of which he was one of the leaders. This party resented Socrates' influence on the children of its members, such as Plato, and his relentless criticism of the "democrats'" demagoguery. Along with Thrasybulus, Anytus actively participated in the downfall of the oligarchic government of the Thirty Tyrants, leading the breakthrough at Piraeus. He also proved to be a fierce opponent of the Sophists. These are all reasons that must have led him to fight Socrates, unjustly presented by Aristophanes as one of the leading Sophists of Athens.

– Aristodemus : What the Athenian authorities orchestrated was not a simple trial : it was a veritable public execution of the political figure that Socrates represented. Let us recall Socrates' reply to Euthyphro, who asked him if he was going to his trial : "Not a trial, Euthyphro : the Athenians call it a matter of state." It was the state that Socrates was dealing with. A state that was still under construction and barely in its infancy. The jealousy of certain disreputable individuals, who were his accusers, served as a cover for an act perpetrated by the Athenian authorities. The manner in which he was tried in public demonstrates this. It was not a conventional trial by an ordinary court. Such an apparatus would not have been deployed, nor such expenses incurred, for a minor matter. Who were these judges ? Ordinary volunteer citizens, at least thirty years old. They were paid three obols per day of hearings, equivalent to half a day's wages for a laborer. This meager sum could only be affordable for elderly citizens, for whom it amounted to a retirement pension, or for unemployed or unfit young men. The cost to the Athenian administration was nonetheless considerable : this trial was equivalent to paying a day's wages to two hundred and fifty workers. The trial of Socrates, a matter of great importance, claimed to concern the entire city : it was a veritable affair of state. The judges, moreover, swore a formal oath to "vote in accordance with the laws and decrees of the Athenian people." This evident gravity did not prevent the proceedings from being conducted at breakneck speed : all the debates had to be concluded within a single day (Socrates himself regretted this haste on numerous occasions). Ten thousand citizens attended the trial, and five hundred and one citizens served on the jury. The aim was to permanently discredit Socrates in the eyes of the people, to make it seem as if the entire population of Athens had executed him. In fact, the death of Socrates was indeed a crime against the state !

Hermogenes : The accusation was indeed, first and foremost, political. The accuser cited two pieces of evidence that the young men trained by Socrates were depraved : Critias and Alcibiades. The former was in no way a disciple of Socrates, even though he had received some instruction from him. When Critias came to power during the tyranny of the Thirty, Critias and Charicles, who led the thirty tyrants, heard of Socrates' scathing criticisms of their government. Socrates told anyone who would listen the fable of the two shepherds who claimed to be the best, but whose flock, under their leadership, had become smaller and thinner. He openly declared that those in positions of power who behaved similarly should be called bad shepherds. Hearing of Socrates' criticisms, the two tyrants summoned him one day and forbade him from lecturing young people. At the risk of his life, Socrates responded in his usual insolent manner with questions. "Wanting to fully understand this prohibition so that I can better apply it," he said, "may I ask you about its meaning ?" Upon their affirmative response, he asked what kind of questions he should not answer. For example, if a young man asked him for the address of Critias or Charicles, should he refuse to answer ? Then he asked, if he bought something from a teenager, did he have the right to ask the price ? After that, he inquired at what age he should consider someone too young to speak to him. Charicles replied that he should not only leave the city's youth alone, but also the carpenters, blacksmiths, and other manual laborers, about whom Socrates spoke too much, according to the tyrant. He also added the cowherds to show Socrates that he was aware of his criticism of the two shepherds, Charicles and Critias. And so on… What this shows, first and foremost, is that the ruling classes knew of Socrates' combativeness and political courage, and that they feared him. Whether tyrants or so-called democrats, all believed that Socrates' outspokenness could do them great harm, revealing their hidden agendas and political manipulations. Attributing Critias' crimes to Socrates was a tremendous slander. Even Alcibiades' excesses cannot be held against Socrates, since the latter in no way supported Alcibiades' policies when he came to power. However, the prosecution thus reminded the court that Socrates was a political figure who could destabilize the regime, and it succeeded in its aim, because this, in fact, was true.

As for Alcibiades, I can say this all the more easily since he is here with us today ; everyone knows he was no longer the same man when he tried his hand at power. But everyone remembers the twenty-year-old who dared to address Pericles in the manner of Socrates, back when Pericles was not only his tutor but also the first citizen of Athens : “ Tell me, Pericles, is it called law what has been decreed by the legislator if it goes against the deliberations of the assembly ? Is it called law what a small committee of wealthy citizens has decided, discreetly in private, to the detriment of the majority of citizens ? Is it law what a tyrant imposes against the will of the entire people ?” And Pericles confirmed that all of these were laws that had to be obeyed. And, Alcibiades boldly asked, conversely, if the people are powerful and impose their will on the wealthiest, can what they decree be considered laws ? Pericles replied that no, that was an act of violence against the established order ! And against whom, you think, Pericles railed ? Against Socrates, of course, since it was to Socrates that Pericles owed Alcibiades's unreasonable reasoning… But it certainly wasn't Socrates's fault if, intoxicated by his successes, his popularity, and perhaps by wine, our friend Alcibiades committed excesses and intoxicated the youth with his warlike enthusiasm. Alcibiades had, for a time, chosen to accept becoming a man of Athenian power, believing that in this way he would also have the power to reform society. He can attest that Socrates had warned him, saying : “Alcibiades, by becoming head of state and commander of the army, you will not have more freedom to act in the interest of the citizens, but on the contrary, you will be the least free man of all the citizens of the city. You will not be the one who holds the power, but you will be the hostage of power. You will be the most chained man in Athens, and at your slightest move, they will get rid of you.” And Alcibiades only proved Socrates perfectly right. The authorities took advantage of the enthusiasm Alcibiades had generated and then wasted no time in discrediting him and bringing him down. He hadn't even had time to take his post at the head of the Athenian armies before he was accused and dragged into court. Political power may appear to pass into the hands of the most skillful politician, but this is merely an illusion : real power remains, in fact, in the hands of the wealthiest citizens, the ruling class. Politicians come and go, but the powerful families remain.

– Phaedo : Aeschylus was all the more celebrated at the Great Dionysia for his "Oresteia" because he praised the "democratic" system during the reign of Pericles. The entire cleverly established electoral system was deified, while tyranny (which, ironically, relied much more heavily on the people) was denounced ! The theater praised the system all the more because it had fostered its art by demanding massive citizen participation and compensating them for their involvement in the plays... Art had thus been completely instrumentalized by the powers that be. This was one of the traps that Socrates had exposed through his critique.

Apollodorus : I still remember the words of Simmias and Cebes, shortly before Socrates' death, weeping : "We no longer have our enchanting master" ... Just imagine : Socrates is gone forever. Phaedo, you told me you considered him your spiritual father, and I wonder if I didn't consider him my father, period, so eager was I to consult him on every matter. A man who wished no harm to anyone, who was content with the weapon of criticism in his struggle, who refused the use of weapons and armies, who possessed no wealth to corrupt anyone, was deliberately eliminated by an armed, wealthy, developed, powerful society that feared him and hated him simply because he criticized them too freely ! It's enough to make you lose all faith in justice, and all respect for citizens !

Eubulides : How can we understand why Socrates was targeted, he who always refused to take advantage of the power offered to him a thousand times, as well as the esteem and comfort it afforded him ? I wasn't present for the latest developments in Athens, but in my opinion, Socrates was indeed chosen as a scapegoat for Athens' difficulties and failures. Athens' crisis is the cause. It is struggling to recover from having fallen from its pedestal and, in just a few years, from having been lauded for unexpected victories, then thrown into the mud following even more unexpected defeats. To have been beaten by Sparta after having defeated Persia is a bit like winning against a lion only to be defeated by a flea ! A defeat as crushing as it was unexpected.

And for far too many years, Athens was led to glorify its superiority, to expect great riches from it, and to consider its well-being as a right. This demagoguery began with Pericles. He persuaded the Athenians that they were destined to dominate and to enrich themselves from this elevated position. It was also Pericles who founded social populism, which allowed the rich to no longer fear the wrath of the poor, the latter being occupied with numerous spectacles, invited to watch plays without paying, and above all, invited to participate in a caricature of popular power, performed as a play, or as a chorus. It was he who lowered the property requirements for archons, paid generous allowances to all citizens serving as jurors in the Heliaia, and instilled Athenian pride to an extreme degree by limiting Athenian citizenship to those with Athenian lineage from both sides of their family, instead of just through their father as before. This demagoguery was in no way accompanied by a reduction in social inequalities ; quite the contrary, it served to mask the major interests of his policy of conquest. The Peloponnesian War impoverished the population, largely due to Pericles' disastrous tactics. Trapped within the Long Walls, he allowed the Attic landscape to be devastated. Fields lay fallow, land speculation ran rampant, exacerbating the concentration of property ownership and the impoverishment of the people.

The "great" century of Pericles is over, well and truly over. Great is the uncertainty of the future. Athens has been evacuated, destroyed, rebuilt, and is once again threatened with occupation and destruction. And, almost worse than the destruction itself, there is the shame of defeat and the fear of what tomorrow will bring, now that wealth no longer accumulates on its own in Piraeus. Plague has followed the wars and civil wars. The suffering has been immense, and the threat stirs even more extreme emotions. Violence has spread to the heart of the city. In these wars, Athens allowed itself to fall under the control of military and political leaders who justified numerous atrocities against other Greek city-states, and the people's level of awareness has been lowered as a result. Killing has become commonplace in relations with other cities as well as between citizens. Human life no longer has the same value, in Athens as elsewhere. Each clan that comes to power is determined to physically eliminate the opposing clan. And the fight against Sparta completed the destruction of Athens.

– Phaedo : Athens' greatness stemmed from the weakening of Sparta, until then the strongest warrior city in Greece. Sparta's loss of preeminence was not solely due to wars, but primarily to revolutions. The Lacedaemonian island experienced a catastrophic earthquake. Following the Persian Wars, which had already contributed to discrediting the ruling classes in the eyes of the people, this provided an opportunity for an uprising against the government. The helots and the common people seized the opportunity to revolt. It was because Sparta was weakened that Athens enjoyed its golden age during the thirty years that followed. This is what Pericles benefited from. An aristocrat, he pursued a policy aimed at presenting himself as a leader of the people, who wanted to grant equal political rights to all citizens. The prosperity that was linked to the policy of grandeur (development of the fleet, colonization, large-scale trade and conquests) stabilized Athenian society, but it also made it even more unequal and unjust.

Athens, having become the strongest of the Greek city-states, sought to dominate Sparta instead of uniting as equals. And so, Athens was defeated by Sparta ! Even when internal and external peace was momentarily stabilized, the city remained scarred by the political and social crises of the years following the annihilation of its fleet in the port of Syracuse and its army on the Assinaros River, then a war that alienated all of Greece (the Decelian War), then, two years later, the triumph of the oligarchy, the restoration of democracy, military victories immediately followed by the execution of the victorious generals and then crushing defeats, the destruction of the Long Walls, the dissolution of the Maritime League, then the Thirty Tyrants, and once again democracy... This democracy is one where the masses are paid to attend meetings and spectacles that both resemble theatrical performances. The people are being whipped into a frenzy, pulled in every direction, but are they truly the ones making the decisions ? And, time and again, politicians have been appealing to the people without them knowing their true objectives. The people of Athens have suffered without understanding why. They are afraid without knowing where the next blow will come from. They distrust everything and everyone. Hence the ease with which a wounded public can be manipulated.

And Athens is all the more afraid now that it knows it is no longer protected by its walls, its fleet, its army. It is at the mercy of the four winds. And they are blowing from all sides : on one side the Gauls, on another the Persians, on a third the Etruscans or the Carthaginians. Xerxes and Darius have only launched the first assault from the East against Greece. A great migration from the banks of the Volga, reaching as far as India and Andalusia, cannot leave us unscathed. Coming from Central and Western Europe, the Keltoi (elsewhere called "Celts") are moving ever further south, toward our regions, at the head of groups of warriors. Isocrates is right : without the free union of the city-states, there is no future for Greece. Now, the power in Athens fears this union more than anything : it wants domination over the Greek city-states, it wants its revenge against Sparta. Today, it bows before Sparta only to raise its head again tomorrow and punish its enemies harshly... Of course, the situation of division was ludicrous : each city-state had its own gods, institutions, form of government, currency, justice system, calendar, and even its own year... A central power was necessary. But Athens doesn't convince the Greek city-states ; it imposes... that the collected money benefit only itself, that all trials take place in Athens, that the cities that wish to remain free be violently crushed... Under these conditions, Athens hates nothing more than a Socrates who exposes its weaknesses, its lies, its deceptions of the people, who unmasks its war aims as much as the hypocrisy of its politicians and the greed of its speculators...

Eubulides : Despite the end of the power crisis and the amnesty, Athens remained wounded in its very being and its pride : it no longer had a fleet, no shipyards, no money. The ruling classes needed to find scapegoats for this catastrophic and hopeless situation. To this end, Socrates represented the ideal culprit. While the pride of being Athenian was taken to extremes by demagogic politicians, Socrates declared that he was neither Athenian nor Greek, but a citizen of the world. Socrates then criticized Athens' military efforts, including those of the so-called glorious era, such as the years of Pericles. He denounced wars of conquest and only justified wars of defense. He saw no glory in killing other men in war.

We can downplay the risks posed by the harsh criticisms of Socrates and a small group of his followers, but it is the circumstances that make Socrates' debates appear as so many threats of destabilization. The people's weariness with the ruling classes could explode at any moment and find, in the group founded by Socrates, a revolutionary direction. In my opinion, the trial of Socrates was a product of Athens' defeat at the hands of Lysander. It was necessary to blame the free citizens for a defeat they themselves had predicted and fought against. The elimination of Socrates certainly did not solve a single one of the city's real problems. By condemning Socrates, Athens condemned itself to continue its bloody internal squabbles within Greece, a path that inevitably leads to weakening, defeat, and decline. This trend must be reversed, and it is up to us, here present, to undertake this task. That is why I consider Xenophon's initiative to be a good one and promising for the future. Another path is possible for Athens and for Greece, which will not achieve success without granting autonomy to the various city-states.

Let us not forget that we possess a multitude of talents, from strategist to sculptor, and from historian to lawyer. And I'm not even mentioning philosophers and historians. Among us, for example, are great generals, known for having established military strategies that will remain in the annals of war : Xenophon and Alcibiades, who were Athenian strategists, and Hermocrates, a great strategist from Syracuse. If we, the disciples of Socrates, manage to defend a common vision of the future of Greece and human society, this could have considerable consequences for the future. That is the whole point of this assembly.

Charmides : For my part, I am not pleased to have received this invitation to such a clandestine meeting. It may remind the Athenians that I am still a target, and it may seem all the more suspicious to the Athenian authorities given that former Athenian military leaders, now serving in foreign or hostile armies, are participating : Xenophon with Cyrus the Younger of Persia and, above all, Alcibiades with Sparta. Like me, the latter faked his death in Athens to avoid being pursued by his enemies. If information leaks from our meeting, not only will his life be threatened, but ours as well. His betrayal, in the midst of the war between Athens and Sparta, cannot be dismissed as mere self-defense, nor as a way to escape trial, even if he was indeed threatened with condemnation in Athens in the trial brought against him. Everyone in Athens remembers the incident with the statues of Hermes whose noses were broken off in the heart of the city. Whether this was a violent act attributable to Alcibiades and his group, or a provocation intended to harm him, I don't know. I don't want to put Alcibiades on trial, nor do I want to reproach Xenophon. The latter entered Cyrus's war effort a year before Socrates' death. Currently, all of Greece is talking about his exploits at the head of the Greek soldiers, the famous "Ten Thousand" whom he saved from disaster by organizing the longest retreat of all time. But the wars to which you invite your Greek warriors, my dear Xenophon, do nothing to advance the Greek cause, and your soldiers, however impressive their bravery and you your leadership, are merely diverted from our forces. As for Alcibiades, he is merely continuing to divide the Greeks, who were already divided enough without him. And I consider it extremely unwise to convene such a meeting, attended by Greek citizens with alliances other than Athens, at the very moment when Athens is suffering from an acute crisis of espionage… It is, at best, to recklessly endanger all his friends, and, at worst, to have decided to implicate us all in a genuine political conspiracy against Athens ! I wish to state that, whatever political agenda is presented to this assembly, I will not participate. Quite content to simply enjoy life and to be able to philosophize peacefully in my garden, I have had enough of politics and will henceforth adhere to the attitude of our master Socrates, which consisted of keeping oneself apart from the band of madmen enamored of the political platform, honors, and responsibilities.

Alcibiades : Xenophon, for my part, I thank you. You were kind enough to send us messages, bringing us together to talk about Socrates—all of us who were his students, his disciples, his friends. However, I find it very surprising that the crime Athens has just committed hasn't opened your eyes, neither you, Xenophon, who are still wondering about the causes of this crime, which you consider unexpected, nor you, Charmides, who fears only one thing : that the Athenians will think you a traitor for having been there, at a tribute to Socrates, alongside Xenophon and Alcibiades ! If I understand you correctly, I should fear for my life for having participated in this gathering and also fear implicating all our friends with me, but I believe they are old enough to have come knowingly ! For my part, I did indeed decide to let myself be presumed dead in Athens, given the number of people who wanted to get rid of me. It's clear that the Athens of today bears no resemblance to the one for which Socrates fought as a soldier, the one for which both he and I found ourselves at the head of the Council of Five Hundred in Athens, and which led us to command its armies. It is no longer the city that consciously placed its most revolutionary citizens at its head. It is no longer the city that wanted to liberate Greece and protect it from dangerous warlike neighbors, but the one that wants to dominate it by crushing Sparta and any rival Greek power. Socrates did not condone this, and that is why he was condemned to hemlock… To conceal this fact is to condone Athens' crime against the greatest of Athenians !

As for the accusations that Charmides levels against me, which are certainly widely circulated in Athens, I would like to remind everyone that, while Sparta and Athens are implacable enemies today, this has not always been the case. Indeed, it was their alliance that consistently led to great successes, for both cities and for all of Greece. It was at the head of the armies of Athens and Sparta, united with the other Greek cities, that Themistocles emerged victorious over the Persian armies at Salamis. Everyone wants to remember this, but also remember that later, due to Athens' refusal to accept the freedom of Greek cities, the rift led Themistocles, once acclaimed in Athens, to join the court of the Persian king... It was again Athens' political choices that led Xenophon to join Cyrus' army and lead his ten thousand Greek soldiers who followed him in a retreat that would become famous in history, particularly because of the three thousand kilometers they marched across Asia Minor... Why didn't Xenophon manage to be placed in command of Athens' troops ? Because in Athens, competence wasn't the priority, nor was the professionalism of the strategists ; it was the loud-mouthed politicians who led the armies. Of course, that's how I managed it myself, but that's because there was no other way to gain recognition...

Crito : You'll excuse me for briefly interrupting your discussion, but I wouldn't want our meeting, barely begun, to descend into quarrels unrelated to the subject that brings us together : the death of Socrates and the legacy of his ideas that now rests on our shoulders. First, I want to say that our emotion and our condemnation of the act that has just been committed against Socrates do not constitute a unilateral and sweeping accusation against Athens. It wasn't the entire citizenry, nor the whole government, that condemned Socrates, but only a court. Furthermore, it must be acknowledged that Socrates did nothing to defend himself and even willingly contributed to his own indictment through his actions. I say this because he wanted his friends to know it. He didn't want to fight in this trial or defend himself. He declared that his whole life was his defense and that he didn't need to justify himself. He told me several times to share this with you. Socrates refused my offer to advance the thirty minae he would have been willing to pay as a fine. To Apollodorus, who complained that the judgment was unjust, he replied, "Would you have preferred that I be justly condemned ? Anytus and Meletus can kill me, but they cannot harm me." Indeed, he explained that the arguments of his slanderers, Anytus and Meletus, were so base and mendacious that they could not, after his death, damage his philosophy, or even tarnish it. At the trial, he may have appeared provocative, declaring that the only punishment he considered just would be for the court to grant him a lifetime annuity ! He refused to flee, as we suggested and using the means we had made available to him. Cebes, Simmias, and many others can attest to this. They can recount it better than I. Socrates rejected the plea written for him by Lysias, the most famous speechwriter of our time—and I say this without meaning to offend you, Lysias. Even though much of it is incomprehensible to me, I wish to share these facts with you, as he himself requested. He wanted you to know this so that you might reflect on the meaning of his final actions. I understand that Socrates possessed a personal courage that surpasses my own, but I cannot understand why he did not try to fight against the death that threatened his own life.

Apollodorus : By the dog ! I cannot allow it to be said, even by a friend as close as you, Crito, that Socrates participated in the causes of his own death. It shocks and revolts me ! Those who caused his death are murderers, and Socrates had nothing to do with it ! I know, Crito, that you helped Socrates many times during his lifetime and that your grief at his death is as great as mine. I know that after his death, all your efforts are aimed at preserving the thought of our master in writing, and you deserve our gratitude for that. However, this does not mean that your statements are accurate and reflect Socrates' point of view. Do not forget that even the act of putting Socrates' point of view into writing was always condemned by Socrates himself. He did not recognize himself in any of the texts that claimed to report his words. And, above all, he did not consider it wise to disseminate his ideas in writing in modern Athens. For me, what I would most like is for the participants of this meeting to tell us what Socrates taught them and what memory they have of it.

Menexenus : I wish to recount the last days of Socrates, which we shared with him in his prison, where he waited ten days after his death sentence. Every day, about ten of us friends were with him, discussing philosophy from morning till night. He knew that poison awaited him, that the hemlock would gradually penetrate his body, first paralyzing his limbs, then his heart. We were all completely devastated, drained by the thought of this dreadful end. As for him, he skipped about and chatted, as spry as a young man. He imparted his philosophical lessons to us, chatting as usual. But this time, the main lesson was right there before us : it was Socrates himself. At the peak of his mental and moral form, he demonstrated unparalleled boldness and intellectual audacity. I wish to recount this lesson in courage, not only for the participants in this gathering, but for the world, for posterity. No one should be unaware that there was a man like Socrates, of whom humanity has every reason to be proud. One might say : here is a man who talked a lot, but what great things did he accomplish ? A great book ? A great ship ? A great conquest ? A great battle ? A great empire ? Well, Socrates did none of these things ! He showed us that, despite the modesty of his person, his actions, and his words, human greatness is a conquest that deserves the noblest battles, and that it does not consist of crushing others.

Alcibiades : Socrates, you were our flute charmer. You never learned the flute, but your own flute, your words, charmed everyone—men, women, children—without them even realizing it. And then, they couldn't do without the sound of your flute, which you knew how to play with no other instrument than your magnanimity. Marsyas, on the other hand, used instruments when he charmed people with the power of his breath, and that's what we still do today when we play his melodies on the flute. Indeed, what Olympus played, I say, was from Marsyas, who was his teacher. And his melodies, whether played by a skilled artist or a poor flute player, are the only ones capable of deeply touching us and revealing those who need the gods and initiation, for these melodies are divine. You differ from him in only one respect : you need no instruments, and simple words suffice to produce the same effects. One thing is certain : when we hear another speaker, however gifted, deliver other speeches, it hardly interests anyone. But when it is you we hear, or when another reports your words, however mediocre he may be himself, and a man, or a woman, or a young man hears it, we are struck to the heart, a turmoil seizes us.

– Plato : I would like to say it in a few words : he was the wisest and most just of all men. Socrates, the son of Apollo, was chosen by God to bring his word to our ears ; the bees of Hymettus deposited their honey on his lips ; a young swan, flown from the altar of Eros, announced the coming of the philosopher ; speech was given to him to charm men and gods... We can never replace him, and we will never know, with each new question that comes to mind, what Socrates, who claimed to know nothing, would have said !

Socrates' interventions at his trial astonish and even seem provocative to some, but this overlooks what Socrates declared in the opening line of his second speech : "The judgment you have just pronounced, Athenians, has moved me little, and for many reasons ; besides, I expected what happened." Under these circumstances, Socrates had no reason not to consider the defense of his beliefs as essential, not his personal defense. This does not mean that he did not value his life, but that he was determined to remain steadfast in his beliefs to the very end, knowing that since a trial had been initiated with the Athenian authorities as its organizer, he would not be declared innocent. He certainly had no reason to accept that he had committed a wrong and deserved some form of punishment.

– Hermogenes : When I saw him discoursing on all sorts of subjects shortly before his trial, I said to him : "But shouldn't you, Socrates, also think about what you will say in your defense ?" and Socrates replied at first : "Don't you see that I have spent my whole life preparing my defense ?"

"How ?" I had asked.

"By living without ever committing any injustice, which is, in my opinion, the best way to prepare one's defense."

I said to him again : "Don't you think that the Athenian courts, seduced by eloquent speeches, often put innocent people to death and often acquitted guilty people whose speeches had moved or charmed them ?"

Socrates replied : "Yes, indeed ! By Zeus, and this is the second time I have tried to prepare my defense, but the voice of my daimon has opposed it."

"That's surprising ," I told him.

“Do you find it surprising that God himself judges it better for me to end my life now ? Don't you know that I won't concede to anyone that they have lived better than I have until this day ? For I know, and this is my greatest satisfaction, that I have always led a pious and righteous life, so much so that, holding myself in high esteem, I have always seen those who associated with me share the same sentiment. If, on the contrary, my life is prolonged, I am certain to see infallibly all the ills of old age arrive : my vision will be less clear, my hearing less well, my learning more difficult, and my forgetting of what I have learned more quickly. Now, if I feel myself declining and am dissatisfied with myself, how,” he continued, “could I still take pleasure in living ?” Perhaps, he added, it is also God who, in his goodness, grants me to end my days not only at the most opportune age, but also by the easiest path. For if I am condemned today, it is evident that I will be given to die the way that those who have dealt with this matter have judged the easiest, the least distressing for friends, the most likely to make the dying man mourned. Indeed, when one leaves no unpleasant or painful image in the minds of those present, and dies with a healthy body and a soul capable of showing tenderness, how could one not be missed ? It is therefore with good reason, he continued, that the gods opposed the preparation of my defense, when we thought we should seek at all costs the means to escape condemnation. If I had succeeded, it is clear that instead of ending my life today, I would have prepared for myself a death darkened by the sufferings of illness or old age, assailed by every evil at once and devoid of all pleasures. No, by Zeus, Hermogenes, he continued, if I must offend the jury by declaring all the advantages I believe I have obtained from gods and men, as well as my opinion of myself, I would rather die than basely beg for the favor of living longer and thus gain an existence far worse than death.

– Xenophon : Socrates was of a fairly advanced age and had very little time left to live ; he lost only the most painful part of life, that in which intelligence weakens in all men ; by renouncing it, he showed all the rigor of his soul ; he covered himself with glory by the uncommon truth, freedom and justice of his defense, as much as by the gentleness and courage with which he received the sentence of his death.

– Hermogenes : I tried to explain to Socrates the necessity of defending myself according to the customs of the court. He replied : "Well, Hermogenes, I have tried to devise a defense to present to my judges, but my intellect has prevented it. What can you do, if the gods deem it best for me to leave this life now ? If I die unjustly, it will be a shame for those who have unjustly caused my death. I am convinced that men will bear witness that I have never wronged anyone."

– Ichtyas : Socrates did perfectly well not to stoop to admitting faults, begging for mercy, or swearing that he would cease discussing his ideas with people, because, as he himself explained, it would have changed nothing in substance : "If I am condemned, it is not for lack of a speech in which Socrates laments, groans, and does and says a host of things that I consider unworthy of me, things that you are accustomed to hearing from other defendants. I would much rather die after having defended myself as I have than live by such baseness."

– Aristodemus : Many of us are astonished that Socrates maintained the same attitude, the same remarks, the same caustic wit at his trial, even though his life was at stake, as he had in his debates. This proves that we have completely misunderstood Socrates. It is to claim that for Socrates, it was simply a matter of pushing his interlocutors to their limits, forcing them to reveal their ideas to him and to the others present. In fact, it was something else entirely. Irony is a way of fighting to the bitter end against the ideology imposed by the ruling class, of demolishing it stone by stone. And, on the day of his trial, when the ruling class had engaged in open combat against him, we are supposed to expect this fighter to lay down his arms !

– Ctesippus : His defense at the trial was, however, clear :

“Anytos told you that you absolutely had to condemn me to death, because if I escaped, your sons would practice the teachings of Socrates and become completely corrupt ; even if you were to tell me : ‘Socrates, we will not listen to Anytos, and we will acquit you, but on one condition, that you will no longer spend your time examining people and philosophizing ; and if you are caught doing so, you will die' and if you were to acquit me on this condition, I would answer you : ‘Athenians, I am grateful to you and I love you, but, (…) as long as I have a breath of life, as long as I am capable of it, do not expect me to cease philosophizing, exhorting you and teaching you. To each one I meet, I will say what I am accustomed to saying : “How is it that you, excellent man, who are an Athenian and a citizen of the greatest city in the world and the most renowned for its wisdom and power, are not ashamed to devote all your efforts to amassing as much money as possible and to seeking reputation and honors, while your reason, your conscience, your search for truth, all that deserves to be constantly perfected, you deign not to take any care, any concern for ?” (…) Be assured that, if you put me to death, without regard for the man I claim to be, it is not me you will harm most, but yourselves. (…) But perhaps it seemed strange to you that I go about the streets, giving advice privately and meddling in the affairs of others, and yet dare not appear in public at official assemblies to offer advice to the republic. (…) No one lives very long if they publicly oppose you or openly try to prevent many injustices and illegalities from being committed in the state. If you truly want to fight for justice and if you want to live for a while, you must do so discreetly and without making a public spectacle of yourself. (…) I am not a man to speak for money and to remain silent if I am not given any. (…) The arguments I can offer in my defense are limited to these. But perhaps there will be someone among you who will be indignant, remembering that the accused must pray and beg the judges with tears, trying to soften them up as much as possible with his children and friends, while I naturally want to do none of that, even though I may believe myself to be in the face of the greatest danger. (...) For my honor, for yours, and for that of the entire city, it does not seem proper to me to resort to any of these means. (...) You know, Athenians, that I have never held any magistracy, and that I have only been a senator. The Antiochid tribe, to which I belong, was just then in charge of the Prytaneum, when, against all the laws,You persisted in simultaneously prosecuting the ten generals who had neglected to bury the bodies of those who were about to perish in the naval battle of Arginusae ; an injustice you acknowledged and subsequently repented of. On this occasion, I was the only one of the prytaneis who dared to oppose the violation of the laws and vote against you. Despite the orators who were preparing to denounce me, despite your threats and cries, I preferred to run this risk with the law and justice than to consent with you to such a great iniquity, for fear of chains or death. This event took place while the democratic government still existed. When the oligarchy came to power, the Thirty summoned me, the fifth member of the council, to the Tholos and ordered me to bring Leo the Salaminian from Salamis to be put to death. For they gave similar orders to many people, to compromise as many as possible ; and so I proved, not in words, but by deeds, that I cared nothing for death, if you'll pardon the vulgar expression, and that my sole concern was to do nothing impious or unjust. All the power of the Thirty, so terrible then, could gain nothing from me against justice. Leaving the Tholos, the other four went to Salamis, taking Leon with them, and I retired to my house ; and there can be no doubt that my death would have followed my disobedience, had that government not been abolished soon afterward. This is what a great number of witnesses can attest to. Do you think, then, that I would have lived so many years if I had meddled in the affairs of the republic, and that, as a virtuous man, I had trampled everything underfoot to think only of defending justice ? Far from it, Athenians ; neither I, nor any other man, could have done that. Throughout my life, whenever I have taken part in public affairs, you will find me the same ; the same again in my private relationships, never yielding anything to anyone regarding justice, not even to any of those tyrants whom my slanderers try to pass off as my disciples. I have never been anyone's master ; but if anyone, young or old, has wished to speak with me and see how I carry out my mission, I have refused no one that pleasure.The Thirty summoned me, the fifth, to the Tholos and ordered me to bring Leo the Salaminian from Salamis to be put to death. They gave similar orders to many people, hoping to compromise as many as possible. And so I proved, not with words, but with deeds, that I cared nothing for death, if you'll pardon the vulgar expression, and that my sole concern was to do nothing impious or unjust. All the power of the Thirty, so terrible at that time, could gain nothing from me against justice. Leaving the Tholos, the other four went to Salamis and brought Leo, while I retired to my home. And there can be no doubt that my death would have followed my disobedience had that government not been abolished soon afterward. This is what a great number of witnesses can attest. Do you think, then, that I would have lived so many years if I had meddled in the affairs of the republic, and that, as a virtuous man, I had trampled everything underfoot to think only of defending justice ? Far from it, Athenians ; neither I, nor any other man, could have done that. Throughout my life, whenever I have taken part in public affairs, you will find me the same ; the same again in my private relationships, never yielding anything to anyone regarding justice, not even to any of those tyrants whom my slanderers try to pass off as my disciples. I have never been anyone's master ; but if anyone, young or old, has wished to speak with me and see how I carry out my mission, I have refused no one that pleasure.The Thirty summoned me, the fifth, to the Tholos and ordered me to bring Leo the Salaminian from Salamis to be put to death. They gave similar orders to many people, hoping to compromise as many as possible. And so I proved, not with words, but with deeds, that I cared nothing for death, if you'll pardon the vulgar expression, and that my sole concern was to do nothing impious or unjust. All the power of the Thirty, so terrible at that time, could gain nothing from me against justice. Leaving the Tholos, the other four went to Salamis and brought Leo, while I retired to my home. And there can be no doubt that my death would have followed my disobedience had that government not been abolished soon afterward. This is what a great number of witnesses can attest. Do you think, then, that I would have lived so many years if I had meddled in the affairs of the republic, and that, as a virtuous man, I had trampled everything underfoot to think only of defending justice ? Far from it, Athenians ; neither I, nor any other man, could have done that. Throughout my life, whenever I have taken part in public affairs, you will find me the same ; the same again in my private relationships, never yielding anything to anyone regarding justice, not even to any of those tyrants whom my slanderers try to pass off as my disciples. I have never been anyone's master ; but if anyone, young or old, has wished to speak with me and see how I carry out my mission, I have refused no one that pleasure.Never yielding to anyone against justice, not even to any of those tyrants whom my slanderers try to pass off as my disciples. I have never been anyone's master ; but if anyone, young or old, has wished to speak with me and see how I carry out my mission, I have refused no one this pleasure.Never yielding to anyone against justice, not even to any of those tyrants whom my slanderers try to pass off as my disciples. I have never been anyone's master ; but if anyone, young or old, has wished to speak with me and see how I carry out my mission, I have refused no one this pleasure.That's extremely clear !

Socrates had no choice : either denigrate himself or be eliminated by Athens. The source of Socrates' misfortunes is not to be found in his own attitude, but in the crisis in Athens...

Aeschines : I agree, and one cannot understand Socrates' condemnation without going to the root of Athens' extremely painful defeat. Sparta's victory was devastating for Athens politically, socially, and morally. By the peace treaty, Athens was spared and retained its walls, except for the Long Walls and the fortifications of Piraeus. What saved these walls was not Athens' strength, but rather the fact that Sparta was now more wary of Thebes and Corinth, cities that had wanted to raze Athens and, at the very least, its walls. The remaining ships were surrendered, except for twelve, and the exiles were allowed to return. Athens, placed under Spartan domination, became an ally of Sparta. Lysander imposed the oligarchic Council of Thirty (Critias, Theramenes, etc.) there. They themselves appointed the 500 members of the Council as well as the magistrates and surrounded themselves with a guard of 300 whip-bearers, later supplemented by a Spartan garrison. The Thirty began by massacring the sycophants and demagogues. Then, partly for financial reasons, they targeted the metics and wealthy citizens (1,500 people were massacred). A civic body of 3,000 citizens, the only ones authorized to remain in Athens and enjoy legal protections, was created. Theramenes, who had negotiated Athens' surrender, opposed Critias. Considered too moderate, he drank hemlock. Lysias and his brother Polemarchus were arrested by the Thirty. Polemarchus was put to death, but Lysias escaped. The 20,000 slaves in the Laurium mines revolted and deserted. Athens has lost its sources of income, its maritime superiority, and its self-confidence.

Sparta's victory did not bring an end to the conflicts in Greece, nor did it usher in a new period of unification and prosperity under Spartan rule. After the Peloponnesian War, while Athens enjoyed relative stability, many Greek city-states were torn apart by internal strife between wealthy citizens, supporters of the oligarchy, and the poor, who demanded debt relief and land redistribution. Poverty and civil wars led to a surge in the number of Greek mercenaries. These men, easily recruited by anyone with money or, failing that, organized into roving bands that lived by plunder, constituted a significant source of political instability.

The satrap Tissaphernes demanded the submission of the Ionian cities and laid siege to Kyme. The Greeks of Asia Minor appealed to Sparta, which sent the harmost Thibron at the head of 5,000 men, reinforced by 5,000 survivors from the retreat of the Ten Thousand commanded by Xenophon. Sparta sent an ultimatum to the Eleans ordering them to grant autonomy to their perioico cities. Faced with the Eleans' refusal, King Agis II led two campaigns a year ago, which forced Elis to submit.

In Athens, Thrasybulus, at the head of the rebellious democrats entrenched in the fortress of Phyle, seized Piraeus. Critias was killed at the Battle of Munichia, where the democrats were victorious. The Thirty were forced to retreat to Eleusis, whose population they had previously massacred. The Ten, to whom they had left power in Athens, appealed in vain to Sparta. King Pausanias I of Sparta intervened and, disagreeing with Lysander, urged the Athenians toward reconciliation. Democracy was restored, and the moderates took power. An amnesty law was passed, and Athenians who wished to do so could emigrate to Eleusis (August-September). The legislative procedure was modified to prevent the return of the oligarchy. Thrasybulus attempted to grant citizenship to the metics who had fought against the Thirty. Archinos brought an action against him for illegality and won his case.
It was in this unhealthy political climate that Athens found itself for ten years and, if it has just ended in catastrophe, with the condemnation and elimination of Socrates, the evil has developed for at least eight years, where the powers have constantly overstepped the bounds, discredited themselves, fallen, and been replaced by other even more dictatorial powers, resting on an even smaller fraction of the population.

– Phaedo : The people of Athens were not only victims of their Persian or Spartan neighbors. They were far more victimized by their own internal wars. Political passions had deplorable results : hatred of all against all. Each faction, upon seizing power, was unable to stop the cycle of violence and revenge. Critias was the last in a long line of leaders who made the elimination of opponents a method of governance, even going so far as to eliminate the most moderate members of their own power. He was eventually overthrown, notably by Anytus, one of Socrates' accusers. Socrates restored a kind of democracy, but he too sought revenge. Critias was killed in the fighting. Charmides fled and feigned death for over a year to extinguish the threat of assassination. Alcibiades faked his death, claiming he was assassinated by the Persians in Phrygia, to protect himself from the vengeance of certain Athenian citizens. This is why he doesn't want his presence here to be known, because once he is found alive, he won't be alive for long. I therefore appeal to the discretion of each of us, which is, of course, in everyone's best interest, because such a gathering would quickly be interpreted as a conspiracy in the current climate of political madness in Athens. The fact that Chaerephon and Thucydides have been eliminated is a testament to this. Plato himself has had to leave the city and is trying to present a version of the master's theses that reconciles the city with him. Xenophon still enjoys a place in Athens thanks to the aura he gained throughout Greece from his fight at the head of the "Ten Thousand" soldiers who fought in Persia. He was all the more glorified because he then brought back the five thousand survivors to protect the Ionian cities against the attack of the satrap Tissaphernes who had laid siege to Kyme.

– Epigenes : It seems to me that Cleon is primarily responsible for Athens' choices that led it to refuse peace with Sparta when it was offered. The capture of Sphacteria and the surrender of the Lacedaemonians had caused a veritable earthquake in the Greek world. Sparta's land military superiority was so severely challenged that the proud city once again proposed a "white peace" to Athens. Athens refused again under Cleon's influence. He is highly symbolic of a new class of politicians from the lower classes who use their popularity as tribunes to manipulate public sentiment in ways contrary to the common good.

Aristodemus : Cleon manipulated the people of Athens with his demagogic methods. This does not mean that the people were incapable of regaining their composure and turning against their leader. The most famous example is the suppression of the revolt in the city of Mytilene, which was in rebellion against Athens. A single courageous man, Diodotus, managed, the day after the decision to suppress the city by destroying it and killing its inhabitants, to sway public opinion in the assembly of citizens by declaring : “Let us refrain from severely punishing people who revolt ; let us ensure that they do not have the desire to rebel. Let us punish only those responsible for the crime committed.” The people followed him, reversing their vote of the previous day and thus saving the people of Mytilene…

– Plato : I believe that Athens did indeed experience a decline linked to the behavior of its leaders. To recall the criticisms Socrates leveled against Pericles, remember Socrates' dialogue with Callicles :

Socrates : Now, try to remember, and, regarding the illustrious men you mentioned a little while ago, tell me if you still think they were good citizens ? (…) So when Pericles began to speak to the people, the Athenians were in a worse state than when he addressed them for the last time.

Callicles : Perhaps.

Socrates : (…) Do we say that the Athenians, under the influence of Pericles, improved, or, on the contrary, that they were corrupted by him ?

Callicles : You must have heard that in the Spartan party, among the men with torn ears, Socrates !

Socrates : In that case, here is something I have not heard about, but which I know perfectly well, and so do you. At the beginning, Pericles had a good reputation among the Athenians (…) On the other hand, at the end of Pericles' life, when the citizens of Athens had become, thanks to him, good men, they voted against him for theft and practically condemned him to death, because they obviously thought he was a scoundrel.

Callicles : So what ? Is that a reason to say that Pericles was bad ?

Socrates : You agree that, among our contemporaries, there is not a single one who has had a good policy, but despite all that you choose those we have just been talking about.

This dialogue clearly shows that Socrates reproached Pericles for having corrupted the Athenians by giving them mythical goals of enrichment. The role of the political leader is clearly established here by Socrates : governing involves educating the people, and I believe that if this meeting has a purpose, it is precisely to understand how to train this class of philosophical leaders capable of educating the people in justice, virtue, and the scientific management of the city. Philosophy must be placed at the center of the city, and the city must be the center of the state.

Euclid : Your conception, Plato, proposes only states founded around a small city-state, self-sufficient and thriving. In my opinion, this in no way meets the needs of a city like Athens. You idealize the qualities of a small city-state founded on enlightened leaders, but history has decided otherwise. And, first of all, it's far too short-sighted : Athens, drunk with the thrill of conquest, wasn't born with Pericles. It was long before that the Greeks were intoxicated by their victories and that Hellas (which some call Greece) experienced considerable expansion, stretching from the northern, southern, and western coasts of the Black Sea, through Asia Minor, Greece itself—including the Aegean islands—to Sicily and southern Italy, then along the shores of the Mediterranean, reaching Cyrene in Libya, Marseille, and some coastal sites in Spain. This initial colonization had the sole purpose of acquiring land. Things would be very different in the time of Pericles, when the Greeks focused solely on large-scale trade.

It is naive to believe that, in a past as glorious as it was honest, Greece would have united only for self-defense. The Trojan War had far more objectives than saving Menelaus's marital honor. It was about seizing the Dardanelles Strait—a crucial maritime passage for international trade, which we call the Hellespont—and also the treasures of the city of Troy, taking advantage of the internal turmoil weakening the city and Trojan power. Allowing Troy to flourish meant preparing for years in which this society would become a conqueror throughout the region. The question of colonial, commercial, maritime, and military conquest predates Pericles. Of course, one can accuse Pericles and his successors of cultivating the Athenians' dreams of grandeur, only to deceive them about their true aims, which had nothing to do with the well-being of the citizens. However, we must not forget what led Athens to this policy of conquering the seas, and then foreign territories and riches. It is not solely any one politician who is to blame, whether his name was Pericles or Cleon, or even Alcibiades. What would Athens be without this policy of conquest ?

The truth is that the inhabitants of Athens, reduced to relying on the income from the surrounding countryside, would quickly starve to death. The meager wheat fields of Cephisus and Eleusis, Marathon and Mesogeia, would not suffice to feed 400,000 Athenians, whether citizens, metics, or slaves. Athens must constantly import. It needs grain from Euboea, Egypt, the shores of the Black Sea, and Italy. Where would it find the wood and iron for its ships ? And to pay for its buildings, its palaces and statues, its standard of living, could it be content with exporting its olive groves and its wine, a wine that was far from competing with those of Thrace, Chios, and Samos ! If Athens did not exploit the silver mines of Laurium, it would even be condemned to charity... It is not enough to glorify the ancient Athens of the farmers. For its growth, Athens, like all of Greece, needed to venture onto the seas. It was inevitable that this growth would clash with Persia, itself embarked on a quest for world domination. Buying and selling, international trade, and wars were the price to pay. Otherwise, one had to accept returning to domination, becoming a victim of the wars of powerful neighbors, and groaning as a slave to other powers. It is true that Socrates cultivated modesty and simplicity, asking everyone if they lived such a life because it was essential for them. He was shocked by the increase in inequality that had followed the successes of Athens and Greece. Instead of fewer poor people, there were more. Instead of fewer slaves, their numbers grew astonishingly. And some Greek citizens became owners of an unbelievable number of slaves, to the point that the status of domestic slaves was completely transformed. Instead of Athens' domination over all of Greece becoming less and less oppressive, it became increasingly heavy and violent. To such an extent that Athenian policy became unpopular not only in Sparta and its allied cities, not only throughout Greece, but in Athens itself. This was the basis of Socrates' political and social challenge, and this was also his downfall. For Athens faced a dilemma : to be a great international trading power or to perish.

– Phaedo Athens had good reason to fear a revolutionary leader like Socrates, especially given the discrediting of the ruling classes. Various city-states had recently experienced numerous revolutionary situations, and Athens was apprehensive about the consequences of a revolution in such a large and wealthy city—one with a large impoverished population and glaring inequalities. Indeed, the more numerous the city-states became, the more difficult it was to govern them stably and sustainably. The reasons for revolutions and the collapse of local powers are manifold. At the root of it lies a social imbalance : too great a disparity between the richest and poorest classes, and too few middle classes. Then there is the system of political domination : when the inhabitants are not only unequal in wealth but also suffer inequality in all aspects of life, including justice and politics. Society can then remain stagnant for several years, and when it does stir, it is suddenly and violently, because the causes of discontent could only accumulate until they became explosive. If, in addition, a fraction of free citizens have no access to decision-making, if slaves have no chance of ever being freed, if foreigners have no possibility of becoming citizens, then certainly the ruling classes profit at the expense of most citizens and inhabitants, but this power is fragile, and the rupture can be violent and profound. The break can destroy political power and can even attack social power, impose the redistribution of wealth, and permanently disrupt the mode of production. The changes resulting from revolutions may be purely political, but they can also be social, for example, by displacing large landowners in favor of merchants. There is also the risk that the most oppressed will take advantage of the situation to challenge the system of exploitation. Slaves can free themselves. Foreigners and other foreigners can overthrow the government. The changes brought about by revolutions can be primarily political, as in Sparta, with Lysander abolishing the monarchy, or King Pausanias suppressing the ephorate, or, in Epidamnus, the establishment of a council to give a voice to the phylarchs. The result of the revolt can also be anarchy, which ultimately devastates the inhabitants to the point that they subsequently allow a tyranny to be imposed upon them, as in Syracuse, Thebes, and Rhodes. In Megara, it ended with the victory of the oligarchic party. Initially, there were uprisings and seditions against the injustices committed by the regime and the ruling classes. This sometimes also occurs following military defeats that have discredited them.As in Tarentum, following a defeat against the Iapyges, many prominent citizens perished. The ruling classes were then forced to concede to a democracy. Similarly, in Argos, after the Laconian Cleomenes had many citizens killed, the regime had to grant citizenship to many perioeci. In Athens, the ruling classes were worried about popular movements. They knew, for example, that the inhabitants of Piraeus were more radical, more hostile to the oligarchy and the dictatorship, than those of the city of Athens. Sometimes, revolutions arise from seemingly minor events that act as a trigger. This happened in Syracuse following a quarrel between two young people from the ruling class, who had a falling out over love. This sparked a power struggle among members of the government that had significant consequences, leading to political upheaval and even sedition. At Delphi, too, the origin of the unrest was a dispute over a marriage. The prospective groom, citing an omen that had rejected his bride, was put to death by her parents. This resulted in enormous disorder. Similarly, at Mytilene, a disagreement over heiresses led to such chaos that it sparked a rebellion against the regime and a war against the Athenians. The same occurred among the Phocians and at Epidamnus. In these circumstances, those excluded from political life took advantage of the situation to challenge their position or to change the regime. Wars played an even greater role in this type of regime transformation. After the victory at Salamis, the number and political influence of sailors increased, and they worked in favor of democratic regimes in Athens, while the Areopagus council worked against them. In Syracuse, too, the people, who had been the architects of victory in the war against the Athenians, imposed a democracy. In Argos, the opposite occurred : the notables, having gained influence following the Battle of Mantinea against the Spartans, attempted to overthrow the popular regime.These conflicts sparked a power struggle among members of the government, with significant consequences leading to political upheaval and even sedition. At Delphi, too, the unrest stemmed from a marriage dispute. The prospective groom, citing an omen that had rejected his bride, was executed by her parents, resulting in widespread disorder. Similarly, at Mytilene, a disagreement over heiresses led to such chaos that it sparked a rebellion against the regime and a war against the Athenians. The same occurred among the Phocians and at Epidamnus. In these circumstances, those excluded from political life seized the opportunity to challenge their positions or to change the regime. Wars, in particular, played a significant role in this type of regime transformation. After the victory at Salamis, the number and political influence of the sailors increased, and they supported democratic regimes in Athens, while the Areopagus council opposed them. In Syracuse, too, the people, who had been instrumental in the victory against the Athenians, established a democracy. In Argos, the opposite occurred : the notables, having gained power following the Battle of Mantinea against the Spartans, attempted to overthrow the popular government.These conflicts sparked a power struggle among members of the government, with significant consequences leading to political upheaval and even sedition. At Delphi, too, the unrest stemmed from a marriage dispute. The prospective groom, citing an omen that had rejected his bride, was executed by her parents, resulting in widespread disorder. Similarly, at Mytilene, a disagreement over heiresses led to such chaos that it sparked a rebellion against the regime and a war against the Athenians. The same occurred among the Phocians and at Epidamnus. In these circumstances, those excluded from political life seized the opportunity to challenge their positions or to change the regime. Wars, in particular, played a significant role in this type of regime transformation. After the victory at Salamis, the number and political influence of the sailors increased, and they supported democratic regimes in Athens, while the Areopagus council opposed them. In Syracuse, too, the people, who had been instrumental in the victory against the Athenians, established a democracy. In Argos, the opposite occurred : the notables, having gained power following the Battle of Mantinea against the Spartans, attempted to overthrow the popular government.

But most revolutions in Greek city-states occurred to overthrow a dictator. In Chalcis, the people overthrew the tyrant Phoxos. In Ambracia, the people drove out the tyrant Periander. And so on… A very large number of city-states experienced revolutions against tyrants. Most were more or less successful, and in any case, they forced changes in the mode of political leadership and even a redistribution of roles. Oligarchies, where the number of those who benefited from power was too small, were particularly destabilized, as happened in Marseille, Istros, Heraclea, Cnidus, Erythrae, and many other cities. Athens experienced this type of situation under the dictatorship of the Thirty and under the Four Hundred. In other situations that provoked sedition against an oligarchy, we must note errors by the ruling classes in the administration of justice, which stirred popular unrest. This is what happened in Thebes and Heraclea after accusations of adultery. In each case, the dictator, Archias, and Evenion were even publicly pilloried ! In Cnidus and Chios, members of the government prevented sedition by overthrowing the oligarchy in time to stop the revolution from developing. The excesses of tyrants were often the trigger, as in the revolt against the Pisistratids, launched after the tyrant slandered Harmodius, or the plot against Periander, tyrant of Ambracia, which originated from an insult he hurled at his favorite. Many seditions against the dictator stemmed from sexual assault : the revolt against Philip led by Pausanias, the revolt of Derdas against Amyntas the Younger, and the revolt of Crataeus against Archelaus are examples of this. Hatred, contempt, and atrocities are the triggering factors. But revolution always presupposes that a class of inhabitants is revolted by its fate, as in Sparta with the Helots, and also with the Parthenians, Spartan citizens excluded from power. The aims of revolutions were social and political : in Lacedaemon, those burdened by the war demanded a redistribution of the lands of the island of Sparta.

War has another effect on revolutions in that it teaches people how to use weapons, sometimes forcing them to arm more inhabitants than just the soldiers, and even more than the citizens or free men alone. It compels dictatorial regimes to loosen their grip, creates a new mixing of classes, causes greater poverty, eliminates the economic and social opportunities of peacetime, and discredits the ruling classes due to defeats. The sacrifices made during war justify political and social changes, which in turn give rise to new demands, sometimes turning violent. The fear of repression has diminished because people have risked their lives so easily during wartime. Tyrannies and monarchies have experienced numerous revolutions, but so have democracies, because inequalities and injustices are by no means eliminated within them. The current crisis in Athens is a stark demonstration of this.

Apollodorus : All these analyses and explanations of the misfortunes that befall us are well-intentioned and helpful, but they won't prevent me from thinking that our suffering stems from humanity, from its vices, its violence, its unreasonable ambitions, its greed, its corruption, its weaknesses. Power has become what it is today because of the lust for power. Isn't simply pointing out that Socrates didn't suffer from this affliction an admission that it is widespread among humankind ? Similarly, can we not acknowledge the taste for luxury, avarice, or the madness of accumulating wealth ? If people were educated from childhood to appreciate what is good, these things would happen much less frequently. If the State played its role as guarantor of freedoms, of the virtue of citizens in positions of power, and of respect for the rights of all, abuses might exist, but they would be swiftly condemned and combated, whereas today they are encouraged. If the ruling classes agreed to limit their pursuit of wealth, the class struggle would never reach the extremes of revolutions and counter-revolutions…

Aeschines : You're not entirely right, nor entirely wrong, Apollodorus. Society rests on individuals, on their aspirations, their strengths, and their weaknesses. However, the mode of production, the relationships between large groups of people, the classes, the system, and political and social history do not depend primarily on individuals and their qualities. If the system needs a particular flaw, it will find and cultivate it. But the same will be true for the opposite quality or flaw. Society is not primarily determined by individual qualities or flaws. It is the large classes, founded on economic criteria, that are decisive. By building "Athenian democracy," Cleisthenes had broken the ancient tribal organization, but this only reinforced the weight of social differences !

Did Socrates want to highlight the class struggle ? Let me simply quote him : "How can anyone claim that there are no social classes with opposing interests among the free men of Athens, when some barely have enough to eat and others possess enough to be among those who perform the liturgies, that is to say, they own at least three or four talents. It takes an average Athenian more than ten years to earn one talent ! As for a mine concessionaire, he can own around one hundred and sixty talents !!!"

The political crises that Greece has experienced may seem to stem from this or that head of state, this or that political regime, this or that war, but in fact, they are crises linked to the system of domination having reached its limits. They are the product of class struggles. Of course, the wars were devastating, but above all, they revealed the internal weaknesses of these societies. The political crises led us from revolts to tyrannies, by way of supposedly democratic disorder. But the underlying cause is social and economic destabilization. And first, there was the loss of economic and social importance of the old ruling class, the destabilization of the landed aristocracy through the large-scale development of crafts and commerce, and then the development of money, international trade, and speculation. Money circulates rapidly, and new fortunes appear in a short time. From then on, land ownership was no longer the sole or primary source of wealth, certainly not the fastest. New economic conditions brought about new classes that claimed to lead society, and the classes that lived solely by their labor seized the opportunity to insert themselves into the debate. Everywhere, revolt was brewing. Small farmers were ruined by imported agricultural products. They were forced into debt and fell under a new form of dependence on the wealthy. In Athens, for example, independent hectemorian peasants had to hand over one-sixth of their harvest to their lords. The poor peasants thus opposed the large landowners, the wealthy eupatrids, and demanded land redistribution and the abolition of debts. The reformers' only aim was to deceive the exasperated working classes. Everywhere, reformers emerged : Zaleucus in Locri, Charondas in Catania, Pythagoras in Croton, and, of course, Draco and then Solon in Athens. They did not, of course, abolish class struggle, but they regulated and tempered it to prevent revolution from spreading beyond the city-states. Subsequently, the crisis led to the establishment of popular tyrannies, which diverted discontent against the ruling classes toward the domination of a strongman who sometimes managed to capture popular sympathy. This was the case with Pisitratus in Athens, Polycrates in Samos, Thrasybulus in Miletus, and Phalaris in Agrigento. Their dictatorships aimed to silence the quarrels within the ruling classes in order to better appease the common people. But tyranny was only a temporary remedy to the crisis, and the aristocratic regimes emerged even weaker and more discredited. And it was Cleisthenes who developed a solution to deceive the people while maintaining the domination of these same ruling classes. He invented Athenian democracy ! He himself was an aristocrat.A worthy scion of the illustrious and powerful Alcmaeonid family, he established what he called isonomia, or equality before the law, the aim of which was to ensure social and political stability. He instituted the council of 500 prytaneis, the circulation of power among the prytaneis, and the selection of the prytaneis by lot. While ostensibly giving a voice to the people, he actually provided a legislative foundation for an institution entirely detached from the population : the State. The individuals who hold state office change, but the State's continuity endures. What did Socrates think of democracy ? He made no secret of it and declared it openly :"The government was once the same as it is now, an aristocracy ; such is the political form under which we still live, and have almost always lived. Some call it a democracy, others something else, according to their taste ; but it is truly an aristocracy, with the consent of the people. We have never ceased to have kings, sometimes by right of succession, sometimes by right of vote."

Antisthenes : Changing the political regime is an illusion as long as people live to accumulate wealth, that's what Socrates said. He went much further than many "critics" of the system, who are afraid to confront the illusions of the people, unwilling to alienate the average citizen, when they aren't actually trying to flatter them with their words. It is the people who have been corrupted, not just the ruling classes, even if the latter are the direct architects of this corruption. Having considered that Socrates wanted to eliminate those who surpass others in wealth, a number of the wealthy and powerful decided that it was necessary to eliminate those who surpass others in social and political intelligence, namely individuals like Socrates himself. Socrates was perfectly aware that his social and political stances could make him a target of the ruling classes' hatred, he who openly declared to someone as corrupt and connected to power as Callicles : "Am I aware that I may risk being condemned for my ideas ?" I would be truly mad, Callicles, if I thought that, in our city, one could, depending on the circumstances, be safe from such a fate ! (...) Of course, if I were condemned to death, it wouldn't be strange at all ! And do you want me to tell you why I have this impression ? (...) I think I am one of the few Athenians, if not the only one, who is interested in what the art of politics truly is.

It infuriates me to hear people say that Socrates was an innocent, a bland, harmless, and insignificant philosopher, that he wasn't an atheist, a sophist, a revolutionary, aggressive towards the ruling classes, or dangerous. Isn't that a way of saying that if he were a sophist, we would have been right to ban him, condemn him, kill him ? And if he were an atheist philosopher, an anti-slavery advocate, and hostile to the ruling classes, then he deserved to die ? Well, stop crying : he deserved the hatred of the ruling classes ! And that doesn't stop us from mourning him, nor from hoping that his ideas will triumph over those same ruling classes…

Of course, many believed that Athenian democracy was more than just a cover for an oligarchy, but this was not the case with Socrates. He never belonged to the category of politicians who present themselves as good shepherds of the people, whom they consider their flock. These politicians tell us a pretty tale in which all it would take is to gather the hares and the lions in the same democratic assembly. This way, the lions could be convinced that they are in the minority and that the majority supports equality between hares and lions. The hares would not become lions, nor vice versa : they would simply be equal in rights. After a brief moment of astonishment, the real lions would roar and pounce on their prey, reminding the democratic hares who eats and who is eaten. The hares will never succeed in convincing the lions, but there will always be a few chatterers among the hares who claim that something can still be done to democratically persuade the lions ! Since Socrates never gave any quarter to democratic illusions, the ruling classes have always harbored hatred for our philosopher. He told the wealthy, who gorge themselves : "One must eat to live, not live to eat." He didn't even defend any knowledge other than the official Athenian knowledge. We, by calling ourselves disciples of Socrates, are not obligated to defend any kind of established knowledge, since he himself said he knew nothing, thus denouncing all the supposed holders of eternal truths.

Aeschines : Socrates didn't say he knew nothing, but declared : "I don't know the extent of my ignorance. People think they know what they don't know," which is very different. This means that my knowledge doesn't allow me to determine the limit of my ignorance, because the boundary between the domain of my ignorance and that of my knowledge is unknown to me. Many see this as a statement that humankind is very ignorant. But Socrates also says the exact opposite : sometimes people know things they don't know or can't understand, and these must certainly be sought deep within oneself. Socrates therefore affirms that we are ignorant of both the extent of our ignorance and the extent of our knowledge...

Was Antisthenes, or Socrates, a sophist ? Socrates is not a sophist because he engages in dialogue. He practices exchange with his interlocutor, even the least competent. He does not aim to dominate, direct, or convince them. He does not seek to dazzle or overwhelm them, but to explore with them. What do the sophists do ? Conversely, they compose speeches designed to dazzle with the strength of their argumentation and the beauty of their style. They move us and, in doing so, persuade us.
Socrates does not engage in discourse ; he questions. He rarely makes assertions. He proceeds with short answers and does not aim for ingenuity but for rational rigor. He rejects stylistic flourishes.

– Terpsion : Socrates' "I know nothing" doesn't mean I cultivate ignorance, but rather that I know nothing other than what my questions reveal to me. Each of us remembers hearing him repeat that progress is only possible through questioning others and ourselves. Understanding the world advances only through successive inquiries. And each inquiry involves me personally. I cannot be satisfied with the answers of others. Even in highly advanced scientific fields, I only progress by questioning myself, based on what others have put forward or on my own observations of the world. Seeking answers within my own mind is truly the work of an explorer in uncharted territory. For our master, Socrates, there were several conditions for beginning to philosophize. It was necessary to forget what we thought we knew definitively, that is to say, to be ready for a general questioning, to make ourselves capable of marveling at everything, that is to say, to love observing, not to seek our immediate interest, but to want to reach the truth whatever the result, not to bow down to men who claim to possess knowledge, nor to those who hold power or money.

– Aeschines : For Socrates, knowledge as an accumulation of facts is worthless, or at least, it doesn't replace personal reflection. Each person has their own questions. The answer can be very different from one person to another, from one society to another, from one class to another. Socrates didn't believe there was only one concept of the good. He simply observed that people were able to communicate through language because they shared something through words. And it was this something he sought, because it seemed to him to represent deeper truths than immediate images. A definitive morality for everyone is not in Socrates' mind, contrary to your view, Plato. Defining it and then imposing it on everyone was even further from his conception. Personal morality must be developed by each individual, but this, according to Socrates, is not enough to resolve the question of the goals of society as a whole. Society doesn't exist once and for all, nor is it as people wish it to be. Plato, you try to bridge this vast gap between individuals and society by using states that correspond to small city-states, but the leap from individuals to society is nonetheless significant. Society is not the sum of its parts, and it's not enough for each individual to strive for virtuous morality for society to be organized in the same way. Socrates didn't shy away from considering the question in broad, social, and political terms, but he didn't do so entirely publicly, and certainly not in writing.

Socrates once had the opportunity to play a public political role. Under threat of death, Athens rallied in a final surge of resolve, promising, at Socrates' initiative, citizenship to metics and slaves to build a fleet that defeated Callicratidas at the Battle of Arginusae. This success, however, was marred by the execution of the victorious generals (including Pericles the Younger and Thrasyles). Athens, in a fit of anger under pressure from demagogues, thus eliminated its own best generals. It was in condemnation of these decisions that Socrates withdrew permanently from public political life.

Socrates' refusal to participate in public life and commit his thoughts to writing was not primarily philosophical, but political. He was not silent, but he did not disseminate his philosophical teachings in writing for political reasons. This was neither a fear nor a rejection of politics on his part. He had his own goals and, consequently, his own political method. This was not discretion in general, since he had distinguished himself by his opposition to power and his refusal to participate in it, his rejection of money, and his refusal to endorse all the unjust acts to which the various powers had invited him. For example, he publicly stood up to a frenzied Assembly during the trial of the generals of Arginusae. He refused to obey the Thirty Tyrants who had ordered him to arrest Leon of Salamis, an innocent man they wanted to condemn to death. He also refused to endorse the false democracy that succeeded tyranny. He even refused to play the conventional game of trial, the charade of pleading guilty, expressing regret, and offering fines, which would have allowed him to avoid a death sentence. And he also refused to flee, a perfectly possible and morally defensible escape from an unjust and fabricated conviction. He was sentenced to death at seventy for having led the children of the ruling classes astray from the dominant ideology and, in particular, from religion. This was not a miscarriage of justice, nor a political error on the part of Athens, nor an act of personal vengeance. It was simply the end of a failed revolutionary attempt. What it concealed, more profoundly, was the accusation of having tried to turn the children of the ruling class away from an ideology of class abolition : communism. Socrates calls into question many things : patriotism, religion, machismo, contempt and oppression of women, exploitation of children, contempt for the poor and poverty, corruption of the rich and worship of wealth, a social foundation based on individual interest versus that of the community, etc. Socrates said : "The city where those who should hold power are least desirous of power is necessarily the best and most peacefully governed."

Hermogenes : My friends, let us not forget that Socrates was not defending himself, but his search for truth and goodness. If he deemed his death necessary for this search, it was because of the shock it would cause among the Athenian and Greek citizens. And I think that even this meeting, impossible between us yesterday, is perfect proof of that. His death did more for his philosophy than his life. From now on, his work, even unwritten, is immortal. And believe me, if I say this, I feel no less hatred than you for those who condemned him. But I am trying to understand what he meant when he told us that his death would be understood by those who had understood his life. Well, he tried to ensure that his death would be a foundation for his philosophy. Everyone here knows that he never acted in his own self-interest. This means that his bravery in battle, proven time and again (from Potidaea to Samos and from Delium to Amphipolis), was not aimed at glory, that his political wisdom was not aimed at power, that his sharp criticism of those in high positions was not aimed at placing himself in those positions, and therefore aimed at something higher, an ideal worth seeking. Socrates himself invites us to this search… He does not provide an answer. He encourages us to question. Socrates once said : “I know you won't believe me, but the highest form of human excellence is to question oneself and to question others.”

– Plato : Thank you, Hermogenes, for putting the debate back into perspective and for restoring the philosophical dimension to Socrates' struggle. However, all this doesn't change one fact : the condemnation of Socrates condemns any society capable of such acts. It shows that the Athenian city-state ceased to be governed by reason from the day it was governed by the demagoguery of politicians. These evils will only cease when the city is governed by philosophy or when the people, by some miracle, become philosophers themselves. In the meantime, the lion's share is given to the biggest liar, the biggest braggart, the one who utters the most beautiful false promises, who flatters the people behind their backs. Nothing seems to stop this slide toward the basest instincts, the most avaricious ambitions, and if nothing is done, Athens has hitched itself to a chariot that will one day tip into the ditch. Most states are like ships steered by a half-blind captain. The crew knows the captain isn't taking them to port, but if they mutiny, they won't fare any better because they don't know how to navigate and aren't even aware that such a science exists. This science is philosophy. And Socrates' initial aim was to educate young people in philosophy. He established a school around himself and thus developed his teachings. What I will always remember about Socrates is that philosophy is the art of all arts, without which none is capable of understanding itself or others.

I would like to remind you that Socrates wanted to build a work : his vision of philosophy founded on entirely new concepts. I will briefly recall its foundations. There is no identity between the visible world and the intelligible world. The goal of rationality cannot be to translate all of reality but only to approach it as closely as possible and to generalize its lessons. Only the dialectic of opposites, used scientifically, in a way that corresponds to the contradictory nature of things, can perceive their essence. The common mode of perceiving the world, which is non-contradictory, cannot access the truth of nature, of humankind, and of society. For most people, as for most thinkers, there are things and principles that oppose each other, but they are external to one another. For them, one society can fight another, one person can struggle against another, one principle can oppose another.

What distinguishes Socrates' dialectical viewpoint is that the opposition is primarily internal. This seems absurd to many, who reply that a thing cannot be both one way and, at the same time, its opposite. And yet, I repeat, for Socrates, opposites are opposed within every structure, every constitution, every object, every society, and every individual. Does the benevolent person always do good, and is always doing good always benevolent ? Is the pious person always just, and the just person always pious ? Does the courageous person always possess courage ? Is virtue always found in love, and love in virtue ? To ask these questions is already to answer them. Knowledge lies in the act of ignorance. The pursuit of Good lies in recognizing the attraction of Evil. Love lies in recognizing Hatred. Attraction is made of repulsion. This is the contradictory meaning of Socrates' formula, "No one is wicked willingly" : we do harm while thinking we are doing good, or at least doing ourselves good. And, in doing harm, we also harm ourselves. A double contradiction, then. And, at the same time, Socrates emphasized that, without knowledge, there is no wrongdoing. By not knowing how to distinguish Good from Evil, the one who does evil remains ignorant of it.

Let's examine this in science. There is a contradiction between the unity and plurality of structure, between its stability and instability, between its mobility and immobility, between its energy and lack of energy, between its opposing goals and principles. Let's take the example of mobility and immobility. How could something be both at the same time ? Simply consider an object, for example, a sphere, which is only globally stable because it rotates. Rotation means that it moves. But, precisely because of this rotational movement, the sphere is immobile. It is therefore mobile in order to be immobile, and vice versa. Similarly, it can be both stable and unstable. For example, water flows smoothly and steadily through a pipe. If we observe it closely, we notice eddies forming within it which, on a small scale, are incredibly agitated, characterized by constant instability. Instability is inseparable from overall stability. Opposites are everywhere intertwined and interdependent in nature. The individual is subject to the same internal contradictions. He is simultaneously calm and violent, gentle and impetuous, timid and extroverted, selfless and selfish, and so on. Constantly, the individual is torn between opposing feelings and sensations. Let's take sensations, for example. Sometimes our body needs water. This doesn't necessarily mean we know it. A person can desire water and, at the same time, not desire it. They can simultaneously love and dislike, desire to be loved and not desire to be loved. They can, at the same time, feel like getting angry and not want to get angry, and so on. Their passion pulls them in one direction, and their reason in another. In society, people behave similarly. Individuals simultaneously desire the success of the state and, conversely, its failure. They thank him, but at the same time, they hate him. They want to obey him, yet this doesn't prevent them from wanting to disobey him. As with objects, as with individuals, these contradictions within society and the state are inevitable. We cannot wish to eliminate contradictions because they are inherent in the very nature of things. Seeking the essence of things is not about eliminating contradiction but about finding the natural harmony between dialectical opposites. Similarly, in society, scientific politics, the politics of rulers trained in philosophy, must consist of seeking harmony between opposites : between rich and poor, rulers and ruled, competent and incompetent in each field. We must find the way in which these opposing forces can be reconciled, the way that corresponds to their nature. Eliminating opposites is an illusion. It is seeking the exacerbation of opposites and moving toward the destruction of the entire social structure instead of improving it. Nature never proceeds in this way.We must find a mode of organization through which opposing forces can simultaneously express themselves without destroying one another ; that is, without allowing each other a place corresponding to their respective natural needs, and without striving for everyone to have the same needs and the same roles. If each opposing force acts at its own level, the forces complement and reinforce one another. If they constantly and violently confront each other, they destabilize the entire structure and continue to clash until its total destruction. Since nature finds a way to accommodate opposites, the goal of the State must be to seek natural harmony in social relations. For the State, what is good and just is that everyone has their rightful place, that the right person should be the ruler and the right person the ruled, that the right person should be the craftsman, another the merchant, a third the soldier, and a fourth the leader of the State. Everyone must be in the position that best serves the general interest of the entire people, and not merely their own selfish and individual interests. In such a system, competence will correspond to character and personal goals. This implies that we do not ask a man incapable of weaving to become a weaver, nor a man incapable of steering a ship to take the helm, nor a man incapable of leading the state to do so. There is no single competence for every function. For the overall leadership of society, the necessary quality and ability lies in knowing how to draw general lessons from the study of existing conditions. This competence will be recognized as scientific and philosophical knowledge in its most general form. We must acknowledge that this science of all sciences is to be found in arithmetic and especially in geometry, then in astronomy, and finally in the philosophy of all philosophies, that is to say, in dialectic. That is why the men who defend society must be chosen from among those who understand the general conditions and fight for the common good. And those who lead must also be chosen from among those who understand and have studied philosophy.The point is that everyone should have their rightful place, that the right person should be the ruler and the right person the ruled, that the right person should be the craftsman, another the merchant, a third a soldier, and a fourth the head of state. Everyone must be in the position that best serves the general interest of the entire people, and not just their own selfish and individual interest. In such a system, competence will correspond to character and personal goals. This implies that we do not ask a man incapable of weaving to become a weaver, nor a man incapable of steering a ship to take the helm, nor a man incapable of leading the state to do so. There is no single competence for every function. For the overall leadership of society, the quality and capacity lie in knowing how to draw general lessons from the study of existing conditions. This competence will be recognized as scientific and philosophical knowledge in its most general form. We must admit that this science of all sciences is to be found in arithmetic and especially in geometry, then in astronomy, and finally in the philosophy of all philosophies, that is to say, in dialectics. This is why those who defend society must be chosen from among those who understand the general conditions and fight for the common good. And those who govern must also be chosen from among those who understand and have studied philosophy.The point is that everyone should have their rightful place, that the right person should be the ruler and the right person the ruled, that the right person should be the craftsman, another the merchant, a third a soldier, and a fourth the head of state. Everyone must be in the position that best serves the general interest of the entire people, and not just their own selfish and individual interest. In such a system, competence will correspond to character and personal goals. This implies that we do not ask a man incapable of weaving to become a weaver, nor a man incapable of steering a ship to take the helm, nor a man incapable of leading the state to do so. There is no single competence for every function. For the overall leadership of society, the quality and capacity lie in knowing how to draw general lessons from the study of existing conditions. This competence will be recognized as scientific and philosophical knowledge in its most general form. We must admit that this science of all sciences is to be found in arithmetic and especially in geometry, then in astronomy, and finally in the philosophy of all philosophies, that is to say, in dialectics. This is why those who defend society must be chosen from among those who understand the general conditions and fight for the common good. And those who govern must also be chosen from among those who understand and have studied philosophy.And those who lead must still be chosen from among those who understand and have studied philosophy.And those who lead must still be chosen from among those who understand and have studied philosophy.

Phaedo : No, Plato, our master didn't say that study is the key to good and evil. Socrates said to Euthydemus : "First, I consider health a good and sickness an evil ; and then, if I consider the cause of these two states, I believe that drinks, food, and activities are all good things when they bring about health, and evil things when they bring about sickness. Consequently, health and sickness will in themselves be good things when they bring about good, and evil things when they cause harm." Euthydemus, still not convinced, replied : "But how could health cause harm ?" And Socrates replied : "Well, by Jupiter, those who are robust take part in a bad expedition, and they perish, while those who are weak remain and are alive ! Good athletes will participate in increasingly difficult competitions that will eventually make them sick. Their good health will turn out to be an evil." Euthydemus insisted : “ But is knowledge good and ignorance evil ? Is wealth good and poverty evil ? Is happiness good and unhappiness evil ?” One is so rich that he ends up ruined. Another is so poor that he invents a way out and becomes very rich. One has such extensive knowledge that he ends up disturbing the powerful and is eliminated. Another is so ignorant that, arrested during a riot, he is released because he is deemed harmless. And what did Socrates do ? He gave numerous examples, according to which good transforms into evil and evil into good. He was therefore very far from wanting to disseminate a philosophy of the diametrical opposition of Good and Evil ! Rather, it was the permanent and dynamic internal contradiction that Socrates studied. Thus, a man who wanted to govern for the good of the people became a politician and governed violently.

Once again, no, Plato, the group around Socrates was not simply a school, an academy, a university of abstract philosophy detached from political and social reality, as you present it in your work "The Ion," where you attribute to Socrates this idea of the superiority of philosophy over the arts. In the case of Socrates' inner circle, it was a clandestine revolutionary political group preparing, if circumstances allowed, to act to transform the government of the city in the general interest of the popular classes. Of course, educating young people from the wealthy classes about ending oppression by those same ruling classes was something the latter had every reason to consider "corrupting the youth." Socrates is not the unfortunate philosopher, too wise for his time, that some disciples, themselves hardly revolutionary, would have us believe. Why would anyone want to transform Socrates, who had participated in many social, military and political struggles, into a kind of sage withdrawn from everything and preaching only virtue ?

Why forget the Socrates who freed slaves and gave citizenship to foreigners as soon as he had the power to do so, during a war in Athens ?

The city of Athens had only about 40,000 citizens out of a total population of 300,000 to 400,000. Socrates always spoke of humankind, not just citizens, including foreigners and slaves. He explained that one of the worst forms of behavior was to deprive a person of their freedom by reducing them to a state of slavery : “What is the justification for enslaving a man ? Is it vice ? Is it ignorance ? Is it his country of origin ? Is it circumstances ? Is it a country's defeat in war ? No, nothing justifies putting a man into slavery !” he said to Alcibiades and Polus. “What act is more heinous than reducing a man to slavery ? It is the worst of injustices,” he said to Euthydemus. And he would discuss this further : “Do you know of any people who are called servile ?” “No doubt,” replied Euthydemus. “Is it because of their education or their ignorance ?” “But are they called that because they don't know how to work metals ?” “No, certainly not.” “Or because they don't know how to work metals ?” “No, certainly not.” “Or because they don't know how to build ?” “No, not that either.” “Or because they don't know how to make shoes ?” “For none of these reasons, and quite the opposite ; for most of those who practice these trades are servile beings.” Everyone remembers that Euthydemus left convinced that he was no better than a slave…

Why forget Socrates who, seeing a master who had harshly punished his servant, said to him : "I wonder who deserves to be punished more, you or your servant !"

Socrates always spoke of humanity, not just citizens, including foreigners and slaves among them. He also fought for women's freedom. To take just one example of the Athenian mentality on this point, let us recall Sophocles, who wrote in his play "Ajax" : "For a woman, her adornment is her silence."

Socrates frequently cited examples of peoples among whom women had practiced the art of war with great success : the Amazons of ancient Greece, the women of certain regions of Mali, and, above all, the Scythian warriors. And he showed that these societies were in no way inferior to our own.

Why not recall that Socrates repeatedly claimed that all his philosophy teachers had been women ? One of his teachers was Pericles' wife herself ! And he proclaimed this to Athenians who were in no way inclined to listen to him on this subject !

While he defended philosophical and political views very different from those of most Athenians, why pretend that he simply questioned people so that they could rediscover their own identity ? To transform Socrates into a poor innocent who only dreams and discusses abstractly is to betray him.

– Aeschines : What was Socrates' principal science ? He answered, "The art of organizing a society where all men are happy."

"Suppose there were a man who knew all the sciences ; which would be dearest to his heart ? Was it the science of dice, of arithmetic, of health ? Wouldn't such a man's primary goal be for all people to live happily ? Wouldn't such a goal for the city be as much the object of a science as any other ? Doesn't every type of activity require a particular science and people dedicated to that profession ? Wouldn't such an activity—making people happy—require, as much as any other, even more than any other, a particular science and people who practice it professionally ? Wouldn't they have to learn their trade first, in order to practice it professionally once they had decided to dedicate their activity to it ? Wouldn't this man, knowledgeable in all the sciences, choose to particularly love this one since it aims at the happiness of all ? But, at the same time as a science, wouldn't the happiness of humankind also be..." An art ?

My friends, I fear that by merely reproaching the Athenians for having been afraid of Socrates, by accusing them, as Plato has just done, of lacking philosophy, we are minimizing the revolution he proposed. In my opinion, the one who best understood Socrates was his worst enemy : Aristophanes. By positioning himself diametrically opposed to Socrates, he is the one who best defines our master's philosophy. The author of "Clouds," the play that undoubtedly contributed most to Socrates' condemnation, declared himself opposed to all of Socrates' ideas : to the collective ownership of the means of production, to the freedom of women, to the liberation of slaves, and to a political regime that, behind a false democracy, was not that of large landowners and masters of an ever-increasing number of slaves. Even though Socrates was careful not to state such objectives publicly and directly, and was careful not to put his goals in writing, we who participated in his clandestine meetings know what the situation was.

He who proclaimed, "I am no one's master," did not simply mean that he abhorred having a parade of disciples following him like sheep. He was thinking not only of master and disciple, but rather of master and slave ! This meant that slavery horrified him. While the means many of our citizens have found to live without working is to be supported by investing in slaves who work in the mines and fields, Socrates always refused this means of subsistence. Similarly, he refused, like his fellow citizens, to offer his feet to slaves to be washed with perfumed water while he lay in bed. Let us remember that his greatest victory for Athens was achieved by offering foreigners, non-citizens of Athens, and slaves the opportunity to participate in battle as free citizens. This is how we were able to defeat Callicratidas at the Battle of Arginusae. Socrates always rejected owning slaves to meet his needs. Charmides can confirm this : he repeatedly tried to offer Socrates slaves to help him materially, without success. Socrates also publicly denounced the searches for runaway slaves launched by Athenian citizens. Beyond the question of slavery itself, Socrates challenged the entire prevailing economic and social system : the accumulation of wealth at one extreme and misery at the other, the growth of social dictatorship under the guise of political democracy, the increasing oppression of formerly free and independent cities, the growing role of plundering the riches of ever-expanding territories while wealth acquired through labor diminished, and the rising corruption and associated vices becoming the new virtue of Athens.

Socrates freed a great number of slaves. Phaedo of Elis knew something about this, having been kidnapped by pirates and sold into slavery, only to be freed by Socrates himself through an Athenian landowner. He didn't just undertake individual liberations ; he took advantage of an exceptional threat to the city to free all the slaves who agreed to take up arms alongside the citizens, granting them liberty and citizenship !

No, my friends, Socrates did not die by chance, nor by mistake, due to the blind and mad hatred of his accusers, nor through a sudden blindness on the part of his judges. It was his project for a political and social system that the ruling class condemned in him. This project defended the collective ownership of property, the building of a society aimed at the well-being of all. Socrates' constant questioning, for which he was criticized, is not that of the Sophists. It is that of a man capable of publicly dismantling a politician, a financier, a large landowner, or a demagogue. I believe above all that the ruling class of Athens resented this political project, which directly targeted them. Behind Socrates' free and open university, there was, as we all know here, the attempt to win over some of the children of the ruling classes to his project. This clandestine circle that Socrates was building was a direct threat to the oppressors. It meant that a potential direction for a popular revolution existed, should it erupt. From the moment he was publicly denounced, it was clear the blow would be struck. And if Socrates didn't defend himself at his trial, it was because his defense could only have been a direct attack, a condemnation of Athens and its social system, which would have directly condemned us all...

– Plato : I would especially like…

Cebes : Plato, excuse me for interrupting, but I fear my point will be outdated by the time you speak, and yet I wish to express it. It's true that one of Socrates' remarkable battles against the spirit of his time, against the vast majority of Athenians in particular, was for the liberation of women. He constantly proclaimed that only women had been his teachers in philosophy. He asserted that the liberation of man is impossible without that of woman. Aristophanes, in fact, is preparing a play on this theme called "The Assemblywomen," in which the playwright ridicules the claim of women to govern and Socrates' claim to defend women's freedom. He falsely equated this freedom with the community of women and children. He claimed that women in power could only do whatever they wanted.

While we all know that ancient hollow clay statues of women are found throughout Greece, revealing that women were not always dominated, scorned, and relegated to the realm of domestic virtues, things have certainly changed. Women are now under the absolute control of their husbands, confined to the home with domestic slaves, stripped of the management of their own property, and deprived of all political rights. They are forbidden from appearing in the theater or participating in the grand evening meal. This contempt for women does not mean that men are driven to turn away from them to have children. On the contrary, in Athens, as in most city-states, marriage is an obligation. Unmarried men are prosecuted. The father's authority over his children is limitless. They are even more dependent than the woman. Private property has taken over all human relationships. In a society driven by the lure of profit and wealth, the family has become just another commodity. Socrates, who fought against this society, always believed that personal life would have benefited from the collective disposal of goods.

– Plato It is perfectly true that Socrates fought for equality between men and women, and this was one of the themes he frequently developed. I, too, believe that the differences between men and women have been artificially introduced into society, whereas all possible differences exist between individuals of both sexes, but not between men and women, apart from the capacity to bear children. All professions can be performed identically by both sexes. It is simply a matter of personal ability and training. This is evident in practical, artisanal, or commercial tasks, as well as in political or intellectual ones. There are men incapable of becoming weavers, sailors, or philosophers, and women who are perfectly capable of doing so. When they have the ability and training, women can perfectly well lead men in such activities. Even war, the defense of society, and its leadership at the highest levels of government are not activities closed to women. We all know of examples of women who, more or less discreetly, played a role in Athenian politics. A well-known example is that of Pericles' wife. She led a discussion group, one of whose most assiduous participants was none other than… Socrates ! Since the principle of the state is to place men in positions based on their competence, it is obvious that women should also be placed there, provided they possess the necessary skills. And it will be observed that they can be, like soldiers, guardians as effective as men in ensuring the city's security. They can practice the same physical exercises in preparation for war. They can be as courageous and virtuous as male guardians. Since virtue, courage, and selflessness are the qualities required of male soldiers, women can also be chosen to become guardians of the city's security, selected according to precisely the same criteria. And, again, as long as a woman possesses the necessary qualities and competence, other men will obey her. As long as they have studied to become strategists, they will be followed by their troops just like men. As for the government, it too can be led by women, for it has been proven that women are capable of being philosophers as well as men. As long as philosophy is the criterion for choosing those who govern the city, then women philosophers will have their rightful place. Many women philosophers participate in my universities, and, even if they are forced to conceal their femininity under a wig to avoid directly confronting the prejudices and narrow-mindedness of some men, their participation in the debates is far from inferior to that of men.Warrior women can very well be the wives of warrior men, and they can, along with the men, collectively care for their children. Like Socrates, I believe that men and women can grant each other considerable freedom in sexual relations, provided there is no mutual harm and no incest or sexual relations between close relatives. Private property has been made the model for personal and family relationships, and as a result, women have become the private property of each man, as have children. The need for inheritance was the reason for this, and with it, the need to recognize the children's origins—that of paternity, which is obviously much more difficult to establish than maternity. The freedom of men and women to choose or separate has thus been alienated, even though it could very well have been recognized, since it in no way harms the stability of the state or the general welfare ; quite the contrary. This is clearly seen in the numerous clashes between families that arise from disputes related to marriages and inheritances.

Critobulus : I don't understand what you mean. It seems to me that this is a law of nature. Women are not identical to men, and it's no coincidence that they specialize in activities like weaving, cooking, and domestic tasks. It has always been this way, and women have never been seen philosophizing, waging war, or governing. I personally never discussed these matters with Socrates, but then again, he didn't invite his wife to his debates...

– Plato : First of all, I would like to tell you to be wary of all reasoning that begins with "this has always been," "that is immutable in nature," or "such and such has never changed." How long have we known what the world is like ? How many regions of the world and how many years before us are totally or partially unknown ? Furthermore, if you look around you, you can see that every day the river flows through the same place. And the ancients can confirm that they knew the same thing : this was indeed the riverbed in their time. So what ? Would you conclude from this that it has been the same for all eternity ? You would certainly be mistaken. To be sure of this, you only need to take a walk in the surrounding area to notice that an ancient riverbed, now silted up, exists a little further on. But it is undoubtedly too old for any evidence from that time to be found. None of us saw the separation between the shores of the Hellespont, but when we examine the similarity of the two shores, we find it likely that they were once joined by a land bridge. The same is true of the relationship between men and women. Today, women's participation on an equal footing with men is frowned upon, in Athens as in most neighboring cities and states. But you will notice that this is not the case everywhere. There are some societies that give women an important place, allow them to participate in political leadership and even in the armies, and make them deities and political leaders. As for the past, it is not certain that even in Greece, women were ever more important than they are today. And the future is also uncertain. Instead of arguing that "everything has always been this way," let us consider what might be in the best interest of the city in the future and examine the arguments that would have us believe that women have no place in higher activities. That's how to solve the problem.

– Critobulus : By Zeus, Plato, you're raving ! You're taking liberties with other people's wives and children ! Anyone can sleep with another man's wife, and you tell us that this will be the foundation of a stable and secure society... How can you utter such nonsense while you're still sober and speaking seriously ? Such scandalous remarks don't commit you to much, you who have never been married to a woman and have no children. How can you claim to understand the feelings and goals of husbands and wives ? Do you think that a wife doesn't care that her husband sleeps around, and that the husband, for his part, doesn't have good reasons for wanting his wife to remain reserved for him ?

Plato : My dear friend, I fully understand your anger, and I hope that, far from being offended by my proposals, you will examine them with the seriousness that Socrates demanded when analyzing a point of view, however far removed it may be from our own. Social customs appear all the more natural and immutable when they are firmly rooted in seemingly personal goals. But, while I have no experience of marriage, I would like to offer you a few arguments to convince you that my point is not as illogical as it seems.

First, I would point out that, if we know anything about past societies, women have not always been as dominated as they are today. This is evident in certain societies that resemble ancient Greek society, such as among the Scythians or the Malians. Women there can play a political role that would surprise us and also enjoy a degree of personal freedom that is very unusual in our society today. This shows us that the current inferior position of women is neither as natural nor as eternal as it might initially seem.

Next, I would like you to reflect on and critically examine our habit of saying, for everything, this is "mine," this is "yours." "My" wife and "my children" are part of this. We began by saying this about everyday objects, then we moved on to much greater riches : land, livestock, crops, houses, then mines, ships, markets, and finally we arrived at the realm of human relationships. We have started using these terms of physical possession of objects for human beings who are not even slaves ! Yet, women and children are not objects. How can a man consider himself free if he unites with a woman he considers a slave or an object belonging to him ? How can a child be properly educated if he is not treated as a free being ? How can he then be capable of consciously choosing his own future and that of his city if he has been subjected for many years to a life without rights ? If, as Socrates argued, all women and men had the free right to sexual relations and, consequently, to have children, then we would have a state that was a true family. We would no longer experience fratricidal wars like the ones we have just witnessed. Indeed, no one could violently attack another without thinking : perhaps this is a brother, a father, a child. This is how such a way of relating to men and women would form the basis of collective harmony and prevent violent disputes between citizens.

– Cebes : Socrates never deviated from his path, which consisted of believing that self-interest—the well-being of each individual—cannot be opposed to the general, social interest. This meant that there was no need to chase after wealth, to accumulate it, nor any personal need to amass power. He was not going to change course in the face of difficulties. He did not change in the face of dictatorship. He did not change in the face of the success of his friends, who offered him the opportunity to share in it. He did not change when Athens turned against him. He had never sought personal happiness that conflicted with that of all humankind. At his trial, Socrates confirmed his views, declaring : “What treatment, what fine have I deserved for believing that I should renounce a tranquil life, neglect what most people hold dear : wealth, private interests, military commands, success in public discourse, magistracies, coalitions, political factions ?” For having preferred to render to each of you individually what I declare to be the greatest of services, by trying to persuade him to be less concerned with what belongs to him than with himself. (…) What have I deserved, I ask, for having conducted myself thus ? Good treatment, Athenians, if we wish to be fair ; and undoubtedly, good treatment that is appropriate to me… If, therefore, you wish to treat me justly and according to my merit, this is what I propose : that I be fed at the Prytaneum !”

Everyone will certainly recognize the irony, but above all, it reflects a genuine sentiment in Socrates, who always considered himself at the service of the interests of the people as a whole, while expecting no recognition in return, other than the satisfaction of having remained steadfast in his principles. Socrates knew that people are fickle and only become revolutionary in exceptional circumstances. It was for this type of situation that he had built his entire life. The people could be turned against him. He was not surprised by this. But it was still on these people that Socrates relied to change society, which is quite different from Plato's view, who places the philosopher above the common man.

– Plato : It's not a question of despising the common man, but we mustn't delude ourselves either : he can't truly govern himself. We simply need to recognize that knowledge isn't available to everyone, nor is competence. Now, governing people, like managing armies or fostering economic development, requires competence. As for ordinary people, they don't always want to listen to those who claim to liberate them. I intend to recount this in a philosophical tale called "The Allegory of the Cave." Men are imprisoned there, bound more by intellectual and moral ties than by chains. A hero manages to find them and wants to free them, but they revolt against the unfortunate revolutionary. Such was the story of Socrates. Those he wanted to defend rebelled against him and his acerbic remarks, because such negative predictions about the choices of their society frightened them.

Phaedo : That, at least, was not Socrates' point of view. When asked to reflect on the ideal society, he always ended up talking about masons, sculptors, fishermen, farmers, and so on—all the men whose labor enriches the city. But he didn't even mention soldiers, politicians, speculators, administrators, or statesmen. He didn't mention slaves or slavery. This meant that, for him, those who made up the ideal city were the men who work and live by their labor. He denounced the deceitfulness of politicians, who convince the people that all they have to do is entrust them with power to be happy. He mocked the ignorance of politicians about politics as much as he did the ignorance of the military about the army. Because what he wanted above all was to give the popular classes a taste for governing themselves instead of piously bowing down to the so-called superior strata of society.

Plato : When it comes to discussing and deciding on the government of the city, everyone can give their opinion : carpenter, blacksmith, shoemaker, merchant, rich and poor alike, and no one criticizes them for offering advice, even if they haven't studied anywhere. This doesn't mean that everyone doesn't need specific skills to practice their trade. The carpenter in his. The blacksmith in his. The shoemaker in his. And there is also a profession of politician. For this activity requires skills and training. Everyone can give their opinion to the boatman, the fisherman, or the craftsman, but that doesn't make them a professional in the field. Well then, let's try to recruit and train dedicated and competent politicians.

Xenophon : The greatest deceit, according to Socrates, is to pretend to be capable of governing the state when one is not. He constantly seeks the qualities necessary for someone who claims to be preparing to become a leader of the state. Socrates replies that such a person must not desire power for its own sake, for honors, to accumulate wealth, or for the pleasure of commanding. This type of argument, characteristic of Socrates, does not tell us whether he wished individuals to have power or not. He is simply discussing the qualities that those who aspire to it should possess. However, Socrates says that one must seek the middle path between the situation of a slave and that of a slave owner, between that of the oppressed and that of the oppressor. The position of tyrant, wealthy slave owner, hoarder, or successful politician seemed in no way enviable to him. Everyone claims that the man of power is the richest and happiest man, since he does as he pleases without anyone being able to stop him. For Socrates, these people, far from being free, are the most dependent ; far from being merely possessors, they are themselves possessed by negative and devouring passions that prevent them from seeking happiness in the simple pleasures of life : friendship, love, beauty, virtue, reflection, and reading. From this can arise a misinterpretation of Socrates' discourse, which can be taken as a general attack against the rich and against all statesmen. I recall, for example, Socrates' conversation with Crito, who was protesting against all the bureaucratic hurdles of the state. And Socrates uses the example of the sheepdog that wards off dangers lurking around the flocks. He deduces from this that certain men can be chosen to protect citizens who cannot defend themselves with weapons. Certainly, he discourages young men who already see themselves as heads of state without having the necessary abilities and without wanting to undertake the required studies : "Young man," he said, "it would be shameful to aspire to one day command the armies of the republic without learning the art of command." But, conversely, he could encourage a young man whose abilities he recognized but who underestimated himself. Generally speaking, he ridiculed not the act of governing a city or leading an army, but the act of not learning anything for it.“Don't you see that we wouldn't accept an ignorant person to lead the lute players, nor to direct the dancers, the athletes, or the masons, and yet we accept to lead the city and command the armies people who are incapable of saying what the state of Athens' production is, what its economic or military strengths are, and who launch wars without even knowing if the city has the balance of power to ensure victory !”

– Plato : If we were to open the doors of philosophy to the masses, enlightening each person individually, I greatly fear that centuries of instruction by thousands of eminent philosophers would not suffice. Such a statement should not be taken as contempt for the vast majority of our fellow citizens. Not only are they entirely unprepared for philosophical training, but it can only seem completely irrelevant to their immediate objectives. Just as one does not ask someone taking a short voyage to a neighboring island to learn how to steer the ship, why should one ask every citizen to understand the general philosophy of science and that of governing society ? Does the craftsman need to be intimately familiar with his own trade, or does he study the craftsman's trade in general ? Should the peasant study the art of the weaver, under the pretext that his thread will later be transformed into cloth ? He who is empowered to lead the whole of society must, through his actions, be prepared to ask himself the general questions common to all of society and its functioning. Neither the craftsman, nor the peasant, nor the merchant, nor the sailor, nor the fisherman has the habit, the training, or the preoccupation for this. It is among the guardians, those charged with the tasks of security and administration of the city, that one must look for the most philosophical minds, the citizens most concerned with the common good, and the men who have best equipped themselves to study the subject in question : the general science of all sciences, philosophy. Is it true that Socrates wished for the people to govern themselves directly, as some here seem to believe ? Have you not mentioned that Socrates reread the plays of Euripides and that they agreed on their political meaning ? Well, didn't Euripides declare in his play "The Suppliants," "Besides, how could the masses, incapable of sound reasoning, possibly lead the city down the right path ?" And didn't the same author say in his play "Orestes," "The crowd is a formidable thing when its leaders are wicked. But when it finds good ones, its decisions are always sound." In our republic, there is a genuine crisis of values, the very crisis that Socrates' ideas sought to address : a crisis of the family, a crisis of civic defense, a crisis of corruption, and a decline in order. It is essential that leaders of the republic not be afraid to confront this crisis, and they cannot do so by cultivating a false vision of the people. The people have a tendency to succumb to empty rhetoric, to lying sophists, and to flatterers of all kinds. To avoid descending into demagoguery, democracy must be tempered by the recognized competence of its leaders.

– Phaedo : You seem to have completely forgotten that Euripides' plays were so revolutionary that their author had to flee the city where his life was in danger for having denounced, through a great many plays, all the Athenian myths of glory and war. Remember how many of his plays featured heroes who were none other than the Trojan victims of the Greek massacres... And he didn't hesitate to say that the army commanders of this war, so glorified by Homer, hadn't gotten their hands dirty while the ordinary soldiers, drawn from the common people, had died...

Aeschines : For Socrates, unlike you, Plato, the common man—whether tanner, cloth merchant, farmer, or tailor—was the first among citizens. We all heard him say so. He never considered that his philosophy should be addressed to the elite, neither elite by birth, nor by wealth, nor by intellectual capacity, nor by education. Some of us learned everything by following Socrates' advice. The first piece of advice was to learn everything. For example, I, who was a student of Socrates, went from gymnast to prompter in the theater, actor, professor of literature, clerk, orator, lawyer, soldier, and philosopher. But, while Socrates favored study, learning each trade through its specific knowledge, he did not admit any superiority to the possessor of that knowledge, to the professional, whether mason, farmer, philosopher, mathematician, or politician. Socrates spoke with us as he would with the average person and looked down on no one. He did not believe that societal change should be the work of a group of men outside of society. And this was for a fundamental reason : the society he envisioned had to, first and foremost, satisfy all people and therefore be built by them, not just for them. This did indeed presuppose a community of goods, a point for which his opponents, such as Aristophanes, frequently criticized him.

– Plato : You claim that Socrates only had the working classes, artisans for example, in mind in his politics. But if a portion of Athenian citizens were not kept in a state of relative leisure with regard to productive and manual labor, they would not be able, as a good portion of Athenian citizens do today, to spend a good part of their day reading, discussing, going to the theater or writing plays, studying, and philosophizing. They would not be able to raise the level of their art and thought to the necessary height and develop the city's capacities in terms of thought, art, science, and politics. If Euripides had to earn his living by fishing, farming, or sailing, he would not have produced his plays, and Athens would only be worse off. But, conversely, it is pointless to ask the fisherman, the farmer, or the shoemaker to write tragedies. Never, for example, did the people of artisans rise above an interest in their own art to general thoughts and concepts, in terms of culture or politics.

Why choose philosophers committed to the scientific spirit to govern the city ? Because we know that these kinds of people are devoted only to truth and not to success, wealth, honors, or fortune ; that they will never cease to reflect and will not be satisfied with a received idea, but will go to the very end to understand the essence of things. If they are dedicated to the happiness of the city, they will therefore act in the same way, never being bound by their personal interests, just as they are when it comes to their science.

– Aeschines : When describing the new society to be built, Socrates spoke of four professions he considered absolutely essential, which he named : weaver, farmer, shoemaker, and mason. Then, after reflection, he added four other equally essential professions : blacksmith, livestock breeder, wholesaler, and retailer. He admitted that a portion of the population might temporarily become soldiers, but only in the event of an external attack. He never mentioned the ruling classes, nor the perioikoi, nor slaves, nor professions of power or state administration… He did not mention magistrates and other public officials, politicians, leaders of all kinds, or the wealthy classes, thus implying that they were not among the essential people of the city. This is how Socrates envisioned society…

– Plato : Of course, the carpenter must practice his craft and the fisherman his. They have their role and are indispensable in their own way. But they cannot simultaneously learn and practice the function of governing. Yet the city must be governed according to the rules of the art. The art of legislation and government can only be practiced by a small number of men. Indeed, the majority cannot acquire the knowledge to govern. Men are not capable of governing themselves because they cannot enact good laws. However, this does not mean dismissing the interests of the entire city. On the contrary, if the government is in the hands of the small number of men who possess the knowledge of governing and wish to use it for the common good, they can conduct policy for the benefit of the whole city. And these men will have the wisdom to guide the entire population toward the policies they will define as they go along. The legislator must be free from any obstacle in the exercise of their art. They must be entirely independent. The physician is obliged to leave their patients and write down their prescriptions. Before their return, their prescriptions may no longer be suitable for their patients. The physician will then be obliged to modify them. The same applies to the legislator when the prevailing circumstances have changed. In any case, an election cannot suffice to define who the competent physicians are, nor, likewise, who the competent legislators and strategists are. Socrates maintained that each field of knowledge requires specific qualities and training. Why should it be any different for the governance of the state, which everyone recognizes as a distinct art ? We have suffered enough from having placed at the head of the state men who possessed neither the skills nor the personal qualities required for these high offices. And the child of a mason is best placed to learn the mason's trade, the child of a farmer the farmer's profession. The child of a political leader will also be best placed to learn this profession. When we stop choosing these statesmen based on their competence, we fall into all the pitfalls we have just witnessed, namely corruption, tyranny, arbitrariness, and violence.

– Phaedo : Let us recall the words of the Athenians to the Melians who refused to submit : “Justice does not enter into men's reasoning when settling a dispute unless the forces on both sides are equal ; but those who are stronger do what is in their power, and the weak yield.” The relations between social classes are like the relations between city-states : it is a question of power dynamics, not just justice. The upheavals in Greece are not a struggle between vice and virtue, between honest and corrupt men, between dictators and democrats, between good and evil. To see it that way is merely to look at the surface of things or to believe the justifications that men give themselves. No ! The struggles that took place among the Greeks, as with neighboring peoples, between city-states as well as within the city-state itself, were class struggles : the struggle between herders and farmers—between warrior herders, patriarchal nomads and conquerors, and sedentary, matriarchal, and peaceful farmers ; the struggle between aristocrats, large landowners, and poor peasants ; the struggle between large slave owners and their oppressed ; and finally, the struggle between merchants and aristocrats. Even the struggle between Athens and Sparta was a product of the competition between these two city-states for the leadership of Greece, but also of the antagonism between Sparta, controlled by landowners, and Athens, controlled by merchants and traders working for the global market.

A merchant class did indeed develop three hundred years ago with the emergence of large-scale trade and Greek currency, inevitably creating tensions between the cities. Athenian democracy did not arise from an awareness of the people's interests, but rather from a social and political crisis. The aristocracy had accumulated widespread hostility, but the crisis had deeper roots. The old society of farmers and landowners had changed, while the system of domination remained the same. This was reflected in the constant warfare between the city-states. Ultimately, it gave great importance to the foot soldier, the hoplite. However, the recruitment of this infantry was based on wealthy peasants. These peasants, who lacked decision-making power within the city-state, saw no reason to risk their lives to defend it. The social foundations had been completely transformed : colonization had fostered large-scale trade and crafts. These activities became major sources of wealth, which could be expressed in monetary terms with the development of currency. For example, the city of Corinth became famous for its ceramics, exported throughout the Mediterranean. Entrepreneurship, investment, and speculation became possible. The change was not only economic, but also social and political. New wealthy classes emerged. Social inequalities widened between impoverished small farmers and wealthy merchants and financiers.

Solon was far from being a liberator. Let's not forget that it was under Solon that the slave trade became institutionalized in Athens and Greece. Until then, it only involved a few servants of the palace or the family. It was a personal relationship, and slaves were an integral part of the family. They were not objects to be sold on a large market. What Chios inaugurated—the sale of human beings as merchandise—was thus organized and then massively developed, starting with Solon. Athenian democracy therefore has the same origins and the same foundations as the most ferocious oppression…

The emergence of democracy was part of the reforms initiated by Draco and Solon to prevent these inequalities from sparking a social revolution. The old ruling classes, without political intervention, were unable to secure sufficient support from the excluded : slaves, foreigners, indebted peasants, and the urban poor. Despite these reforms, class struggle continued inexorably. The aristocratic classes, who governed the cities, found themselves threatened by this new merchant bourgeoisie eager to enter politics, influence societal decisions, and manipulate them to their advantage. This same aristocratic class had to fight to avoid being overthrown by populist tyrants. Crafts and trade (primarily maritime) developed somewhat later in the cities. However, the Greeks, henceforth harboring a great aversion to paid work, and especially manual labor, considered politics the only activity truly worthy of a citizen, the rest being left as far as possible to slaves or non-citizen foreigners. But this disdain for artisanal and commercial activities was by no means the case with Socrates, who neglected none of the manual arts, himself the son of a sculptor and a housekeeper… All trades seemed worth learning to him, and he never claimed that a sculptor's son should become a sculptor… Plato's view that a potter's child should be a potter, a warrior's child should become a warrior, a political leader's child should become a political leader, etc., is entirely his own and should not at all be considered a Socratic legacy. For Plato, who here makes a fine declaration of social conservatism, everything would be perfect in the best of all possible worlds if everyone accepted their place : the potter not to become a weaver, the weaver not to meddle in politics, and the slave to understand that this is his place. Never, ever did Socrates utter such nonsense ! On the contrary, he declared that he knew only men and not slaves, human beings and not potters, nor even warriors… He envisioned a classless society founded on the collective ownership of goods.

Who remembers what Socrates' profession was ? No one ! Posterity will remember him as a professional philosopher, even though no one ever paid him for it. For what allowed a citizen to become a hoplite was being able to pay for his own protective tunic. His true occupation during his adult life was also unpaid, and Socrates is truly the only soldier who didn't boast about it, to the point that most people don't even remember that he was a hoplite until the age of fifty, that he participated in numerous wars, always careful to respect his adage of not going to war for anything other than defending the people, not for glory, not for honors, not for fortune, even when these presented themselves to him. In such cases, he let his neighbors benefit, like Alcibiades once did, and many others… Socrates always showed that he did not despise manual labor, nor the exploited, nor even slaves, whom he considered equal to free men. This made him an inevitable enemy of all established powers, whatever their political form.

Phaedo : Socrates has sometimes been portrayed as a glorious soldier in the Athenian armies ! Socrates actually said : “It is said that I passed my interventions in the wars with honor, but where is the glory in that ? If I acquitted myself well, it was not due to a warlike temperament, quite the contrary. When I was nearly cited in the army's orders for saving many Athenians, it was only because I did not panic in defeat. When the entire army went into disarray and the fleeing soldiers were massacred, I remained motionless, attentive to what would happen next.” But it is true that the development of a hoplite army had revolutionized the attitude of the inhabitants, who demanded the right to decide for a society for which they shed their blood, unlike the time when only the nobles bore arms.

– Epigene What truly revolutionized Greece was neither the mindset of its inhabitants, nor the climate, nor democracy, nor tyranny, nor the rich classes, nor the poor classes, nor Persia, nor Athens, nor Sparta, nor Thebes, nor Corinth, nor Pericles, nor Solon, nor Draco. It was the invention of money and widespread monetary exchange. It was a veritable volcanic eruption that annihilated the old Greek society ! Of ancient Greece, only ashes remain, only appearances. We can no longer even understand this old society, so unlike the one we know. The old world has completely disappeared. Even the ancient mentality has been razed to its foundations. Not a single stone of the old edifice remains standing. The work of destruction and dissolution was brutal, radical, and inexorable. The peasants, both small and medium-sized, were ruined before being partially reintegrated into the new world. The place and role of the large landowners were completely overturned, their resistance easily overcome. Everything changed : economic activities, social relations, the goals of society, ideology, and power. Attempts to slow the transformation were futile. The center of gravity of economic and social activity shifted abruptly, without giving society time to find solutions, stages, or compromises. This is why Greece experienced such acute social and political crises. This is not fundamentally linked to the morality of the leaders, their competence, or their choices. Even the most capable were deeply shaken by the earthquake of a monetary economy entering a world without money. Money destroyed person-to-person relationships, respect for old customs, tribal ways of functioning, and the weight of family ties, replacing all of this with the accumulation of money, including through speculation, a completely new and previously unimaginable concept. Corruption became indispensable to these new relationships. Exchanges of trust between individuals took on an anonymous character even before transforming into large-scale international trade. In this new society, man is merely a means, and money an end. Money transformed human relationships into anonymous relationships with a virtual, distant, and intangible entity : the global market. The value of work and human relationships were brutally devalued. Suddenly, it became possible to amass a fortune without producing a single tangible good, simply through speculation. Work ceased to be the foundation of wealth. The entire edifice upon which ancient Greece was based was dissolved by money relations...This is how private appropriation transformed into the appropriation of money.That is why the fight for a just and humane world requires overturning this social order.

Xenophon : Personally, I don't see Greece as a society headed straight for ruin, one that could only be saved by establishing a community of property. My dear Phaedo, I would like to remind you that the revolution from which we all emerged was that of the Greek cities against the Persian occupiers, not the communist revolution. It was this struggle that forced them to unite, and unfortunately, as soon as this struggle is no longer an immediate necessity, the cities violently divide once again. The collective spirit that should animate them, far from being class struggle, must be the understanding of all citizens for the sake of social harmony, and this is what the political leadership of the city should aim for : not only social calm, but the happiness of each individual in their rightful place, and not the demand by everyone to access positions for which they are in no way prepared. This is the demagoguery that the so-called democracy has developed, to the great detriment of Athens.

– Plato : I fear that this somewhat narrow political dimension, which you defend so vehemently, Phaedo, presents Socrates as another Zeno, fighting dictatorships and false democracies, without giving Socrates his full philosophical dimension. You reduce him to the man of a few revolutions—the revolution of women, of the landless and slaves, or of the disenfranchised, of foreigners and slaves—but you forget that Socrates called for another revolution, a more internal one, which I would venture to call the conquest of self. When he debated with a banker, a financier, a democrat, or a dictator, Socrates always spoke to the man, assuming that he had before him another self, aiming, like all men, for moral as well as physical well-being, and he always demonstrated that behind the mystification of power and money, man remained fragile, hesitant, and open to question. It was because he looked first and foremost at the human dimension that he considered himself outside of Athenian or even Greek patriotism, but as a citizen of the world.

Euclid : You're really going off on a tangent, Plato ! To hear you talk, one would think Zeno was nothing but a coup plotter, a brainless revolutionary whose only aim was to overthrow a dictator and who was merely a disciple of Parmenides, without defending any original philosophical vision. Certainly, Zeno was a revolutionary to the very end, refusing at the risk of his life to denounce his comrades when he was arrested by the dictator he intended to overthrow, but he was also a master of philosophy. With his 80 paradoxes, he constructed a veritable body of reasoning, all of which hold up and are far from being gratuitous sophisms. They are binding clauses that anyone who claims to produce a system for explaining reality must consult. They prepare the way for the philosophy of science of the future, when we have greater knowledge about how the world works. The average person might find ridiculous the idea that Achilles cannot overtake a tortoise, but the rational person understands that this proof by contradiction aims to demonstrate a crucial point about time and space : they cannot be divided infinitely into any size. And this is a fundamental point for anyone who considers displacement, speed, motion, matter, or light.

I will take just one example from Zeno's reasoning. Has anyone ever seen a ball bounce indefinitely ? No, of course not. If we observe, for example, that the ball rebounds by half its height with each bounce, we might think that it will then bounce by half of that half, then by another half of that, and so on indefinitely. Yet this process stops. The same is true of a stone skipping across water. If the stone, slowed by the water's resistance, jumps each time by half the distance of the previous jump, we might think it could continue indefinitely. And we all know that this is not the case. The movement stops at a certain point, after a small number of skips. The same is true for the swings of a seesaw, which slows its course by half each time. It is therefore impossible to divide by two infinitely. So, if we consider a time interval and imagine that within this interval there are two halves, and then divide each half in two, we might think we could conceive of infinitely smaller time intervals through this dichotomy. However, thanks to Zeno's reasoning, we see that this type of continuity of quantities, which would follow one another at intervals as small as we like, is not physically possible. If these infinitely small intervals existed, Zeno demonstrates that there would be no movement. This doesn't mean he believes that movement doesn't exist, but that the conception of matter and the void is flawed. And this is where he agrees with Parmenides, who argues that the void cannot be non-being. If the void exists, says Parmenides, then it is a "being." Democritus's reasoning that matter moves from a place occupied by matter to an unoccupied place is invalid. This is where Zeno's paradoxes led. For once, Plato, I think there's a philosopher you haven't understood and whom you're criticizing without foundation !

This is precisely what Parmenides, in agreement with Zeno, observed in his dialogue with Socrates : “To suppose that one passes from rest to motion in an instant poses more problems than it solves. The instant seems to signify something like the starting point of a change in both directions, toward the past and toward the future. At the same time, the instant lies between immobility and motion, and it is simultaneously a transition from one to the other and from the other to the one. But at this instant, it is neither past nor future, neither rest nor motion. One might think that the instant is a constituent element of time, but this is not the case, for the instant has no duration, and one could pile up as many as one likes, it would still not amount to any duration. To suppose the instant as the origin of something, of some event, does not solve the problem any better, for it is to pass from nothing to something from nothing.” Therefore, we cannot separate moments, nor separate movement and rest, each on its own. They are all one.

Zeno's paradoxes ruled out many philosophies of matter that would be erroneous. Socrates recognized the merits of Zeno and Parmenides, with whom he had conversed, and he shared many of their views. Zeno was a student of the philosopher Parmenides, whom he accompanied to Athens 51 years earlier. There, they met Socrates. It was a mutual shock, despite Socrates' youth. Socrates had two striking characteristics : no fear of the prevailing ideology and no connection to the rigid conception of philosophy. He championed the dynamism of contradictions. Where some found opposing forces destructive, he considered them constructive. Back in Elea, Zeno began to engage in politics to change the established order and was arrested for participating in a plot against the tyrant Nearchus. He was tortured to death as a conspirator. At his death, Socrates was struck by Zeno's courage in the face of death. He told us that he thought about Zeno for a long time before drinking the hemlock...

– Terpsion : Indeed, after discussing with Socrates, Zeno developed his concept in the dialectical sense, according to which opposing elements are not separate, isolated, and independent. On the contrary, they are interdependent and inseparable, existing together within the same object. To demonstrate this, Zeno uses the example of a stationary object that begins to move. At that moment, it can be said to be both stationary and in motion. Similarly, in the case of a child being born, or any situation or event that is unfolding, two opposites occur simultaneously. Mobility and movement, unity and plurality, heat and cold, life and death are not to be separated but coupled in each particular situation. They oppose each other, but this opposition is inherent in each situation. Another law of dialectic discovered by Zeno is that of thresholds. A pile of sand differs from a sum of grains of sand. It is a qualitative leap. Zeno's dialectic, on the other hand, studies the links between movement and change : movement at one level presupposes change at another. Such was Zeno's dialectic.

– Crito : I would like us to return to the philosophy of Socrates, which we, his disciples, must be keen to make known, since our master did not, of himself, put his own thought into writing.

– Plato : I would like to emphasize a particular point of general philosophical science that Socrates uniquely discovered. I am reporting his words as accurately as possible, despite the complexity of the subject. Socrates observed that there is a class of intelligible things, a group that does not entirely encompass the class of visible (or perceptible) things. The human mind has knowledge of both what is visible (or sensible, which I would call shadows) and what is comprehensible (or ideas that are called rational because reason manages to include them in its analysis). But this does not mean that humans can superimpose these two kinds of means of knowing, understanding, and perceiving. There is always a discontinuity between them. Despite the greatest efforts of reflection, one cannot superimpose things that are, by their very nature, different and truly separate from one another. The rational understanding cannot encompass everything, nor can vision see everything. Socrates emphasized that we do not have direct contact with reality, contrary to what most people commonly believe. We are like people in a cave who only have an indirect perception of reality. We do not have direct daylight, but only a ray of light that penetrates through a narrow slit. Our images of objects are merely projections onto the cave floor. Accustomed to their dimness, these people would see nothing if they stepped out into the light. Our perceptions will therefore never see anything but shadows. The shadow of things certainly has a relationship with reality, but it is not a relationship of identity. All optical illusions are involved. Shadows contain altered dimensions that can, for example, be larger or smaller than the real object. The subjectivity and emotions of the observer also play a role. His entire previous worldview, the customs and teachings he has received about how things work, are all influenced by this and can significantly distort his perception and create illusions. The universe is therefore not equivalent to his shadow. Is it, however, identical to the one about which we reason ? Not at all. A person who reasons scientifically can claim the advantage of objectivity, remaining unaffected by emotions and feelings, thanks to their ability to perceive a situation from the outside, not content with what is seen, but even reasoning about what cannot be seen. Science can reason about a past we do not experience, about universes that astronomy cannot grasp, about scales that are not those of humankind.

Reasoning may require the rediscovery of concepts that will never be observed, visible, or perceptible. These concepts are essential for reasoning or calculation, for arithmetic or geometric mathematization. Socrates was the first to assert that if humankind can communicate about the world, it is thanks to these abstract images. The fact that these concepts are not visible does not make them false, but simply means that there exists a world of ideas with a validity different from that of the visible or perceptible world. It is possible that discoveries made through reasoning will go far beyond anything that knowledge will ever allow us to see. And there will constantly be a back-and-forth between experiences and knowledge. New knowledge will compel us to new experiences, and vice versa. Such is the path of the progress of knowledge, and it is endless. The correspondence between the two worlds (sensible and intelligible) is impossible. Visible reality will never fully mimic the real world. Only the world of ideas can be entirely rational, but not the world of visible objects. This was the philosophy Socrates taught me. And it led me to consider mathematics as the very heart of thought, and geometry in particular. It is the science of sciences, the most general science. On the other hand, the Pythagoreans who want to do mathematics without philosophy, especially without dialectic, are mistaken. They cannot perceive the contradictions of reality. They remain trapped in an abstract world of numbers, which they believe to be the only reality, which is wrong.

Rational analysis may require that humankind rediscover the concepts that represent the world and that are not readily apparent to the senses. These concepts are essential for reasoning, calculation, and even the geometric form that emerges from reflection. But the perfection that results from calculations and geometry is not the same as that of sensory perception. In fact, while we must be wary of the world of shadows, which can offer an illusory vision, and while the world of ideas is indeed that of science, we should not expect the world of ideas to lead us exactly back to the visible world. For example, numbers are human concepts and were a fundamental discovery. However, we must not conclude from this that numbers arise directly from sensory reality. We might believe that the numbers one, two, or three are part of our everyday visible reality, but this is incorrect. One plus one equals two is a statement repeatedly verified when we say that one sheep plus one sheep equals two sheep. But this would only be exactly true in the everyday world if two sheep were exactly identical, which is of course impossible.

Shadows can give us some information about objects, and reasoning or calculation can provide other information, but the two worlds—that of perception and that of reflection—will remain two worlds that can never become identical, which makes the search endless. Only the world of ideas can attain the purity, the accuracy, the precision that are the goals of science. The observation of objects will never, and cannot, achieve this purity.

The two worlds will continue to clash for the greater advancement of knowledge, without their struggle ever coming to an end.

Euclid : Plato, you consider geometry the foundation of the world. The straight line, a set of points ; the triangle, the basis of the entire world order, forming the basis of both the dodecahedron and the icosahedron, all the elements used to construct the earth, the sky, and the sea. And everything is founded on the smallest element, the geometric point, which, like everything else, is an idealization. I understand that these mathematical concepts are pure, even beautiful, but I don't approve of considering them the foundation of the world. A point without dimension is nonexistent. A straight line without thickness is imperceptible, invisible. The triangle, made up of four segments, has no more weight, force, or presence than the others. For someone who claims to follow Socratic dialectic, you seem to me much more like an adherent of Pythagorean philosophy, replacing number with the triangle. For Socrates, everything contains its opposite within itself, and this is what makes the world dynamic, always changing. Can you tell me what the opposite is that a point, a line, or a triangle contains, since they are always identical to themselves and immutable ?

Plato, you portray Socrates as a philosopher who only reasons about abstractions, which is far removed from the Socrates I knew. Even when you talk about Socrates philosophizing about human life, you present him as only aiming to discuss with each person the right way to behave in life, about morality, about virtue. As if Socrates claimed to know this right morality, this right virtue, this best way to conduct oneself. What a mistake !

Socrates the philosopher, yes, but Socrates the revolutionary, even more so ! The reason he doesn't preach revolution is because he has experienced it. He knows it's like a natural phenomenon, an event that isn't driven by individual desires, that can't be provoked, that doesn't need to be wished for, like rain or a storm. He doesn't aim merely to philosophize. He aims for societal change, for revolution. But rather than speaking of the means, revolution, he speaks of the end, the future society. He speaks of humanity's profound goals, of happiness. And to change the world, he seeks the means to understand it ; he trains seekers of truth. Only truth is revolutionary. This means he is far removed from the political calculations of the city, in which he has no interest. He is far removed from immediate interests. He doesn't rely on the publicity that political activity provides. He isn't afraid of being isolated. Defending ideas requires detachment from immediate and petty calculations. Socrates establishes a think tank. Its object : the universe. Everything can be discussed. There are no taboos. Everything leads to philosophy. One must learn. Reasoning is not immediate, but is the object of learning. Revolutionaries in too much of a hurry want immediate results and fuss so that their ideas will have an immediate effect. As a result, they make calculations that constantly distance them from the ideas that initially guided them. Changing the world requires understanding how it works, and this is far from obvious. The philosophy this requires does not stem from immediate experience and is often even in complete disagreement with the illusions of appearances. Consequently, he reiterates, one must never cease learning to think. Those who want action at all costs and quick successes will necessarily distance themselves from him, like Xenophon, Charmides, or Alcibiades. Those who wanted a philosophy acceptable to Athens would break with him, like Plato. Those who wanted to reject anyone who wasn't immediately revolutionary would also distance themselves from him, like Antisthenes. Socrates doesn't reproach people. They are as they are. He doesn't moralize to them. He doesn't urge them to be different. He simply allows them to observe their aspirations and how much they diverge from what drives them every day. He imposes neither his goals, nor his ideas, nor his objectives, nor his knowledge of the world. He debates with them because he believes that the seeker of ideas must discuss in order to progress. Socrates knows that our brain has its own little unconscious daimon. At some point during the night, in a dream, or in meditation, this daimon will give you the unexpected little impulse that will overturn what your conscious rational thought tells you, provided you have constantly unraveled and re-unraveled your philosophical preoccupations during the day.

Those who followed Socrates felt more intelligent, but not because he taught them knowledge. That wasn't his method. This method, as we have all seen here, elevated us. It never told us : you know nothing, you are nothing, you are wrong, you understand nothing, you should do this, you should be like that. Socrates invited us to walk together along the path of reasoning, refusing only to stray from it through all the detours to which society is accustomed : politeness, social hypocrisy, reverence for established values, ignorance, or submissive deference to knowledge. This didn't prevent any of us from following our own path and, consequently, from later turning away from him. This doesn't mean that his attitude toward ideas and life didn't profoundly affect us all…

With Socrates, you don't learn something, you don't study a field of knowledge. You learn that you are both far better and far worse than you knew. You discover that you are more ignorant and more knowledgeable than you thought. It's not Socrates who tells you who you are ; it's you who, unintentionally, reveals it to you. But that's not the main point. For Socrates, it's only a necessary step. The individual isn't everything. Social life matters to Socrates. He doesn't deny the existence of social classes and their importance. He doesn't deny the existence of political institutions and social ideologies in the mind of an individual. He discusses publicly with people from all walks of life, and many don't understand him. They see him talking with the poor and oppressed and think he wants to incite them to revolt. They see him debating with the rich and powerful and imagine he wants to convert them to some dogma, some kind of social reform. Complete misunderstanding. Socrates is outraged by the state of society, by poverty, by oppression, by war, by political and social tyranny, but he doesn't make his revolt a rallying cry. He believes that to transform the world, one must first understand it, which means understanding all classes of society. And understanding means self-discovery. The rich don't understand themselves any more spontaneously than the poor, that is, without the process of philosophical inquiry. Power is right in front of us, but its nature is well hidden from everyone's eyes. The dominant ideology also hides behind individual thoughts. Socrates' method aims to overcome these barriers. This mode of discussion is not common and will always surprise people, and many haven't understood it. They see a debate only as an exchange between shared or opposing opinions, between people who already know what they think. Socrates doesn't see it that way. He prefers to think he doesn't know and seeks to lead his interlocutors into a search for something no one knows in advance. In particular, Socrates doesn't know where this discussion will lead him. He follows a methodical path whose end he doesn't know. Because he believes that truth is always to be discovered, rethought, and reconstructed. We think we know many things. And many would find it difficult to live if they constantly had to question everything. But these things we think we know are often precisely what prevents us from thinking, especially since they are so difficult to let go of. They are ideological, social, or customary preconceptions, errors of knowledge, or false philosophies. They are sometimes false assumptions, whether sensory, logical, or conceptual. These are the enemies Socrates must fight. He believes that the world cannot be directly understood and that, to grasp it,We need to build structures of thought that did not exist before. This construction requires patience and reasoning.

This, for Socrates, is the purpose of the debate. There is no master and student, no teacher and student, no citizen and philosopher, but two or more men exploring together an unknown territory, even if one believes oneself to know it. This, Plato, is where the difference between you and your master Socrates begins. For you, the method consists of seeking an absolute, eternal truth, independent of humankind, unchanging and unalterable, which is not within the realm of the perceptible world. For Socrates, the process is human, fallible, never finished, not leading to a ready-made truth, not to an absolute, eternal truth. For you, concepts are objective, existing independently of humankind. For Socrates, we produce the concept. It is a free human creation that aims to encompass reality in ideas used to record facts, to communicate them among us, and to explain the world to us. The concept is therefore a product of human intelligence, for Socrates. It is dynamic. It has a history. It changes according to the times and can change according to the people involved, according to the circumstances. For Socrates, concepts are not situated outside of human life, nor outside of the material world, but rather in the connection between humanity and the world. The production of concepts is an ongoing activity of humankind, whereas, for you, it is established once and for all by God. We humans have produced our tools, invented agriculture, irrigation, and navigation, and have also invented languages, mathematics, and logic.

Approaching the fundamental notion of concept gradually, through definition and word, Socrates asked : "Every object we name has multiple, all different forms, whether it be a rug, an armchair, a tree, or a man. If I were to say to you : 'Now, Meno, here is what I would like to know from you : what name do you give to this thing by which all these forms come together and are all identical ?'" And, in this way, Socrates believed that one could access the formation of the concept, a free human creation enabling people to understand and communicate.

"By thinking, we transform the world," Socrates asserted. For you, Plato, we can only access shadows, the perpetual distortion of a reality that lies outside of us. Of course, some of us think it sufficient to claim you're lying when you invoke Socrates. But, as I believe I've sufficiently demonstrated through my paradoxes, all purely logical statements fall prey to constant, looping contradictions. The same applies to the claim that Socrates accused Plato, saying, "Plato, when you say 'Socrates is right,' you're lying." I would therefore refrain from using this type of formal accusation, but would simply tell you, Plato, that you are mistaken if you believe you are defending our master's views.

Antisthenes : If I shout "By the dog !", Plato, you haven't seen a real dog, not even in your mind. You haven't smelled it, felt the fear, seen the rage. You've only recalled memories, but you haven't yet seen the drooling mastiff before you, the one I'd like to see threatening you, even biting you, so that you'll stop denying its existence, beyond the concept. Because the concept doesn't bite ! There's a great distance between Plato and Socrates. Socrates observes that people manage to create concepts, the objects of reason, from things, the objects of material life that produce a sensory effect. It is concepts that allow people to retrieve the object in their minds from the word and, consequently, to exchange the idea with other people. For Plato, it is these "intelligible forms," as he calls them, that breathe reality into things ! In short, to put it somewhat simplistically, it would be the spirit of the tree that creates the tree ! While Socrates proposes applying the same philosophy to things as to ideas, Plato proposes absolute idealism : only ideas exist, and all lead to the absolute idea. But, if my dog bites Plato, he will see that the reality of the dog is no less than the idea of a dog biting ! The philosophy common, according to Socrates, to ideas and things, is the dialectic of contradictions, according to which the same object contains its own contradiction, and its generalization in the form of an idea must show how the interpenetration of opposites produces the element. This idealism of Plato seems to me the culmination of the conception held by many Athenians, according to whom only ideas matter and not material reality. These same people were averse to manual labor, leaving it to the slaves. Thus, Plato, who despises the sophists, seems to me to share their theoretical disdain for reality… Unlike Plato, I fear I will never be bitten by the idea of a dog…

– Plato You believe that reality is closer to the sensory world than to human thought. Appearances may seem to support your view. However, I would like to ask you : without abstract concepts, are you capable of drawing lessons from sensory experience ? For instance, Antisthenes, who is so proud of having seen a dog in the flesh and who speaks of it here, even though there is no dog in this room, has done more to contradict his own thesis than any of my speeches ! Let us examine his argument. He speaks of a dog. What is "a" and what is "dog" ? For my part, I have no sensory experience of "a" ! I have never seen one, I have never touched one, I have never smelled one, I have never heard one ! The same goes for "dog." I look everywhere. I see Antisthenes, but I see no dog ! How can he speak of things that do not exist without resorting to concepts ? Wouldn't he be a follower of the abstract concepts conceived by our master, Socrates ? Are there any sensory experiences in which one doesn't have to rely on memory ? Yesterday, I saw that dog. Today, I see the same dog. It's Euthydemus's dog, the one he was with the day before yesterday. How can I be so sure ? I'm no longer the day before yesterday. I receive no sensory impressions from such a distant time. I no longer see the scene. It's an abstraction for me to recall it ! There's no way to compare two situations without resorting to abstract concepts. Sensory certainty itself is only possible through the use of concepts. Take the sense of smell, for example. I say that I smelled the roast before entering the room. What roast ? I don't see it. What is a roast ? I haven't touched it. I don't know what it is. Et cetera, et cetera… Giving primacy to the senses over reasoning is a fundamental error. We are beings whose defining characteristic is not necessarily a superior sense. The dog smells better than we do. The eagle sees better than we do. The monkey touches better than we do. However, none of them seems capable of complex reasoning, such as meeting in Megara and discussing the meaning of Socrates' philosophy… If God gave us this special sense of reasoning, it was certainly not for nothing, nor to assign it a role inferior to the simple act of seeing, smelling, and touching… Of course, one might believe that a dog, a cat, and a human are the foundations of the concept of "one," which would not exist without the sensory experience of a thing in multiple forms. This is a profound error. The monkey sees an apple, a tree, and a human. Yet, it probably did not invent mathematics. "One" is a concept and not simply a grouping or intersection of sensory experiences. Some of you thought you were undermining geometry by asserting that a point is already purely abstract since it has neither length, nor width, nor area, nor weight, nor volume. However,They say that there is no object our senses can perceive with such absolute precision. They conclude that the point does not exist and that the senses are right. But their reasoning itself backfires. Where does an idea like the point come from, an idea that is not derived from our experience, since they themselves emphasize that this idea is not a generalization of experience ? We have no experience of an object without any kind of dimension. Well then, the world of ideas truly exists, and it does not overlap with the sensible world. We can think of things we do not see. We constantly talk about things and ideas we will probably never see. When one of us says Pericles, we know we won't see him again. When the Persians are mentioned, everyone jumps, and yet they are not there, at the door. Ideas, therefore, have a terrifying effect, my dear Antisthenes, as potent as the rabid, drooling dog you would have me encounter face to face… We do not see Socrates, and yet we are here exclusively because of him, for him, with him… Socrates has become far more than his real self, with his old cloak and his words. He has become a principle. And if we are here, it is because this principle is just as strong, Socrates dead, and perhaps even stronger. Socrates was indeed an idea and not merely a being of flesh and blood !

Eubulides : Plato, you chose mathematics as the key subject of reflection because you chose idealization as the ultimate goal of all scientific study, and also as the moral goal of humankind. However, we know full well, in our daily lives, that matter, humankind, and society are not rigorous in the same way that mathematics is. All people can agree on a mathematical statement, regardless of their social, ethnic, or regional origin, regardless of their culture, regardless of the era. They can predict in advance the result of the same calculation or the same type of drawing, performed by someone else. On the other hand, we cannot predict in advance what will happen when we break a vase, when we visit a neighbor, or when we go to war. Of course, we ask the Oracle of Delphi what we should do. But the Pythia only answers yes or no, and we are left to interpret the explanatory sentences that accompany this answer, which are far from clear. The error can then stem from a misinterpretation. This shows that human life is not as rigorous as mathematics. Praying to the gods is not enough either, since different gods can be in conflict with each other and may diverge in their positions on human affairs.

Unlike you, Socrates never considered idealization (number, figure, abstract notion) to be superior to reality. He certainly developed the notion of the concept as a communicable generalization essential to the functioning of the human mind, but this does not imply that the abstract is placed outside or above the real. The concepts he spoke of most often were those of goodness, beauty, the notion of society, of the human being, of thought, and of science—all notions that lack mathematical definitions. People can agree on the concept of number as well as on that of happiness, but this will not make them identical in reality. For example, everyone recognizes that, mathematically, one plus one equals two. But reality does not allow us to assert that one sheep plus one sheep equals two sheep. Such an equality would presuppose that the two sheep are identical, which is impossible. One can mathematically be equal to one, but one man is not equal to another man, one sheep is not equal to another sheep, and no object is identical to another. Conceptual identity exists and has meaning, but not identity between two things. This does not invalidate the mathematical approach, unless it claims to perfectly describe the real world.

– Plato : If the perfection of the concept, of the rational, of the abstract, of the geometric figure, of number, of virtue, or of wisdom were merely arbitrary inventions, without real meaning, how could we have them in our consciousness ? How could two very different people exchange opinions based on these concepts and accept statements based on them, regardless of their origin, their beliefs, their culture, or their era ? How is it that we manage to base arguments that have not been contradicted on such foundations, if these foundations had no real basis ? Conversely, why deny that imperfection is an approximation of perfection, that the approximate is an attempt to approach precision, that measurement leads toward the exact result ? Certainly, the circle we draw is never perfectly circular. All mathematicians know this. On the other hand, it is the circle conceived as perfectly circular, whose points are always the same distance from the center, that forms the basis of even the most approximate drawing. The ideal is not merely a vague aspiration corresponding to nothing real : it is a standard of reality. All circles drawn by imperfect geometers with imperfect tools on imperfect surfaces share the common goal of aiming for the perfect standard of the circle. The same is true of Goodness, Justice, the State, and Man. "No one has ever encountered the concept of 'man' in the street," Antisthenes quips, and on this point, one can easily agree with him. Yet when we speak of man, everyone understands who we are talking about without even seeing him. Except, perhaps, Antisthenes, who thinks we are talking about a dog !

Aeschines : Your vision, Plato, is certainly interesting, very intelligent even. Your idealism is logically pushed to its extreme, and it bears very important fruit. You can be proud of its origin. So why, in your writings, do you attribute it to Socrates ? It is by no means a concept you owe to Socrates, for he, far from believing in the existence of two worlds, one of shadows or the visible and the other of ideas or concepts, believed in a single world encompassing man and nature, thought and the universe. It seems, moreover, as your allegory of the cave confirms, that this reflects your conception of the separation between rulers and ruled—which is no more Socrates'—since you attribute to the multitude only the capacity to be interested in the world of sensations or shadows, the world of the rational, that of concepts, reasoning, and calculations, being reserved for an elite…

The philosophy, or love of wisdom, that Socrates professes is not opposed to an interest in human thought, and especially not to an interest in human life and social life. Socrates' "I know nothing" meant that, in awe of the richness of the world and society, humankind is constantly learning. And, for Socrates, even the least learned person is a philosopher, whereas, according to you, philosophers are an elite, the tiny minority capable of reaching the essence. The defining characteristic of humankind, of every human being, according to Socrates, is to be perpetually a human apprentice. Socrates seeks no definitive knowledge, nor any definitive morality. Plato, you seek the exact opposite : for you, the existence of authentic knowledge requires that the non-illusory world be unchanging. For you, essence lies purely in the world of ideas, in an absolute concept, whereas the real basis, for Socrates, is in actual life, in physical, human, and social reality. For Socrates, dialectic is the contradictory law of real change. Socrates, unlike you, did not scorn the materialist thought of Anaxagoras, nor the physical thought of Democritus and Anaximander, but even studied them thoroughly. He also did not reject Zeno's thought, while suggesting that he make greater use of the notion of contradiction. On the contrary, your conception of definition opposes Socrates' idea that the concept contains its own contradiction. You are certainly the most intelligent among us, but surely also our master's greatest disappointment. Wasn't it for you, Plato, that Socrates said : "What would be beautiful in the intelligence of a man whom the riches of the world do not marvel at ?"

Your absence during Socrates' final moments speaks volumes about the cooling of your relationship and the divergence of your viewpoints. You defend the idea of the Good, which you claim to have inherited from Socrates, but for him, it is not a definitive, moral concept. For you, dialectic is the science of immutable truth, whereas for Socrates, it is the science of confrontation, contradiction, and change—diametrically opposed. Man is at the center of Socrates' philosophy. The metaphysical being, the founder of the world, is at the center of yours. For Socrates, man is imperfection, the concrete, ongoing struggle. For you, the Idea is abstract perfection. Admit it, the character "Socrates" in your dialogues should really be called Plato ! I assure you, we would read your dialogues with far more interest and far less embarrassment...

Eubulides : Plato, you are a proponent of dianoia, or the discursive method of intellectual understanding, and not of Socrates' dialectic of contradictions, which encompasses the contradictions of being and those of thought. You developed the theory of form, or eido, and not Socrates' theory of the concept. You defend the search for the arche, the ultimate fundamental principle of the universe, and not Socrates' scientific method. You defend the existence of immutable and eternal fundamental truths, or anamnesis, whereas our master sought only truths on our human scale, that is to say, fragile, personal, and uncertain, and was more concerned with the questions than with the answers. And it is not the political vision that brings you closer to Socrates, far from it. Plato, you distrust democracy by considering that political competence is not a competence of the people. You criticize the democratic system for allowing the ignorant to believe they know, simply because their opinion is sought. Not only do you think the masses don't know what justice is, but you believe they cannot possibly know. Socrates believed that every person, regardless of their social or educational background, is searching for what is good, in order to act accordingly. Plato, my dear friend, you are certainly the most capable philosopher among us, but you are by no means a defender of Socrates' thought, even though you constantly invoke his character in your dialogues to defend your own views.

Phaedo : You are right, Plato, to attribute to Socrates the true discovery of the concept, the means by which humankind communicates about the world using abstractions, images, and generalizations. But what you consider to be the very image of the concept—mathematical notions—are very far from it. Indeed, for Socrates, the concept must contain within itself its own contradiction, just as every object and every situation derives its dynamism from its internal dialectic, from the internal struggle between its opposites. Humankind, for example, is neither good nor bad, but constantly torn between opposing tendencies. It is the site of a perpetual struggle. Society is not stable, but itself constantly pulled between opposing forces. Nature also presents incessant struggles, both within itself and within each of its parts. The concept must not only take into account this dialectical character of the notion one wishes to render abstract, but its definition must even be the clearest possible expression of this struggle. Those who have engaged most deeply in discussions with Socrates will all have observed that, far from reaching a conclusion, the debate, starting from one alternative, led to a new alternative. Such is Socrates' dialectic. For him, the one is inconceivable without containing within it the plurality. And the plurality has no other purpose than to lead to unity. Now, the "one" of mathematics is equal to itself and not to a plurality. This is not a dialectical notion. The concept of number is too fixed to be an element of a dynamic conception.

The thought that Socrates defended was not mathematical thought, but dialectical thought, in which everything contains its own opposite. Every person, for example, simultaneously desires a thing and its opposite. It is common for what attracts them to also repel them. Socrates rightly pointed out that a just person commits injustices, that good also contains elements of evil, that a concept must contain its opposite, explaining how the two are intertwined while simultaneously conflicting. Every society, like every living being or every part of the material universe, is founded on contradictions. He was thus very far removed from mathematical thought, in which a notion is not contradictory : two parallel lines are not simultaneously intersecting ; two numbers are not simultaneously equal and different ; a figure is not simultaneously triangular and rectangular, and so on. Only contradiction allows us to conceive of the dynamics of the world, whereas number, point, and line have a fixed character. Rain and sunshine are opposing forces, yet they are united within the cloud, a structure produced by both. The same colors can destroy each other in a painting (producing black) or complement each other in rays of light to produce white light. The concept must account for the contradictions of reality. The image of a world without contradiction would be a world without change or movement. One of the merits of Zeno's paradoxes was to show that movement opposes any logic of exclusive yes/no, without internal contradiction. If one can say that an object is completely motionless and another is completely in motion, then movement does not exist because one cannot pass, even in infinite time, from non-movement to movement !

Plato, you aim to remove the contradictions that exist within Athenian or Greek society, whereas Socrates did not seek to erase them, nor to hide them, nor even to diminish them, but, on the contrary, to bring them to consciousness. The evolution of Greek society is the product of its contradictions, and its crisis stems from the phase in which these contradictions are exacerbated to the point of becoming explosive. This is what makes Socrates' philosophy revolutionary and yours, Plato, conservative. Some of you claim that Socrates did not want to engage in the quarrels of the philosophy of science, which he considered pointless. This is not accurate. He had indeed been forced to renounce them publicly, but continued to reflect on them privately. And, above all, he believed that the philosophical debate was fundamentally the same whether it concerned the personal goals of the individual, the social goals of the City, or the world of the conservation and change of matter. The advantage, according to Socrates, of using the theme of everyday life was that everyone would have their own opinion on the matter, allowing for an equal debate between the average person, the scholar, and the member of the ruling class. Each would believe they possessed their own answer and could thus contribute meaningfully to the discussion. And, once again, Socrates did not want to impose his lessons, but rather to allow everyone to fully develop their own thoughts.

– Aeschines : Aristophanes knew that Socrates continued to study nature, and in his play, he mocked the philosopher who falls into a well while trying to gaze at the stars. This was a way of denouncing him for always wanting to give a philosophical interpretation to nature. This would, in fact, be one of the charges at his trial. As a young man, Socrates had been forced to leave and officially renounce his teacher Anaxagoras, who had been condemned for atheism by Athens. He had decided, therefore, to opt for the study of the philosophy of social life rather than that of nature, which had just been rejected by the city. For him, this was simply a way of continuing to philosophize in the same direction, since he did not separate social life from nature. But he did not want the same thing to happen to his disciples : for them to be forced to renounce him.

Xenophon : It is true that Socrates had studied mathematical and physical theories with several masters in these fields, but he believed that it was impossible to decide between the various theories of his time, whether that of Parmenides (the unity of being), Leucippus (infinite multiplicity), Heraclitus of Ephesus (the perpetual motion of bodies, or everything is born and everything dies), or Zeno of Elea (absolute inertia). For some, everything changes. For others, change is an illusion. For some, matter is one. For others, it is plural. For some, all truth lies in the stars. For still others, it lies in the study of matter on Earth. For some, everything is water, earth, and fire. For others, everything is made up of triangles. For still others, everything is number. Deciding between these opposing theses is a daunting task, given the current state of our knowledge. Engaging in the debate is endless and ultimately futile. Of course, Socrates developed philosophical concepts about the world, but he did not claim that one should derive rules of conduct from observing the heavens. For that, he relied on social norms, the virtue of citizens, and divine providence expressed through oracles and offerings. If someone wished to rise above human understanding, he advised them to practice divination, to seek to know the will of the gods through the signs they send us. It was his adversaries who, in order to discredit and eliminate him, tried to spread the rumor that he claimed to understand the celestial bodies, the stars, the universe, lightning, and thunder in his philosophical studies, attacking the Athenian belief that these things carry messages from the gods to guide our actions. By Jupiter, I can attest that these accusations are false !

Eubulides : I don't think Socrates ever relied more on oracles and offerings than on the pursuit of truth through science. He certainly believed that a debate could more easily be established on happiness, virtue, and the proper way to educate citizens than on matter and motion. And above all, he thought that the same philosophy applies to all questions, because there is only one world. When he wanted to develop the philosophical conceptions of those with whom he debated, he simply had to take each person's favorite topic as his theme. With the stonemasons, he spoke of masonry. With the military, of the art of war. And so on… But if we look beyond appearances, Socrates was always pursuing the same debate. His thesis is that we need a philosophy to understand the world, regardless of our profession, social standing, or origins. And it was on man that he relied, not on the gods, on conscience and not on belief.

Socrates is a believer in knowledge. However, knowledge is opposed to the gods, as illustrated by the myth of Prometheus, who stole the treasure of knowledge and paid dearly for it with endless suffering. Prometheus replied to Hermes, the servant of the gods, “I hate all the gods ; they are indebted to me, and by them I suffer unjust treatment. (…) Know this clearly, I would not exchange my misery for servitude like yours. I believe I would rather be enslaved to this rock than be a faithful messenger of Zeus, father of the gods !” Socrates' “Man is the measure of all things” stands in opposition to a discourse of the type “God is the measure of all things” or “morality is the measure of all things.” Knowledge, according to Socrates, is a human endeavor, that is to say, a search by man for his own existence and not for an ideal universe, and therefore not a quest for God.

Socrates ' "Know thyself" meant that man should seek his truths within himself and not in divine mythologies, miracles, oracles, sacrifices… We note that he only ever quoted the first part of what was inscribed on the pediment of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi (a god whose name he rarely spoke), which read : "Know thyself, leave the world to the gods." For Socrates, man becomes the measure of all things. Socrates explained to Xenophon that "men are never happier than when they know themselves." This is a very different approach from seeking to know God and deriving a way of life from that knowledge…

Moments before his death, in his prison, Socrates discoursed on beliefs about death : “When the dead arrive at the place to which their respective daemons lead them, they are first judged, both those who led honest and pious lives and those who lived badly. Those who are recognized as having maintained a middle ground in their conduct go to the Acheron, embark in boats that await them, and carry them to the Acherusias swamp. There they dwell and purify themselves ; if they have committed injustices, they bear the punishment and are absolved ; if they have done good deeds, they receive the reward, each according to their merit.” Those deemed incurable due to the enormity of their crimes, who have committed numerous and grave sacrileges, many homicides against justice and the law, or any other crime of the same kind, are destined to be cast into Tartarus, from which they never emerge. Those recognized as having committed expiable, though great, sins—for example, those who, in a fit of anger, have committed acts of violence against their father or mother and have spent the rest of their lives in repentance, or who have committed murder under similar circumstances—must necessarily be cast into Tartarus ; but when, after falling in, they have spent a year there, the current casts them back out : the murderers into Cocytus, those who have laid hands on their father or mother into Pyriphlegethon. When the current carried them to the edge of the Acherusias swamp, they called out loudly, some to those they had killed, others to those they had violated, then they begged and implored them to let them into the swamp and receive them. If they were persuaded, they entered and saw the end of their suffering ; if not, they were again carried off to Tartarus, and from there into the rivers, and their punishment continued until they had persuaded those they had wronged ; for such was the penalty imposed upon them by the judges. Finally, those who distinguished themselves by the holiness of their lives and were recognized as such were exempted from these subterranean dwellings and freed from this imprisonment ; they ascended to a pure abode and dwelt on the earth. And among these very people, those who have been completely purified by philosophy live in the future without bodies and in dwellings even more beautiful than the others. But it is not easy to describe them, and the time remaining to me at this moment would not suffice.”
And he concluded : “To maintain that these things are as I have described them is not fitting for a sensible man.”

So, even at the very gates of death, Socrates did not waver : he believed neither in hells nor in paradises, those images that men themselves produced to rest from the fear of death.

The Greek gods succeeded one another without supplanting each other, just as ancient forms of social domination overlapped without eliminating one another. Consequently, theology transformed into a history of the gods. In the beginning, there was Chaos, then Gaia and Eros. Next came Cronus, Zeus, and Rhea. The hierarchy of the gods emerged alongside that of societies. Human kingship produced god-kings. Agricultural societies gave rise to goddesses. Warrior societies produced heroes, half-divine beings. Centralized society chose to centralize the gods. The twelve greatest gods then reigned over Olympus, ruling a multitude of other gods and heroes. And now, with modern Greece, thinkers like Plato offer us a new perspective with a single god. But Socrates did not reason in this way. He believed that man should question himself about his own actions and not just question the gods, because the latter are only a reflection of human behavior…

In his speech to the tribunal, Socrates only mentions a deity once, when he refers to Achilles' mother, Thetis, as a goddess. He never mentions Apollo, Zeus, or any of the other Athenian gods. Socrates mocks Meletus for mistaking him for Anaxagoras and claims that Meletus asserts the Sun is a stone and the Moon is made of earth, instead of being gods as most people believe. But he doesn't explicitly state that he believes the Sun and Moon are gods. As for Socrates' religion, it is based on trust in each individual's moral compass and their ability to find their own path in life. It has nothing to do with sacrifices, the need to make the gods speak during these rites by examining entrails, or other beliefs common to the Athenians.

Xenophon : By Zeus ! It was wrongly accused before the Athenians of despising the gods of Athens and introducing new ones. You will notice that, even at his trial, Socrates was not accused of not believing in the gods in general. I am astonished that the Athenians could have believed that Socrates held guilty opinions about the gods, he who had said and done nothing impious, he who always respected in his actions the virtue he defended in his words. Socrates had observed and personally experienced the various manifestations of spirits in the lives of men : dreams, contemplative states, visions, the prophecies of the Pythia, inner voice, premonition, trance, hallucination, hypnosis, and so on. He in no way sought to deny their importance in human life and, on the contrary, wanted to discuss further how men and women lived in harmony with their inner voices. Launching these kinds of pointless debates will do nothing to improve the lot of the Athenians, the Greeks, or humanity in general. Our problems are too serious and too urgent to resolve to get bogged down in such discord. The way we govern and defend the city must remain central to our concerns, as must the way we want citizens, from the humblest to the most powerful, to behave in their personal and collective lives.

– Aeschines : There's no point in hiding the gravity of Socrates' positions from us. Socrates' enemies were well aware that they went far beyond a few reproaches concerning the gods of Athens. They were much more explicit on the political front. And, on this subject, they weren't just hearsay. Socrates was indeed fighting the policies of the ruling class. Admittedly, he fought them primarily with words, but this ruling class and its politicians believed that, given Athens' critical situation, these criticisms were dangerous for them. When Socrates had suggested before the tribunal that he was merely advocating virtue, the response had been violent :

“But, by Jupiter,” the accuser exploded in anger, “he was inciting contempt for established laws, since he was asserting that it was madness to rely on the choice of a black or white bean, on drawing lots, to choose the magistrates of a republic, while no one would want to trust chance to choose a ship's pilot, an architect, or a flute player, even though the mistakes these men might make would be far less harmful to society than the mistakes of those who govern the State. Such speeches inspire young people with contempt for the constitution and drive them to violence.”

– Hermogenes : I had the opportunity to discuss the gods with Socrates. I explained to him that, in my opinion, the gods, being omniscient as well as omnipotent, are so close to me that, thanks to their care, they never lose sight of me, neither night nor day, wherever I go, whatever I am about to do. Moreover, since they foresee the consequences of every action, they tell me, by sending me messengers of words, dreams, and birds, what I should do and what I should not do ; for my part, when I obey them, I never regret it ; but there has already happened that I did not believe them and I was punished for it. When I explained this to Socrates, he replied : "Well, there's nothing incredible about that ; However, for my part, what I would enjoy learning is how you honor them to make such friends of them.”
This is how Socrates argued : he wasn't debating belief directly, but rather the lives of men, including whether those men believed in gods. This may sometimes have given some people the impression that Socrates had said he believed in the gods or that he didn't. It's very difficult to answer this question. In fact, Socrates had chosen to steer the discussion toward something else : how men construct their thoughts and how they choose their way of life.

– Plato : How can we question the gods ? On what basis can we answer this question ? I propose we reflect on what comes to mind and how it comes to us. Let's take mathematics, for example. Everyone recognizes that humans can conceive of mathematics, and this domain is characterized by a perfection quite unusual in human life. This is proof that there is a truth that transcends the world we know. As the circle, the triangle, and the hexagon show, we can conceive of perfection, and we know that the one who conceived air, fire, and water certainly possessed this capacity to conceive of perfection. The world around us was conceived, and certainly it was conceived by a single builder, from simple elements like the circle, the triangle, and the hexagon. Despite the diversity of appearances, the existence of the world suggests to us that its construction was the work of a single mind capable of building the world as a whole. Of course, this world is difficult for us to understand because we cannot directly access the elements of its structure. Like the men in the cave, we perceive only shadows, projections onto the imperfect back wall of the cave. However, the few elements of perfection that, despite our limited capacity, we manage to grasp—for example, in mathematics—show us that the perfection of order is best suited to understanding this world whose appearance is disorder.

– Aeschines It is understandable that such opposing opinions exist regarding Socrates' views on the gods. Indeed, some make a mistake in taking Socrates' methods of discussion for positive assertions. I myself attended, along with Xenophon, a conversation between Socrates and Aristodemus. Xenophon is convinced that Socrates defended the existence of the gods and their providence. I believe the opposite. Socrates debated according to the knowledge and convictions of his interlocutors, defending the gods with an atheist and opposing them with a believer, just as he defended politics with a participant who detested politics and opposed it with a politician. At the same time, he discussed within the framework of his interlocutor's thinking and not with the aim of defending opposing objectives. Let us not forget that Socrates believed that internal contradiction (and not external contradiction) is the driving force of everything, illuminating all things. This is why he explains why believers make offerings when he discusses them with Aristodemus, who ridicules them. He is not trying to defend the gods, but to understand humanity. He sees these offerings not as ridiculous behaviors, but as fundamental human attitudes that should be studied and understood, rather than simply ridiculed by non-believers. Furthermore, he believes that Aristodemus will learn more about his atheism by delving into the reasons of believers than by laughing at them. He thus asks Aristodemus to find atheistic explanations for the questions that, in the eyes of believers, legitimize the existence of the gods : why does man possess the capacities that distinguish him from animals, how was the world made, how is it that we have organs that function effectively if they were not made by gods, where does life and death come from, where does intelligence come from, if all this was not produced by the will of the gods ? In this sense, Socrates plays devil's advocate, and this is one of the points that often irritated his interlocutors, who didn't see at all where he was going with this. It is up to the atheist to demonstrate that he is capable, without invoking the gods, of explaining the differences between humans and animals, the development of human intelligence, the reasons for human behavior, both individual and social, and so on. On the other hand, Socrates discusses much more the practice of religion, how it influences people's beliefs and actions, than its validity in itself, because he is primarily interested in how people live. And death is part of life. Consequently, he discusses what believers should do : for example, should they make large offerings, or only those that correspond to their financial means ? He explains that, for the believer,The gods should not be more moved by a lavish gift than by one proportionate to the giver's means, especially if that giver is poor. It's clear that his concern is much more than simply ensuring that people don't ruin themselves over the dead. Furthermore, he explains that once the soul has departed, the dead person should be buried promptly. He agrees that one can cherish fond memories of the deceased, but he believes that the lives of those who remain should not be sacrificed for this purpose. This means he considers a person to be definitively gone when they die, and that it is pointless to try to preserve their body at all costs. This rather contradicts the beliefs of those who believe in immortality. Generally speaking, Socrates advised treating the living well, rather than the dead.

When Socrates discussed the gods, he was actually discussing the way men live. For example, we didn't hear Socrates take an oath "by Jupiter" or "by Apollo," but rather "by Juno," which implied that he was appealing to the female gods to distinguish himself from all those who constantly invoked the male gods. Again, does he believe more in the female gods, or does he simply want to signal his opposition to the subjugation of women ?

Let us not forget that Socrates discussed with each of his interlocutors based on that person's own goals in life and their own conceptions of existence. His starting point was always each individual's personal answer to the question : "What is the purpose of life ?" This meant that he spoke about art with the artist, politics with the politician, war with the soldier, discourse with the orator, dreams with the dreamer, and belief with the believer. This does not mean that he himself was a dreamer or a believer. Rather, he wished to lead each person to a deeper understanding of the meaning of their goals in life. He believed that humans should act as consciously as possible. This is very different from wanting to follow the gods. Following one's own conscience (one's daimon) is not about adhering to an externally imposed morality. It is up to each individual to question for themselves what is good, and beliefs affirm knowledge collectively for all. Socrates believed that what matters to a person is how they lived, while the believer thinks that what counts is what happens at death and after. Each person must find their own path, whereas religious people believe that doctrine should dictate everyone's actions. Making each individual the judge of their own actions and thoughts is the opposite of appealing to gods or a god to judge them.

– Critobulus : Socrates asserted that "Man is the only animal that believes in gods," but did this signify, for him, human superiority or human strangeness ? Did it mean that humans had invented the gods, or that the idea of the existence of gods had simply taken hold of them ? It's not clear. Was it an expression of greater respect for humanity, in its capacity to know the gods, or, on the contrary, a greater ridicule of the human species which, in its great presumption, went so far as to invent them ? I have the impression that Socrates was more likely to laugh at humanity's presumption in creating gods than to endorse it.

– Plato : Of course, citizens have no reason, in the current situation, to respect the gods, given the ridiculous way in which they have been portrayed by poets, particularly Hesiod and Homer. How can you possibly have any regard for gods who are weak, greedy, lying, vicious, jealous, cruel, capable of committing murder and other misdeeds, just like humans ? Such gods, who violently oppose each other, do not act wisely, and offer nothing positive for the moral development of the citizen, for the education of younger generations, for social cohesion, or for the stability of the state. On the contrary, the state must ensure that the image of God is one of perfection, immutability, continuity, truth, and security. Every person must be able to find a reference point in this, regardless of their origin, social standing, or personal history. It is the greatest crime of the poets to have presented the gods with all the flaws of mortals. How could they possibly inspire any respect ? This description by the poets of ancient Greek society leads us to believe that the vices and flaws of the modern world have always existed, that the ideal does not exist, and that only individual interests prevail and always will. How can you expect children to be educated to build an ideal society, to be capable of governing the city in the general interest instead of seeking immediate gains and illusory success ? Depravity, corruption, and moral laxity can only result. God should serve to remind us what good is. Our gods do not play this role at all. They are constantly at war, whereas social peace should be their primary virtue, the example they set for citizens… As for Socrates, far from neglecting individual morality, goodness, virtue, justice, and righteousness, he constantly sought them, striving to reach this ideal that we rightly call God.

– Phaedo The very foundation of belief in the gods is that peoples do not build themselves, but are built by kings, by heroes, by beings who surpass them. Needless to say, Socrates fought against such a conception. It is people who make their own history, even if they don't do it haphazardly and don't act in the way they generally believe. What Socrates criticized in the myths disseminated by Homer and Hesiod is not what you criticize them for, Socrates. You regret that these poets did not disseminate stories that legitimize the State, the institutions, the dominant ideology. Socrates criticizes them for having invented a false heroism, masking the true aims of the ruling classes of ancient Greece, the objectives of their wars, their alliances and betrayals. And above all, he criticizes them for making people believe that the State built them. That's false ! Greece was born, and gave birth to its crafts, industry, commerce, and fleet, in a society that did not know the concept of a state, even when it had elected kings. The development of the Hellenic world was not the product of the domination of states like Sparta or Athens. No, it was peoples, seeking protection against warlike invasions, who colonized the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. The conquest of the vast trade routes of a powerful state was by no means the goal of these Greeks who spread the world of the Hellenes ! Being dominated by a powerful state is not an objective for the common people. Consequently, people are not compelled to believe in gods who decide their fate for them. The central idea of religions and superstitions is the belief that humans have no choice : their lives are supposedly already decided elsewhere, beyond their control, in the material universe they know. Our friend Hippocrates of Kos, also a great disciple of Socrates, was a physician renowned far beyond his region for demonstrating that illnesses could be explained by natural forces without resorting to beliefs, gods, demons, or various forms of sorcery. He thus showed that epilepsy was an illness like any other and not an expression of demonic possession. He developed a medical method for examining patients, based on studying their past, the events that occurred at the time the illness began, examining the symptoms, and so on. The central figure in all religions is a destiny that is imposed upon humankind. Whether called Apollo, Zeus, or by other names, a god is not dependent on human intervention. To believe in such a god is therefore to believe that the essence of human destinies is decided elsewhere than where humans themselves can intervene. Beyond religions, Socrates primarily fought against the idea that man cannot intervene in his own destiny.

– Metrodorus : I believe that Socrates defended a philosophy of nature, in which there is no need for gods external to the world. Human beings do not exist in a world separate from that of matter, animals, plants, and even things, from the earth to the stars. It is humans who have given life to the gods they have invented, and Socrates never participated in the charades of false gods. He always believed that people should first reason using their own capacity for judgment, rather than asking priests to judge for them. He allowed friends to consult the Pythia, relying first on the way the question was posed and then on the way the answer was interpreted, so that the rational mind of humankind would take charge of responding correctly to the situation.

Xenophon : You're mistaken. It was the domination imposed by Athens on the rest of Greece that Socrates fought against, including ideological and religious domination. Consequently, he didn't align himself with the Olympian gods, but for political reasons, not religious ones, because he would have been an atheist. Even when accusing him, Athens didn't claim to see Socrates as an enemy of the gods and religion in general, but as an enemy of the state religion specific to the city, which Athens aimed to impose on all of Greece. At his trial, everyone could see that, accused of not believing in the Athenian gods, the name of Apollo didn't even cross his lips ! Let's not forget that his friend Euripides called Apollo, one of the principal gods of Athens, a "wicked man," and didn't hesitate to insult Aphrodite and Artemis. And Euripides thus reflected Socrates' point of view, since they discussed each play together in detail before it was performed. Let us not forget that his other friend, Alcibiades, present here, had been accused, on the eve of his departure at the head of the Athenian fleet—certainly wrongly, but this matters little to the slanderers—of having mutilated the faces of the statues of Hermes in Athens. The fact that the Pythia of Delos had chosen Socrates as the best of the Athenians further reinforced the risk he represented as a figure beyond the spiritual boundaries of the city. The city of Delphi was opposed to Athenian domination, whether political or ideological. No one in Greece dared openly oppose the Pythia of Delphi, but Athens was far from pleased that Socrates, publicly supported by Delphi and considered by them "the wisest man in the city," was becoming an obstacle to the establishment of gods specific to Athens and who sought to impose themselves on all of Greece. Alcibiades was not the only one of Socrates' disciples who was used against him.

It is true that the accusation played on two fronts and could sometimes seem to condemn Socrates for atheism. Critias of Athens was thus one of the grounds for Socrates' accusation, and this political enemy was also marked by religious convictions. Had he not been a disciple of Socrates before participating in the regime established in Athens under Spartan leadership after the Athenian defeat ? Yet Critias had displayed, in his plays, a provocative atheism. He too had been labeled a sophist, hostile to the gods of Athens, and therefore a critic serving to undermine Athens' confidence in its own strength. Finally, in Aristophanes' theatrical accusation in his famous play "The Clouds," there was an accusation of atheism. Diagoras of Melos having been accused of atheism, Aristophanes cleverly referred to our master as "Socrates of Melos." But these accusations of atheism are unfounded : Socrates was never an atheist and never participated in debates about the gods, abstract disputes he considered pointless. He did not discuss these subjects, believing it useless to debate rationally what belongs not to the realm of reason, but to the realm of emotion. Aside from the slanderers who sought to discredit him, one cannot attribute to Socrates any general rejection of all the gods, for he did not develop such a viewpoint, while also refusing to grant Athens any recognition of its own gods.

– Aristodemus : A plague on the gods and the religious ! That's what every follower of Socrates should be able to proclaim, and I'm astonished to hear a completely different discourse here. Socrates was condemned for condemning the gods, and you continue to defend these gods in whose name our master was killed. I can only call that treason and deceit. People are led by the nose in the name of the gods. They are driven to destroy one another, to wage war. The gods serve only to push people into submission to dictatorships, into submission to exploitation, to slavery. They do nothing to humanize the world but to make it more barbaric. And we are still asked to make sacrifices and offerings to the gods so that society continues to become harsher for the oppressed and gentler for the oppressors ! Go ahead ! Bow down before Zeus, Apollo, or even Hera, if that amuses you ! The gods will never save you from anything, least of all your cowardice ! Bow down like this before a so-called destiny imposed upon you, a destiny that serves only the ruling classes ! But don't say that Socrates taught you to act this way, because by saying so, you are lying ! He never knelt before the ruling class, even at the cost of his life. Don't tarnish his memory by spreading lies about his thought ! For by acting this way, you are killing him far more than the powers that be and the Athenian ruling classes ever could. They took advantage of a moment of confusion among the Athenian people, but they know that public opinion will turn in Socrates' favor. But you, the so-called disciples, are preparing the way forward by ensuring that the people no longer find any meaning in the way Socrates aspired to transform society. To the fire with the exploiters, the oppressors and their defenders : the rulers, the political powers, the religious institutions, the ideologies of submission ! As for the arguments about Euripides only attacking the gods of Athenian Olympus, let us remember that Euripides, and with him Socrates, wrote that "Since the gods do ugly things, commit base actions, they are not gods !"

Simmias : For me, Socrates consulted his personal daemon, but this "daemon" wasn't a god. He knew that by reflecting, pondering, and dreaming, answers would come to him—answers he didn't initially know. He trusted, or felt compelled to believe, the ideas suggested by his inner soul. This isn't the same as believing in the gods. It was more like a personal daemon speaking to Socrates as if nature were conversing with him... Through meditation, he detected another voice dictating answers different from those of his own conscience, but he considered it a daemon of his own. Meditation, dreaming, or reflection didn't mean prayer, offerings to the gods, gifts to priests, or recourse to soothsayers. To Euthydemus, who said to him, "It seems, Socrates, that the gods treat people with even more kindness than other men, if it is true that, without being questioned by you, they tell you in advance what you should do and what you should avoid," he replied, "You too will recognize that you can know this in advance, but on one condition : do not wait for the gods to reveal themselves to you. Simply observe what is happening around you and wait for answers yourself. If the gods exist, these answers can only be those they have suggested to you." Note that Euthydemus knew that Socrates did not question the gods, and therefore expected nothing from offerings, sacrifices, oracles, preachers, predictions, or other forms of sorcery...

On the other hand, Socrates seemed religious to some because he meditated a great deal. But it was a way of concentrating, of letting his mind weigh and re-weigh his thoughts and dialogues. Socrates often reminded us that the leisure of doing nothing is the most precious possession. It seemed strange to us that he would defend idleness, inaction, and passivity in this way. We didn't understand this idea, which he nevertheless considered fundamental. For Socrates, it meant that far from the superficial, one could cultivate the essential : inner thought. Leisure is the time to dream, to contemplate, to imagine, to let our minds invent, guess, wander, and explore unknown worlds. We rarely get to be alone with ourselves, and we then realize that the most important dialogue takes place, the one within. He explained that if our dreams seem so extraordinary to us, it's because most of us never allow ourselves to simply think outside of the night. To engage in such quiet contemplation throughout the day, he said, all you need to do is take the time. It's incredible, then, the sheer number of ideas, images, intuitions, and thoughts—each more extraordinary than the last—that appear in our minds, thoughts we've never conceived before, and which seem to be whispered from an inner spirit. By constantly bustling about all day, we stifle this spirit, we don't allow it to express itself, and it only explodes when we're asleep and can no longer silence it. Yet, it's an incredible richness we forgo by refusing to spend time meditating, contemplating, dreaming, and thinking… All you need to do, he said, is stop by the sea, forget that you have a thousand things to do, settle down under a pine tree and contemplate its trunk against the blue of the sea, gently feel the breeze, and let your thoughts wander to the sound of the waves. This, in my opinion, is one of the fundamental secrets of Socrates' personal philosophy. Those who have seen in Socrates only a figure always ready to engage in dialogue, to argue, to criticize, to reason, to debate, miss the point of his philosophy. He spent hours concentrating on himself, dreaming, playing the lyre, doing nothing. "That is the most important activity of my day," he would say. This was not the contemplative attitude of a religious person isolating themselves from the world. It was the attitude of a philosopher who seeks his inner truth and considers it a long exploration, both alone and with others.

Antisthenes : You're right, Simmias, and Socrates even declared : "It's something that began in my childhood, a certain voice that, when it makes itself heard, dissuades me from what I was about to do, without ever pushing me to act. That's what prevents me from getting involved in politics." His conscience dictated that he denounce the ruling classes without playing the political game of democracy. Which god would Socrates have worshipped ? Would he have gone to Delphi many times since the Pythia honored him ? Not at all ! Would he have declared that he made sacrifices to one god or another ? Not at all ! He simply considered it pointless to debate such questions directly with believers. What has no rational basis doesn't need to be contradicted rationally. The gods, therefore, don't deserve to be debated, since those who believe in them base their beliefs on no rational argument.

– Aeschines : Socrates' daimon is his inner voice, the one he consults when he meditates, dreams, or speaks to himself. It is both his conscious and unconscious mind. Socrates invented a version of the unconscious that has nothing to do with a deity. He observes that when we reflect, if we find philosophical, scientific, or mathematical reasoning, it is because these reflections were already potentially present within us, without our being aware of it. He wonders how it is that our brain was already prepared for this type of reasoning. He answers that we are simply rediscovering things we already knew how to do, things that existed within us virtually. This has nothing to do with religion or even with any abstract ethical morality. It is a reflection on how the mind comes to humankind. Socrates sometimes felt his unconscious pushing him in a strange direction without his conscious knowledge of why, and he would then trust this kind of instinct. That was where this daimon resided...

As for the gods that were beginning to be institutionalized by the ruling classes, Socrates was as far removed from them as he was from all the goals of the exploiters who manipulate the people with a pseudo-democracy as they manipulate them with ceremonies and sacrifices, in order to better strike them ideologically and better chain them.

Xenophon : I don't share your views. I don't think Socrates was godless, nor that he sought at all costs to provoke the wrath of the ruling classes, but he was, in his own way, engaged in politics. He didn't approve of the decisions of the politicians of his time, which is quite different. He had particularly suffered to see men who had fought for Athens unjustly dragged into trials and condemned. He certainly rejected the choices of a leader like Pericles, who had managed to capture Athenian popularity through a policy of reckless expansionism in both war and trade. I observed with him how many democracies have been overthrown by men who preferred any other form of government, how many monarchies and oligarchies have been destroyed by popular factions, how many ambitious individuals have been stripped of the sovereign power they had just usurped, and how much we admire the good fortune and skill of those who have managed to maintain their hold on power, even for a short time. This does not make him a revolutionary, nor an enemy of the gods or the social system. It is his enemies who accuse him of this, and I was unaware that his friends could spread such rumors.

Thus, Aristophanes, in his play "The Clouds," attributed to him the following false statement : "By what gods do you swear ? First of all, gods are not common currency among us." But this wasn't reported exactly. For me, not only was he not godless, but he was possessed by spirits. He often said that he listened to words in his head and that a voice told him what to do. He was oriented differently from the Athenians and seemed to place his faith in a single god, but he didn't readily express it, considering debates on such opinions pointless. As for his choice not to truly defend himself at his trial, it seems to me dictated by the fear of growing old and suffering from a thousand ailments due to advanced age.

Antisthenes : By the dog ! It's as if we didn't know the same Socrates ! You portray him as a very wise figure when he constantly challenged the powerful and the self-righteous, including his friends, every single day. So much so that I think, a year after his death, you miss him so much that your critical thinking has already become quite dulled. You'd think, for example, that Socrates was the representative of the Greek gods against the Athenian gods. Complete misinterpretation, my friends, because Socrates told anyone who would listen that the only god is to be found in all of humanity and the only morality in the happiness of all people. As for beliefs in malevolent and benevolent beings, magical protections and other demonic lies, he distances himself from them, stating that those who consider themselves capable of playing such a role are a little too self-assured : "Superstition follows pride, and obeys it as its father."

As for each individual, they must seek their god within their own conscience, their "daimon," as Socrates called it. It is up to each individual to listen to it when it tells them what to do with their life. But he did not claim to have solved social problems through moral rules, which could only be resolved through the struggle between oppressors and oppressed. In fact, treating members of the ruling classes as individuals in his public debates with members of the ruling classes was simply a critical technique used by Socrates to show the public that the motives of those in power did not correspond to human criteria ! Socrates is a visceral enemy of all forms of power, including so-called democracy, an enemy of all orders, including the moral or religious order. He does not establish virtue as a new order, but addresses people as needing to find within themselves, and not in an external law, the source of their own conduct and personal thought. To portray him as the master of a mere school of philosophy or the leader of a revolutionary circle is equally wrong ! That's how I understand his "I am no one's master" ... He also said : "If you want to follow me, don't worry about where Socrates is, just seek the truth..." As for his communism, in my opinion, it boils down to the ability of every person to live with few possessions and not constantly strive for more. Consequently, we avoid glaring inequalities, the perpetual pursuit of luxury, surplus, and competition, and the excesses of exploitation and wars of conquest. That's my Socrates. He was the one who wasn't afraid to appear in public as a person of few possessions and who refused to become rich. Socrates refused the money that many citizens offered him, including very wealthy men like Archelaus of Macedon, Scopas of Cranon, and Eurylochus of Larissa. Goodness is internal, said Socrates, and he practiced his own philosophy to the point of making the richest citizens ridiculous in the eyes of the majority, without fear of the consequences...

Aeschines : Antisthenes, you exhort the ruling classes to renounce their money, to live as beggars, to wallow in the mud, and thus claim to either convince them or ridicule them. Instead of living in the comfort of perfumed baths, you offer them mud baths and, as a place to relax, a floor soiled by dogs ! What good do you expect this to do for society as a whole, except for a few young people who amuse themselves by following you to laugh at your antics ? Your model of humanity is Heracles, the one detached from everything, and you attribute this attitude to Socrates. But in doing so, you misunderstand him : Socrates certainly refused power, honors, wealth, and pomp, but he was not disengaged or detached from the common people. He did not despise them for wanting to live cleanly and properly. You declare that a cloak is enough to live on, and a meager meal as well, and that this is the means of not depending on society. Socrates was proud of his old cloak and his poor, independent life. But he derived no superiority or glory from it. That would have implied that all those who do not live as beggars are at the mercy of the ruling classes, and that was not at all his point of view. As for poverty, whether chosen or not, it is not necessarily synonymous with virtue and wisdom. It can also signify selfishness, passivity, and misanthropy. Glorifying the way of life of animals is not enough to convince us that we are simply animals. As for you, Aristippus, for you pleasure is the supreme good, the ultimate goal of human life, and this supreme good is a gentle movement accompanied by sensation. Pleasure is a gentle movement, while pain is a harsh one. The goal of life is the pleasures of the senses, those of the soul being secondary. But can you claim that Socrates advocated this type of objective, he who asserted that happiness is internal much more than based on the satisfaction of pleasures and sensations ?

Lysias : Antisthenes, your interpretation of Socrates is certainly as insolent as his character, but you may be making a misinterpretation. Insolence was not an end in itself for Socrates, and even provoking the ruling classes was by no means enough for him. You are right, in my opinion, when you say that Socrates was godless. Socrates asserted that only virtue can lead to happiness. Far from making it a religious morality, he relied on debate among people to establish virtue within the community. In short, Socrates believed that salvation could be found not through the gods, but through reason alone. His "daimon" was nothing other than personal conscience. He did not waver in affirming this opinion, even under the worst threats. Never, at his trial, even when his life depended on it, did Socrates directly affirm his belief in the city's deities : Athena, Zeus, Apollo, and so on. Yet, this was the main ideological accusation against him. The domination of the Olympian gods appeared fundamental in Athens, and not only for ideological reasons, but primarily for political ones. To dominate the gods of Greece was already to dominate Greece itself. However, where I disagree with you is that you don't attribute any political purpose to Socrates' activities, because you were probably unaware of the secret plans of his revolutionary circle. But Socrates was a political figure in Athens throughout his life. He couldn't imagine taking to the roads to seek refuge in another city, because that would have meant placing himself under the protection of another Greek city with the same social constraints, thus forcing him to compromise his principles to adapt to the power of some oligarch or tyrant, or even to politicians as demagogic as those in Athens. It was in this sense that he preferred death to exile, to preserve his political legacy and pass it on intact to future generations. But I do mean political legacy, which in no way diminishes his philosophy, his art, or his conception of humankind and its role on Earth... As for his trial, Socrates could very well have won, as I won mine against my brother Eratosthenes' murderer, but he would have thus lost the battle of ideas he was waging against Athens. By spilling his blood upon his enemies, he began to provoke a reaction against them among the Athenian people, which certainly did not reverse the ruling classes or the course of events, but it left an indelible mark on history. Greece will forever remain associated with the philosophy of Socrates.

– Ichtyas : I completely agree with you on this point, Lysias. Everything about Socrates is political, whether it be his philosophy, his morals, his goals, or his perspectives, and I would like to remind you of his words to Glaucon :"Let us first consider the State. (...) What constitution is meant by oligarchy ? It is the form of government founded on property qualifications, where the rich rule and the poor have no share in authority. (...) This hoarding of gold, where everyone piles up, is what destroys this kind of government. First, they discover reasons for spending, and to satisfy them, they bend the laws and no longer obey them, neither they nor their wives. (...) Necessarily, such a State is not one, but two : that of the poor and that of the rich, who inhabit the same land and constantly conspire against one another. (...) It is certain that, if no obstacle is placed in their way, some will be excessively rich and others destitute. (...) It is evident that wherever you see beggars in a State, the same place harbors thieves, pickpockets, sacrilegious people, and evildoers." of every kind. (...) Now, just as a small, weak body needs only a slight external shock to fall ill, and sometimes even disturbances erupt without any external cause, so too a state, in a similar situation, becomes prey to disease and internal warfare at the slightest opportunity. (...) Is it not the same in a democracy founded on money ? Was it not excessive wealth that served to establish the oligarchy ? (...) Well, it is the same pursuit of money, the same insatiable desire, that causes the downfall of the democracy founded on the same insatiable desire for the accumulation of goods. (...) The same disease that, born in the oligarchy, caused its ruin, also arises in democracy, develops there with greater force and virulence, and reduces the democratic state to slavery. (...) Let us mentally divide the democratic state into the three classes of which it is composed. The first is the same a breed that has developed at the head of the oligarchy. (...) Then there is another class that always distinguishes itself from the multitude. This is the class that seeks money. (...) The third class is the people, that is to say, all manual laborers and private individuals uninvolved in public affairs who have only a small amount of wealth. In a democracy, this would be the most numerous and therefore the most powerful class if it were assembled. But it is hardly inclined to assemble. (...) The people are accustomed to choosing a favorite whom they place at their head and whose power they nurture and increase. (...) And the protector of the people begins to transform into a tyrant. (...) This is the moment for all the ambitious who have reached this point to resort to the famous request of the tyrant, to ask the people for bodyguards, so that the "defender of the people" may remain to serve them. And the people give them to him ; for all their fears are for the defender of the people. He does nothing in his own defense : he is too self-assured. (...) In the early days,He greets everyone he meets with nothing but smiles and greetings, denies being a tyrant, makes numerous promises both privately and publicly, forgives debts and distributes land to the people and his favorites, and feigns benevolence and gentleness toward everyone. (...) But, once he has dealt with his external enemies, (...) he constantly instigates wars so that the people will need a leader. He also arranges for the citizens to be impoverished by taxes, thus forcing them to focus on their daily needs and less likely to conspire against him. And if he suspects that some of them are too independent-minded to submit to his rule, war provides him with a pretext to destroy them by handing them over to the enemy. For all these reasons, a tyrant is always compelled to foment wars. (...) Thus, in reality, whatever some people may think, the true tyrant is a true slave, of extreme baseness and servility, reduced as he is to flattering the most wicked men, powerless to satisfy his own desires in the slightest (...) He spends his life in continual fear, prey to convulsive pains. (...) But besides these evils, he is a victim of those that power develops even further, namely envy, treachery, injustice, and a lack of friends. (...) So, will the wise man refuse to take part in public affairs if he has such ideas ? By Jove ! He will attend to them in his own state, and actively. 'I understand,' he replied, 'you are speaking of the state whose plan we have just outlined, and which exists only in our discussions ; for I do not believe that there is one like it anywhere in the world.' (...) It matters not whether this State has been realized somewhere or is yet to be realized, it is on this one and this one alone that it will base itself and whose laws it will follow."He spends his life in constant fear, prey to convulsive pains. (...) But besides these ills, he is a victim of those that power develops even further, namely envy, treachery, injustice, and a lack of friends. (...) So, will the wise man refuse to take part in public affairs if he has such ideas ? No, by the Dog ! He will attend to them in his own state, and actively. 'I understand,' he replied, 'you are speaking of the state whose plan we have just outlined, and which exists only in our discussions ; for I do not believe there is one like it anywhere in the world. (...) It matters little whether this state has been realized somewhere or is yet to be realized ; it is on this one and this one alone that he will focus his attention and whose laws he will follow.'He spends his life in constant fear, prey to convulsive pains. (...) But besides these ills, he is a victim of those that power develops even further, namely envy, treachery, injustice, and a lack of friends. (...) So, will the wise man refuse to take part in public affairs if he has such ideas ? No, by the Dog ! He will attend to them in his own state, and actively. 'I understand,' he replied, 'you are speaking of the state whose plan we have just outlined, and which exists only in our discussions ; for I do not believe there is one like it anywhere in the world. (...) It matters little whether this state has been realized somewhere or is yet to be realized ; it is on this one and this one alone that he will focus his attention and whose laws he will follow.'

It seems to me that, after such statements, we can hardly claim that Socrates was condemned by Athens simply for engaging in philosophy in a somewhat unconventional manner. No, it was indeed Socrates' revolutionary politics, inseparable from his revolutionary philosophy, that was condemned.

Socrates never supported any kind of state. Liars have spread the rumor that he favored the Cretan and Spartan states, their methods, or their goals. This is absolutely false. For Socrates, the state was created not to liberate the people and enable them to accomplish their tasks collectively, but, on the contrary, to oppress them in the name of a supposed common interest of the rich and the poor. The state represented the primary means of stripping the people of all power and a tool for suppressing social revolutions.

– Plato : No, by Zeus ! The State is not, by nature, hostile to civil society. If it becomes so, it is through the accumulation of errors, vices, unfavorable circumstances, and above all, through the incompetence, ignorance, and greed of those who govern it. What should the State be ? It should correspond to the goals for which it was established. What are they ? To ensure the security and well-being (housing, clothing, and food) of all its inhabitants. Doesn't the State arise from the fact that the individual cannot be self-sufficient in ensuring their subsistence and security ? The State must ensure the stability of relations between social classes. It is not responsible for abolishing these classes, but for ensuring their harmony. This harmony stems from the fact that everyone sees their property protected and their future secured, according to the place reserved for them in society. All people must feel protected within it, regardless of their class, rank, or profession. Like an individual, a state only develops harmoniously if it moderates its passions, limits them, frames them, establishes rules of conduct, and respects them. The democratic state believed it had found a remedy for the ills afflicting societies by constantly changing its medicine. One had no effect on the ailment, so another was tried, then ten or a hundred more. The remedy is changed almost daily. This does not mean that the cause of the illness has been treated, an illness on which no thought has been given even a moment. Let us remember those mutinous sailors who wanted to take turns at the helm, but none of whom wanted to reflect on the art of steering a ship…

The role of the State is to ensure that even the poor are happy to live in this city, and this must be achieved by establishing, outside of society, a special class of men who are the guardians of order and security. These guardians must be specifically recruited and trained. One of the objectives of this training and the organizational structure of the guardians must be to ensure that they do not seek to use their force for anything other than the public good, nor to profit from their weapons to enrich themselves, nor to dominate citizens, nor to repress them unjustly. The Republic is the foundation of our society ; let us not undermine it with our criticisms. Let us instead try to propose a fairer functioning of the State and even define what the ideal functioning would be, remembering that what is decisive is the general criterion and not just the vagaries of history. Without the State, we must recognize that the two classes, rich and poor, can only tear each other apart without any benefit to either side, with the sole result being the general weakening or the implosion of society. Justice is not the abolition of classes, but their mutual satisfaction on freely agreed terms. For this to happen, the State must be the same for all. The guardians must be properly organized to avoid all the abuses we have witnessed. These warriors will be sober and courageous. Once they have a house, land, money, and a wife, the guardians will become wise and will not be a nuisance to the city. And above all, the future of this State will depend on the fact that, among the guardians, statesmen are selected, trained, and organized for this very specific purpose, which requires personal qualities and skills that cannot be expected of the average citizen. The governance of society must be scientific. It must be the work of citizens who have mastered the dialectic of science and are committed to the common good. They must not be driven by a thirst for power or money, but by a passion for politics, for governing the city, just as scientists are driven by the rational study of the world. They must consider their role an art. Some of you seem to think that Socrates wanted the destruction of armies and the state, that he was against all forms of government. The lesson we must, in my opinion, draw from these experiences is the necessity of choosing the men and women who will lead the city from among the most philosophical minds. For philosophy is the knowledge of all knowledge, the science of all sciences.

Antisthenes : If you believe you, Socrates defended the government ! By Jove ! I can swear the opposite is true ! Didn't Socrates say to Aristippus : "I consider him truly insane who, not content with providing with great difficulty for his own needs, wants to personally place himself at the head of the state, only to find himself one day brought to trial as guilty if he doesn't satisfy all the whims of the people—isn't that the height of madness ?" I hear talk here of order, authority, respect for power, social stability. Socrates didn't speak like that. He constantly cultivated in young people the sharp criticism of the regime, even when the young people he was teaching belonged to the ruling class themselves !

Xenophon : Young people owe respect to their parents. Certainly, if Socrates had said anything suggesting that one should reject all parental authority, no longer follow their advice, no longer love them, he would have been wrong. The family is a pillar of social order and must remain so. I too dreamed of the ideal city and even entertained the idea that, with the Thousand, we could build such a city in Asia. We wondered then how we would construct such an ideal world. Reality overtook us, and our dream remained just that. Authority is not a principle to be denigrated when one wants to build a just order. If everyone does only what comes to mind, how can you expect a society to function ? Of course, I have more experience with the military, since I participated in it from my childhood. In that domain, everyone recognizes the necessity of obeying authority. However, this certainly doesn't resolve the question : on what can this authority be based ? Parental authority must rest on their benevolence towards their children, on their ability to defend what is right, when these children are not yet old enough to distinguish between good and evil. People are not always capable of making this distinction. The role of enlightened leaders is to patiently show them the way. It is necessary to earn their trust and not use it to deceive them. This is not so different from the case of an army commander. He must constantly address his soldiers, cultivate their trust by explaining what will happen and why they are fighting. It is not enough to devise a strategy ; one must command men. And one must have the capacity to sometimes transcend the prevailing spirit of the times. For example, in a society that places foreigners below it, one must be able to bluntly offer them the opportunity to participate at the highest level in the armed forces. Let us not forget that this is how Sparta recovered. The Spartan cavalry only began to distinguish itself from the day it agreed to integrate the metics en masse ! The authority of a leader also lies in this ability to go against public opinion, leading it in a direction it did not intend to go. This is the opposite of the methods of demagogues, the effects of which we have so suffered in recent years in Athens, and which Socrates condemned. Let us not forget that Socrates was a hoplite. He was a soldier longer than any other profession. And, in the army, he first learned to obey rather than to command. He said that freedom is obedience to laws, those of nature as well as those of society or of man. And nature, like society, seemed to him harder to obey than the worst army commander !

Eubulides : Plato, you speak of the government of philosophers as a central idea of Socrates, but you surely remember that Socrates said, "Philosophers have neither eyes nor ears for laws and decrees, whether proclaimed or written. Whether some good or bad befalls the state, the philosopher knows no more about it than he knows the number of drops of water in the sea." If Socrates believed that a state led by virtuous and philosophical individuals was the key to the future, why would he have refused to participate in it and discouraged all his friends from applying for its leadership ? Many of us, including Alcibiades, Charmides, Hermogenes, and Xenophon, asked him this question, and his answer was always the same : Do you think the social system depends on one person or two ?

– Plato : I think that's a misinterpretation. Socrates himself served honorably in the army and participated in a government. I, too, participated in a government for a few months. Of course, both of these experiences demonstrated the limitations of exercising power in a state that falls far short of the ideal I described. Others among us have also had such experiences of participation in power, even at the highest levels of government. This doesn't mean they could change the state and society as they pleased. Entering political action blindly, without developing a philosophy, without clear objectives, without studying the political function of government, is a source of serious disillusionment, which can then lead to exaggerated criticism of any state and any form of government. Socrates didn't condemn Alcibiades for participating in power, but because he had the pride to believe that Alcibiades was manipulating the ruling classes, when in fact it was the other way around. The lesson we must, in my opinion, draw from these experiences is the need to put an end to the demagoguery that claims the people know who is most competent, and to choose the men and women who will lead the city from among the most philosophical minds. For philosophy is the knowledge of all knowledge, the science of all sciences.

– Phaedo : Plato, your morality of ethical virtue may be very valid, but it is far removed from the philosophy I heard Socrates defend. Socrates sought the economic, political, social, and human conditions of a society aiming for the happiness of all. He did not expect this from a morality imposed from above by any power whatsoever. He sought the revolutionary form of government of the people, not the stability of a state above the people.

– Theaetetus : I would tend to agree with Plato. Politician, certainly, Socrates was, but not in the sense of demagogues who seek only popularity, nor in the sense of politicians from the ruling classes who don't have the people's best interests at heart. Certainly, he didn't believe he could act in the people's best interests' stead. But that's not all : from those who were to govern, Socrates expected not only the will to do good, nor virtue, but also professional competence. The mason has a profession and a skill. So do the actor, the musician, and the political leader. Didn't he say that the trireme needs a captain who is also a navigator, that the army needs a strategist, that the chorus needs a leader, just like the government ? Especially the revolutionary who must conceive of something new. Politics is a science, he said, and science is not self-evident. "Science and philosophy are inseparable. A science that is not founded on philosophy is worthless." , he said, and therefore, it is not enough to observe in order to understand, one must philosophize.

Let us remember that his last words, before his death, recalled his fundamental philosophy :
“Now, do not limit your inquiry to men, if you wish to discover the truth more easily ; extend it to all animals and plants, in short, to everything that has birth, and let us see, in considering all this, whether it is true that nothing can be born except from its opposite, when it has an opposite. Let us therefore examine whether it is a necessity that everything that has an opposite is born from nothing other than its opposite.” Socrates always told us :

"How do you discover truths ? In your observations, notice contradictions. Rub them together like two pieces of wood to obtain light. Knowledge springs from contradictions."

"Being and non-being are present everywhere, at all levels. Becoming and movement are always simultaneously being and non-being."

The establishment of democracy by the ruling classes was, in his view, the most striking example of contradiction. At the very moment when the ruling classes were ostensibly granting democracy to the people, they were at the very moment when they most feared the people seizing power. This is what I wanted to emphasize, because it seems to me that what Socrates criticized in this false democracy was its pretense of giving the people a voice, without seeking how they could knowingly decide what their true interests were—that is, on the basis of what ideas they could emancipate themselves.

– Echecrates : The accusation included, among other things, the charge of "recklessly working to scrutinize things that are under the earth as well as those that are in the heavens." It is unnecessary to constantly claim that Socrates did nothing, to pretend that he did not fight against religion, that he did not seek to understand the world, nor to transform it. Especially since this is not true. Yes, Socrates sought to understand the world. Yes, he wanted to transform it. Yes, Athens did not condemn him unjustly. It condemned him through a reactionary development, rejecting all progress of ideas. We have already explained at length the circumstances under which Athens experienced this reactionary phase. Let us not try to suggest that it was a case of astonishing blindness. Socrates sought to found a revolutionary group that remained hidden from the Athenian authorities. Of course, it seems necessary to me that there exist a clandestine group of men determined to fight for the freedom of all. Pythagoras, like Zeno or Socrates, based his work on the formation of a group of men organized separately and specially trained. And the goal of this work, his philosophy, is the aspiration of humankind, the search for harmony.

Aristippus : The goal of humankind, as Socrates always emphasized, is happiness and virtue. Fighting for a future society, as I hear it expressed here, never seemed to me to be his aim. Socrates' death, in this sense, is not the opposite of his life : a refusal to go against the meaning of his existence, whatever the final cost, even if it is death. As you say, Theaetetus, Socrates considered existence itself contradictory, that death is in life and life in death. For something new to be born in Athens, it may have seemed necessary to him to die. It is not a sacrifice, but a new birth. It is a dialectical movement, in which internal contradiction is the very principle of transformation.

– Plato : Socrates' dialectic has always been, first and foremost, a means of allowing people to delve into the depths of their own thoughts and discover their innermost philosophy. Contradiction is the role of the one who questions, who probes, or who allows the subject to go as far as possible into thoughts buried within them, thoughts they have always refused to examine. Presenting Socrates' thought as a closed thesis seems wrong to me. The contradictions Socrates speaks of are those of someone being questioned, seeking to escape a web of questions that allows them to arrive at their own truth. As for the social and political system for the city, it is true that Socrates defended one, but I believe it has been caricatured here, and that it is rather the thesis of his opponents that has been presented to us, and it served primarily to discredit him. It was a mendacious version aimed at ridiculing him in order to better destroy him in the eyes of the general public. He reportedly wanted, for example, a community of women, or the abolition of Athens' role. He simply refused to allow women to be disregarded and emphasized that all his mentors and teachers had been women. He criticized the fortification of Athens and the construction of its arsenal as tools of Pericles' warlike and conquering policies, but this did not extend to waging war against the political or social role of the city. For my part, I have never seen in Socrates' discourse an abstract and general rejection of slavery. For him, community did not mean the sharing of great wealth, but rather a city governed in service to all. Even though I might be accused of looking out for my own interests as the son of a prominent family, I don't believe that Socrates' philosophical goal was communism... I sensed that some of Socrates' disciples here would be quick to denounce my interpretation of Socrates' ideas, claiming that Plato is no longer the same and no longer follows our master Socrates. I assure them : I will continue to disseminate Socrates' ideas as I have understood them.

– Phaedo : Treason, indeed. How else can one understand that, during his lifetime, against his wishes, you disseminated in his name theses that he denounced as false ? How else can one understand your absence at the trial and, again, your absence during the final moments of our master awaiting death in his prison, Plato, you who were his best student, certainly the most brilliant ? How can one understand your acting as if Socrates were a gentle, self-serving orator ? Who can believe that you didn't know Socrates had a communist and revolutionary project ? How can one understand your acting as if you had never participated in his clandestine revolutionary circle ? I remind you that after hearing a reading of Plato's "Lysis," Socrates exclaimed : "How this young man puts words in my mouth !"

– Plato : Before spreading a false rumor, remember what Socrates said when someone came to him one day and said :

– Listen Socrates, I have to tell you how your friend behaved.

"Stop !" interrupted the wise man. "Have you passed what you have to tell me through the three sieves ?"

"Three sieves ?" said the other, filled with astonishment.

– Yes, my good friend : three sieves. Let's examine whether what you have to tell me can pass through the three sieves. The first is the sieve of truth. Have you checked if everything you want to tell me is true ?

– No, I heard him tell the story and...

– Good, good. But surely, you've put it through the second sieve. That's the sieve of goodness. Is what you want to tell me, if it's not entirely true, at least something good ?

Hesitantly, the other replied :

– No, it's not a good thing, quite the opposite...

"Hmm," said the philosopher, "let's try using the third sieve, and see if it's useful to tell me what you want to tell me..."

Useful ? Not exactly...

"Well !" said Socrates, smiling, "if what you have to tell me is neither true, nor good, nor useful, I prefer not to know it, and as for you, I advise you to forget it..."

Such were Socrates' words on the claims spread against this person or that. Furthermore, I am certainly not a defender of the Athenian ruling classes, whose choices, dictated by the interests of a minority instead of the greater good, I have consistently condemned, like Socrates. As for the method of defense Socrates has chosen, which surprises you so much, it is, in my opinion, a continuation of Socrates' method, which he will not abandon simply because his life is at stake. He argues at the trial as he would have argued in the street or in a shop. You cannot change Socrates, not even by threatening him with death ; that is what he wants to tell us.

The proof was provided. In my youth, I felt the same as many others in that situation ; I imagined that as soon as I became master of myself, I would go straight to attending to the common affairs of the city. And that is how chance led me to find myself involved in the affairs of the city. The regime of that time being subjected to the violent criticism of the majority, a revolution occurred... (six asses before the condemnation of Socrates)... and fifty-one men took the lead in the revolution, eleven in the city, ten in the Pyreus—each of these two groups being in charge of the agora and everything concerning the city—while thirty of them had seized full powers. Among these, it so happened that some were relatives and acquaintances of mine... and so they immediately summoned me to their side, as if for matters that suited me. And for my part, I felt no surprise at all because of my youth ; I imagined, in fact, that they would then administer the city in such a way as to lead it from a somewhat unjust way of life to a just one, so I paid all my attention to how they would act. And look, I see these men making the previous regime resemble a golden age in a short time ! And among others, my friend, Socrates, who was older than me and whom I would not be ashamed to say was the most just of those of that time, they sent with some others to find one of our fellow citizens, to bring him by force with a view to putting him to death, so that he would thus take part in their activities, whether he wanted to or not ; But he did not obey, taking the risk of suffering everything rather than becoming complicit in their sacrilegious works... Whatever my social origins and the choices of my family, my choices have been clear and do not fear slander.

Menexenus : I, too, come from a relatively well-to-do family. I have little experience, as I am still too young to judge such profound questions. It seems to me, however, that one cannot simply dismiss Plato's theses on the pretext that he was born into a wealthy family. Plato, who might be mistaken for the son of a rich and powerful family, never wanted this lineage. To assert this break, he, who should have been named Aristocles like his grandfather, called himself Plato. He did not participate in political power when his family did, nor in the political party they favored. He even denounced them. He did not choose his family's side, that of the rich, but denounced the excesses of oligarchy, where the rich dominate the poor, as well as those of democracy, where the poor believe they dominate the rich because they elect politicians.

– Metrodorus : I don't actually believe that Plato's substantial intellectual heritage was enough to determine the ideas he would defend in the future. This doesn't mean he was right in his interpretation of Socrates' theses. I would rather support Theaetetus's point of view : Socrates didn't just say that one must know oneself, but he set as humankind's objective the knowledge of the world. He had begun by studying the physical sciences and taught, rather than the way of life, given our fellow citizens' lack of interest in the sciences. He studied everything that could be studied, from the lyre to the art of war ! But the arts, the sciences, knowledge, are not enough to decide, in place of humankind, what is good. One can be a great strategist, perfectly skilled in commanding troops or a group of triremes, without being able to rise to the level necessary to direct the military policy of the city, which means, for example, being able to transcend the fratricidal struggles between Sparta and Athens. Socrates fought against these pointless and bloody wars throughout his life, and that is what he ultimately paid for...

– Xenophon : I think that Socrates never supported Athenian attempts to dominate the free Greek cities, but, unlike Alcibiades, he never chose to side with Sparta, having no illusions about the Spartan regime while not idealizing the so-called Athenian democracy.

Alcibiades : I may be criticized for leaving Athens while in command of the armies, but everyone knows that it was Athens that abandoned me, threatening to condemn me on false pretenses. I am not the first general, far from it, to have suffered this sad fate. It is almost the general case. Another example illustrates the difficulty of being a general in Athens. It is that of the Athenian historian Thucydides, who died three years ago in obscure circumstances, probably assassinated, before finishing his "History of the Peloponnesian War." Twenty-five years ago, he had been elected general and commanded a squadron of seven ships, but, having failed to prevent Sparta from capturing Aphipolis, he was accused of treason, which forced him into exile from Athens for twenty years. During his exile, Thucydides traveled throughout Greece and gathered numerous accounts from combatants on both sides (Spartans and Athenians), but he was an embarrassment to the extremists in the war between Athens and Sparta. He was eventually eliminated. Athens distrusted Athenian strategists, whether victorious or defeated. They could use their renown to gain popular support. Ten years earlier, the Greek admiral Conon had entered the service of the Persians after going into exile with several of his men. He had deemed it unwise to return to Athens after the disaster at Aegospotami. We also remember the death sentences handed down to the admirals, despite their victory, after the naval Battle of Arginusae. This is what the Athenian custom of attributing any military defeat to treason led to.

Athens armed itself to dominate the Greek cities, but today it is Sparta that fights against the common enemy, the dangerous Persian neighbor ! It was Cleisthenes, not Pericles, who established the democratic regime in Athens, taking advantage of his participation in the Persian Wars to build a true commercial, political, and military empire. But at the time, the Delian League, which unified the struggle of the city-states, was not under Athenian control. For example, the funds collected in the various cities were not centralized in Athens, but in Delos. The war chest, which was to amount to 3,000 talents, far from serving only the military defense of the cities, was to be centralized by Athens and used to pay the city's officials, finance the major construction projects on the Acropolis, and appease the poor citizens by distributing crumbs here and there, entertaining the common people with theater, choruses, actors, baths, gymnasiums, and popular assemblies—all paid for by the war chest. Increasingly, discontent rose in the Greek cities, which did not understand why they should agree to pay in order to be treated as subjects under the pretext of unifying Greece. The glorious past had not taught us this. Even before Troy, where armies from all the cities were gathered, they did not obey a single, dominant authority. Nor at Salamis and Marathon. The greatest victories had not resulted from unification under the aegis of the most powerful. None of these wars had required the alienation of the freedom and independence of the Greek city-states. The citizens of the cities allied with Athens questioned why they had to pay tribute to Athens, why they had to submit to the justice of Athenian magistrates, and why their money should be used to build Athens instead of for the common defense. The cities that resisted this domination were ruthlessly crushed. Athens thus acquired an importance disproportionate to its size, its true political, military, and economic significance. Is so much money and so many monuments necessary for such a small area ? Argolis is eight to ten miles long and four to five miles wide ; Laconia roughly the same ; Achaea is a narrow strip of land on the side of a mountain range that slopes down to the sea. Is this the size of the capital of a world empire ? It's no wonder that revolt eventually simmered among the members of the Delian League, which had become nothing more than a smokescreen for Athenian ambitions for domination. It's no wonder that force was necessary, with increasingly violent repressions culminating in the systematic massacre of entire inhabitants, for Athens to regain its position of power among the city-states !Was Athens the only city capable of fighting in defense of the Greek city-states ? Let us not forget the inscription at Thermopylae : "Passerby, go tell the Lacedaemonians that if we rest here, it is because we obeyed their laws !" This meant that, although the Greek armies had defeated the Great King, the Persian Xerxes, and were led by the Athenian Leonidas, these armies were primarily composed of 4,000 Spartan warriors, who secured victory against three thousand Persian soldiers ! The same was true at Salamis. Themistocles the Athenian was the chief strategist, but the bulk of the soldiers were Spartan. Athens' true superiority was neither strategic, nor economic, nor political, nor artistic, nor cultural, nor intellectual. It was on its maritime superiority that Athens based its claim to domination over the city-states. Three hundred Athenian triremes held sway over the ships of Sparta, Corinth, and even larger fleets like that of the Persians. It was upon its fleet that Athens sought to build its maritime empire. Hence the long-established strategy of taking refuge on its ships in the event of an attack. Hence the construction of a fortified port. Hence also the construction of major shipyards for building war triremes. This brought Athens years of glory, wealth, and prosperity, but the rot had set in : Athens was not the soul of Greece and was not capable of claiming to be. Socrates died for daring to say this loud and clear to the Athenian people, who often didn't want to hear it…Athens was not the soul of Greece and was not capable of claiming to be. Socrates died for daring to say so loud and clear to the Athenian people, who often didn't want to hear it…Athens was not the soul of Greece and was not capable of claiming to be. Socrates died for daring to say so loud and clear to the Athenian people, who often didn't want to hear it…

– Charmides : Sparta won its war against Athens primarily by allying with Persia. And I think that if it won, it wasn't because of having more competent strategists or braver soldiers. That's the difference between the two societies, Athenian and Lacedaemonian. Indeed, Athens has long since ceased to be a society of soldier-farmers, whereas Sparta has remained so. As a result, in Sparta, fighting is a duty. In Athens, deciding, discussing, and giving one's opinion are genuine needs of the citizen. Military obedience certainly suffers as a result. People prefer to elect strategists rather than obey a general. That's what ruined Athens. Alcibiades, you should know this, since that's how you gained your position as commander of the armies, and that's also how you lost it.

– Lysanias To the misfortunes of Greece's internal and external wars was added the plague that struck the entire region thirty years ago, eliminating a large portion of the population, causing panic, and sowing new and disturbing behaviors among the living. The epidemic broke out suddenly in Athens, claiming its first victims in Piraeus. At the time, the false legend circulated that Sparta had poisoned the wells of Athens ! The city's inhabitants were then severely affected. The disease manifested with acute symptoms followed by vomiting, and death occurred within 7 to 9 days. Social life itself was utterly disrupted by the epidemic. Life no longer held the same value. Ethics were altered. People sought quick and easy profits and pleasures. Rich and poor were exchanged at great speed. No one was held back from their sometimes criminal endeavors by fear of the gods and the law. The epidemic lasted four years. It left nothing in place, least of all mentalities. The plague seemed a prophetic warning against Athens. Disorder reigned in the city. Settling of scores multiplied. Everywhere there were purgers, everywhere informers and alleged spies, everywhere henchmen. Accusations of threatening order were hurled far and wide, and the accused were quickly eliminated. What the internal wars of the city-states had begun—the normalization of death—the disorder caused by the epidemic completed. Violent force was now the only thing that mattered. The new leader of Athens, Cleon, who came to power after Pericles' death from the plague, was characterized by his implacable style : a single punishment for his enemies and all those who stood in his way—summary execution. Let us remember the inhabitants of Mytilene, in revolt, who were put to the sword to the last man. Cleon proclaimed to anyone who would listen that the only good enemy is a dead enemy ! It was then that Athens doubled the tribute demanded from the allied Greek cities. Athens then believed its fleet invincible. This was Alcibiades' moment of glory, but it would last only a moment and would be close to his downfall. Everyone wanted to forget Alcibiades' escapades as long as he offered Athens victories… in words. The formidable squadron had captivated all the young people, ready to embark on this new war to conquer success, honor, and fortune. So much so that Athens, with the squadron barely ready to depart, believed it possible to get rid of Alcibiades with a serious accusation. It was a cabal of the kind whose secrets Athenian politics held. But these maneuvers, crucial for the struggle for power in Athens, could not deceive a true enemy. And the heroic Athenian fleet was defeated at Syracuse ! Defeated, Athens began to doubt everything and everyone. It was necessary to vent the people's anger on false scapegoats : the soothsayers and astrologers.Those who had advised the expedition and predicted victory were the first to lose their lives. But, with Athens defeated, Sparta allied itself with Persia under the leadership of Alcibiades, the same man who tells us here that Sparta was the only one to dare confront the Persians ! Is it any wonder, then, that the Athenian people, deceived, turned against Alcibiades' friends, beginning with his teacher, Socrates ? Of course, I agree with all those who are scandalized by the accusation that Socrates is being held accountable for the actions of others, even if they were his former students. Do we accuse parents for the actions of their children, once they have grown up ? Athens thus chose a pretext to eliminate Socrates, an inconvenient accuser, thereby showing all those who might have wanted to play the accuser that one can very quickly become the accused !

Xenophon : Athens is not solely responsible for its decline and fall. Lately, many civilizations around the world have experienced meteoric and brief periods of growth. They live only a very short time, having burned through their energy at breakneck speed, whereas the ancient cities grew in wealth and glory very slowly, but endured for a long time. Persia, too, is experiencing such a tragedy and is heading towards the same end. Our empires are like shooting stars that suddenly emit a dazzling light and then fade into darkness. The empires that have fallen one after another, such as the Hittites, the Cretans, or Persia, are striking examples of this. Brilliance has given way to darkness… The power of Carthage, which today dominates the Mediterranean, will fall like the others.

– Alcibiades : It seems to me that the differences between Sparta and Athens stemmed primarily from their distinct social histories. While Sparta was founded on "equals" and the clerus, which guaranteed the free use of a plot of land, Athens was founded on profound inequalities between rich, middle, and poor citizens. The more successful the city became, the richer the rich became, and the poor depended on the wages and allowances paid by the city. The Spartan military city was founded on these warrior-equals. It was Solon who enabled Athens to escape the risks of revolution without fundamentally attacking the interests of the ruling classes. He gave the people the opportunity to choose between different candidates for the city's magistrates, but he wisely ensured that all magistracy positions were reserved for the notables and the wealthy : the pentacosiomedimmi, the zeugites, and the equestrians, with laborers having no say in the matter. But in Sparta, as in Athens, there were not only citizens. The Spartan helot revolt, more than sixty years earlier, played a fundamental role. Let us not forget that Athens benefited from Sparta's weakened state. By offering its assistance in suppressing the revolt, Athens was able to exert its influence over the Lacedaemonian city. And the Athenian city benefited, during this period, from not experiencing a slave revolt. But Athens, which thus experienced its hours of wealth and glory, was ruined by wars and called its political system into question. The wealthy regained power and abolished democracy. From this arose a series of misfortunes and internal conflicts within Athens. External weakness has always stemmed from internal weakness. Sparta was able to exploit this weakening, as well as that of the Persians. But Sparta, the victor, did not subject the Greek city-states to its domination. When the Spartans captured Naupactus (belonging to Athens), they granted it its freedom. It's important to remember that Sparta, having defeated Athens, did not raze the vanquished city, as Thebes and Corinth had demanded. They merely destroyed the fortifications and seized the fleet. But the defeat was a bitter pill to swallow for the Athenians, and they developed a deep-seated hatred that required finding scapegoats. Ostracism became a common tactic in Athens against anyone who didn't openly display their hatred for the Lacedaemonian city. Hence the wave of espionage and the search for traitors, the backlash against the Sophists and all those who could be accused of defeatism. Socrates was one of its victims.

– Thrasymachus The capture of Athens by Lysander six years ago, a defeat from which the city is still struggling to recover, was not a bolt from the blue. As the historian Thucydides rightly observed, there is a reason in history, and if men and societies fall victim to the consequences of their choices, it is not by chance. The Athenians deluded themselves for far too long. At the beginning of the struggle against Persia, the adversary was so formidable, the threat so grave, the foreseeable consequences so deadly, that the Greek city-states united, contributing, without much hesitation, their contingent of men and ships against the Great King Cyrus. Having agreed to place themselves under a common military command 81 years ago, the result was the liberation of all of Greece from Persian domination. That tiny, divided Greece could bring down the monstrous Persian army was a thunderbolt for the world. The entire Persian empire trembled at its foundations. But even if the struggle was waged in the name of the Delian League, and even if it boasted many Athenian strategists like Themistocles, victorious at Salamis, or Cimon, son of Miltiades, whose victory at Mycale heralded the liberation of the Greeks from the Ionian coast, Athens, having achieved victory, saw no reason to remain a mere participant in the Delian League when it possessed the most developed economy, a major city-state, one of the most capable shipbuilding arsenals, and the best strategists. The impoverished city-states, under pressure, agreed to pay their contributions to Athens rather than maintain a defensive fleet that exceeded their means. Consequently, Athens began to consider itself the head of Greek military command, and also began to manage the funds itself and act as master over the confederate cities. The Treasury was removed from the sanctuary of Apollo on Delos and brought to Athens. Contributions were increased. Cities that began to revolt against Athenian domination, such as Naxos and Thasos, then Potidaea, Corinth, and Melos, were violently subdued. This is what also happened during the reign of Pericles : the gradual crushing of the liberties of the Greek cities. Certainly, this was also a time of great construction, enrichment, and glory for the city, but it was during this period of splendor that the irreversible and fatal turning point for our city occurred. The small towns were held in check by their poverty. The large cities were held in check by military force. The patriotic fervor that reigned in Athens was based on the accumulation of wealth piled up on the docks of Piraeus. If the Athenian came to see his domination of the world as natural, the material basis of this enthusiasm stemmed from the marvelous goods arriving from Sicily, Italy, Cyprus, Egypt, Lydia,from Pontus, the Peloponnese, and a thousand other places on earth. I will even quote our friend Xenophon, who stated at that time in his famous work entitled "The Revenues of Attica" :"I would not consider unreasonable the opinion of those who place this city at the center of Greece and even of the entire universe." And I must admit that many of us suffered from the same optical illusion.

Athens' domination over the city-states became increasingly oppressive. They were forbidden to mint their own coins and were forced to accept Athenian currency. The justice systems of these now-dependent city-states were also administered by Athens. All power, along with the bulk of wealth and weapons, were ultimately centralized there. And it was in this context that the existence of Sparta, capable of military defense and political independence, could only cast a shadow over Athens. An endless war then began between the two city-states and the cities that had pledged allegiance to them. While the defensive wars against the Persians and Carthaginians had been popular, this fratricidal conflict eventually wearyed the citizens. And it ended, as we all know, with Athens' defeat and humiliation. A dictatorial regime was then imposed on the city, which lost the means of its defense and its weaponry.

Far from acknowledging their responsibility for these shameful failures, the ruling classes mobilized their political representatives to convince the people that the fundamental choices had always been sound, and that there had been an internal betrayal by critical citizens who had demoralized public opinion with their undermining rhetoric. The witch hunt then began. Socrates was one of its Athenian victims. But the Greek cities had many other victims before him. The island of Melos, for example, where all the adult males were executed and the women and children were dragged into slavery, bears cruel witness to this. In Corcyra (which some call Corfu), the massacres between citizens, for or against Athens, reached unprecedented levels of violence. The true victor of the wars between Sparta and Athens could have been Persia, but it was itself afflicted by a serious internal crisis that rendered it incapable of taking advantage of the situation.

The only victor was death. The plague won, carrying off a large part of the population. To rebuild Athens, Alcibiades had indeed tried to revive patriotic enthusiasm, particularly among the youth, but this was based on illusions : believing that Athens, by mobilizing, would rebuild the alliance of Greek and Italian cities around itself was a pipe dream. Athens had long since ceased to be seen as a defender of liberty, and could no longer be so. This, my friends, is how Athenian policies led the city into the impasse it finds itself in today. This is why Socrates' criticisms of these policies could no longer be tolerated by those who govern us and bear the responsibility for this failure. By portraying Socrates as one of those responsible for Athens' decline, the people, momentarily blinded, were led to turn against him. He was handed over to the wrath of the people by the Heliast tribunal, which had been formed by the People's Assembly. Once again, democracy proved to be nothing more than a manipulation of the people against their own interests.

– Phaedo : The great political formula of Athens, far from the democracy it claimed to be, was the State. It was the least democratic of tools. Officially, the people's assembly was sovereign. It represented the 40,000 citizens—excluding women—less than one-twelfth of the population, since foreigners and slaves were excluded. But, in reality, the development of the State deprived the vast majority of citizens, and especially the poorest among them, of any real power, as they served only as pawns in political maneuvering. The establishment of this governing body, with its armed forces, justice system, and magistrates, was officially intended to allow all citizens to govern, but in fact, only members of the ruling families could hold the principal offices. While Pericles was thus democratically elected for successive terms, the prestigious constructions of Athens poorly concealed the misery of the majority of Athenians, forced to live in smoky huts of wood or sun-dried mud brick in the countryside or to crowd into miserable quarters of cities.

In the heroic age, the four Athenian tribes of Attica were still established in distinct territories ; even the twelve phratries that comprised them seem to have still had separate residences in the twelve cities of Cecrops. The organization was that of the heroic age : assembly of the people, council of the people, and basileus. In peaceful times, each phratry and each tribe administered its own affairs, without recourse to the council of the people or the basileus of Athens.

The reform of Athens was carried out by ruling classes who wanted to establish their independence from the then-dominant kings of Crete. You are all familiar with the legend of Theseus and the Minotaur, which served as the historical justification for Athens' claim to unite all of Attica under its control. Crete then dominated Athens, which was forced to provide the Cretan monster, the Minotaur, with seven young men and seven young women to be devoured. Theseus, the son of the king of Athens, asked his father to be included on the list of those to be sacrificed by Athens to Crete. He killed the Minotaur, thus symbolizing the Athenian revolt against ancient Cretan domination. Such is the myth of Theseus, which casts the Athenian heroes in a heroic light in the overthrow of the Cretan tyrants. In reality, they were overthrown by the Cretans, who revolted following the earthquake that destroyed most of the temples and palaces, showing the oppressed that the gods no longer protected their oppressors. Athens took advantage of this to gain its independence.

The constitution attributed to Theseus was established. The change consisted mainly in the fact that a central administration was established in Athens, that is to say, some of the affairs which until then had been administered autonomously by the tribes were declared common affairs and transmitted to the Common Council which sat in Athens.

The office of basileus fell into disuse ; archons, chosen from among the nobility, were placed at the head of the state. The domination of the nobility grew until it became intolerable two hundred years ago. And the principal means of oppressing common liberty was... money and usury. The principal seat of the nobility was in and around Athens, where maritime trade, along with piracy, still practiced occasionally and in addition, enriched them and concentrated financial wealth in their hands. From there, the developing monetary economy penetrated like a dissolving acid into the traditional way of life of rural communities, based on a natural economy. The organization of the gens is utterly incompatible with a monetary economy ; the ruin of the small farmers of Attica coincided with the loosening of the old bonds of the gens that surrounded and protected them. The debt and the mortgage (for the Athenians had even invented the mortgage) respected neither clan nor phratry. And the old system of the gens knew neither money, nor advance, nor debt. This is why the ever-growing and expanding financial domination of the nobility also developed a new customary law to protect the creditor against the debtor, to consecrate the exploitation of the small peasant by the possessor of money. All the fields of Attica bristled with mortgage stelae, on which it was inscribed that this land was pledged to so-and-so, for the sum of so-and-so. The fields that were not thus marked had for the most part already been sold for non-payment of mortgages or interest, and had passed into the ownership of the usurer nobleman ; the peasant had to consider himself lucky if he was allowed to remain there as a tenant farmer and live on one-sixth of the produce of his labor, while he had to pay five-sixths as rent to his new master. There's more : if the proceeds from the sale of the land weren't enough to cover the debt, or if that debt had been incurred without collateral, the debtor had to sell his children into slavery abroad to repay the creditor. The sale of children by their father—this was the first manifestation of paternal rights and monogamy !

But the Athenians were to learn how quickly, once exchange between individuals arose and products were transformed into commodities, the product established its dominance over the producer. With commodity production came the cultivation of the land by individuals for their own benefit, and soon, simultaneously, individual land ownership. Money also arrived, a universal commodity against which all others could be exchanged ; but, in inventing money, people did not realize that they were creating yet another new social force, the one universal force before which all of society would have to bow. And it was this new force, which sprang up suddenly, unbeknownst to and without the will of its creators, that, in all the brutality of its infancy, made the Athenians feel its dominion.

And then, the young state primarily needed its own force, which for the seafaring Athenians could initially only be a naval force aimed at small, isolated wars and the protection of merchant ships. At an undetermined time, but before Solon, the naucraries were established, small territorial districts of twelve per tribe ; each naucrary was required to provide, arm, and equip a warship and also supply two cavalrymen. This institution challenged the clan-based organization in two ways. First, because it created a public force, which was no longer simply synonymous with the armed population as a whole ; and second, because it divided the people for the first time for public purposes, not according to kinship groups, but according to local coexistence.

Solon boasts in his poems of having removed the mortgage markers from indebted fields and of having repatriated people who, because they had fallen into debt, had been sold abroad as slaves or had sought refuge there. This was only possible through an open violation of property rights. And in fact, from the first to the last, all so-called political revolutions have been made for the protection of property... of a certain kind, and accomplished by the confiscation, in other words, by the theft... of another kind of property. So true is it that for two thousand five hundred years private property could only be maintained by violating property rights.

But the aim was to prevent a return to such subjugation of free Athenians. This was achieved initially through general measures, such as prohibiting loan contracts secured against the person of the debtor. Furthermore, a maximum limit was set on the amount of land an individual could own, in order to at least somewhat curb the nobility's voracious appetite for peasant land. Then came changes to the constitution.

These are the most essential points for us. The Council was expanded to four hundred members, one hundred from each tribe. Here, then, the tribe still remained the foundation. But this was also the only aspect under which the old organization was incorporated into the new body of the state. For Solon, moreover, divided the citizens into four classes, according to their land ownership and its yield ; 500, 300, and 150 medimni of grain were the minimum yields for the first three classes ; anyone who owned less land, or none at all, fell into the fourth class. All offices could only be held by members of the three upper classes, and the highest offices were held only by members of the first class ; the fourth class had only the right to speak and vote in the assembly of the people. But it was there that all the officials were chosen, there that they had to render their accounts, there that all the laws were made, and the fourth class formed the majority. Aristocratic privileges were partly reaffirmed in the form of privileges of wealth, but the people retained decisive power. Furthermore, the four classes formed the basis of a new military organization. The first two classes provided the cavalry, the third was to serve in the heavy infantry, the fourth served in the light infantry (not wearing armor) or in the navy, and presumably received a salary.

The rapid growth of wealth, commerce, and industry demonstrates how the state, now fully developed in its essential features, responded to the new social condition of the Athenians. The class antagonism upon which social and political institutions rested was no longer between nobles and commoners, but between slaves and freemen, between metics and citizens. At its height, Athens had approximately 90,000 free citizens, including women and children, plus 365,000 slaves of both sexes and 45,000 metics—foreigners and freedmen. For every free citizen, there were therefore at least 18 slaves and more than two metics. The large number of slaves stemmed from the fact that many of them worked together, under the supervision of overseers, in factories and large workshops. But with the development of trade and industry came the accumulation and concentration of wealth in a small number of hands, the impoverishment of the mass of free citizens, who were left with no choice but to compete with the work of slaves by their own manual labor, which was considered dishonorable, vile, and moreover promised little success.

Eubulides : This is how the state developed, because the old institutions of the clan organization were either transformed or suppressed by the introduction of new bodies, and finally completely replaced by true state authorities. Meanwhile, the true "people in arms," protecting themselves within their clans, phratries, and tribes, was replaced by an armed "public force" at the service of these state authorities, and therefore usable even against the people. In the heroic age, the four Athenian tribes of Attica were still established in distinct territories ; even the twelve phratries that comprised them seem to have still had separate residences in the twelve cities of Cecrops. The organization was that of the heroic age : assembly of the people, council of the people, basileus. As far back as recorded history goes, land was already divided and had passed into private ownership, as is consistent with the relatively developed commodity production towards the end of the later stage of barbarism, and the corresponding trade in goods. Besides grain, wine and oil were produced ; maritime trade on the Aegean Sea was increasingly slipping from Phoenician control and falling, to a large extent, into Attic hands. Due to the buying and selling of land, and the progressive division of labor between agriculture and crafts, commerce and navigation, members of the gentes, phratries, and tribes soon had to mingle, and the district of the phratry and tribe received inhabitants who, although compatriots, did not belong to these groups and were therefore strangers in their own territory. For in peaceful times, each phratry and each tribe administered its own affairs, without recourse to the People's Council or the Athenian emperor. But anyone living within the territory of the phratry or tribe without belonging to it could not, of course, participate in this administration.
The established order of the tribal organizations was so disrupted that, even in heroic times, a remedy had to be found. The constitution attributed to Theseus was instituted. The change consisted primarily of the establishment of a central administration in Athens ; that is to say, some of the affairs previously administered autonomously by the tribes were declared common affairs and transferred to the Common Council, which sat in Athens. In doing so, the Athenians went a step further than any of the indigenous peoples of America had ever gone : instead of a simple confederation of juxtaposed tribes, they were united into a single people. Thus was born an Athenian national law, a general law that was above the legal customs of the tribes and clans ; the Athenian citizen, as such, obtained specific rights and new legal protection, even in a territory where he was not a member of the tribe. But, at the same time, the first step had been taken toward the center of the clan organization ; for it was the first step toward the subsequent admission of citizens from outside the tribes throughout Attica, who were and remained entirely outside the Athenian clan organization. A second institution attributed to Theseus was the division of the entire population, without regard to clan, phratry, or tribe, into three classes : the eupatrids or nobles, the geomores or farmers, and the demiurges or artisans, and the granting to the nobility of the exclusive right to public office. This division shows that the custom of entrusting clan offices to certain families had already transformed into a largely uncontested right of these families to these positions ; that these families, powerful elsewhere due to their wealth, were beginning to group themselves outside their clans into a distinct, privileged class, and that the nascent state enshrined this claim. It further demonstrates that the division of labor between farmers and artisans was already pronounced enough to rival the former classification by clans and tribes for preeminence in social importance. Finally, it proclaims the irreconcilable antagonism between clan society and the State ; the first attempt to form the State consists of dismantling the clans, dividing the members of each into privileged and disadvantaged, and the latter, in turn, into two classes of workers, thus setting them against one another.
The clan-based organization is utterly incompatible with a monetary economy ; the ruin of the small farmers of Attica coincided with the loosening of the old clan-based ties that surrounded and protected them. Loans and mortgages (for the Athenians had even invented the mortgage) respected neither clan nor phratry. And the old clan-based organization knew neither money, nor advances, nor debts. This is why the ever-flourishing and widespread financial domination of the nobility also developed a new customary law to protect the creditor against the debtor, to consecrate the exploitation of the small farmer by the possessor of money. All the fields of Attica bristled with mortgage stelae, on which it was inscribed that this land was pledged to so-and-so, for the sum of so-and-so. The fields that were not thus marked had for the most part already been sold for non-payment of mortgages or interest, and had passed into the possession of the usurer nobleman ; The peasant was to consider himself fortunate if he was allowed to remain as a tenant farmer and live on one-sixth of the produce of his labor, while he had to pay five-sixths as rent to his new master. Furthermore, if the proceeds from the sale of the land were insufficient to cover the debt, or if this debt had been incurred without collateral, the debtor had to sell his children into slavery abroad to repay the creditor. The sale of children by their father—such was the first fruit of paternal right and monogamy ! And if the vampire was not yet sated, he could sell his debtor himself into slavery. Such was the sweet dawn of civilization among the Athenian people.
But the Athenians were to learn how quickly, once exchange between individuals had begun and through the transformation of products into commodities, the product established its dominance over the producer. With commodity production came the cultivation of the land by individuals for their own benefit, and soon, simultaneously, individual land ownership. Money also arrived, a universal commodity against which all others could be exchanged ; but, in inventing money, people did not realize that they were creating yet another new social force, the single universal force before which all of society would have to bow. And it was this new force, which sprang up suddenly, unbeknownst to and without the will of its own creators, that, in all the brutality of its youth, made the Athenians feel its dominion.

– Xenophon : If Athens developed the state, it claimed it was to defend itself against external attacks, but it was even more so to defend itself against social revolutions. As I wrote in "Cyropaedia," there were many revolutions against all kinds of political regimes :

"I was observing one day how many democracies have been overthrown by men who preferred any other form of government, how many monarchies and oligarchies have been destroyed by popular factions, how many ambitious men have been stripped of the sovereign power they had just usurped, and how much one admires the happiness and skill of those who have managed to maintain themselves in power, even for a short time. "
The social revolution that pitted rich against poor in Greece for 50 years, two hundred years ago, and Athens experienced the citizens' revolution for over a year, 110 years ago.

Throughout all these upheavals, Greece experienced successive periods of monarchy, communal rule, aristocracy, oligarchy, monopolization of power by large landowners and slave owners, and tyranny, which was followed by popular revolutions in every city. Solon managed to channel these revolutions. He declared : “I gave the people as much as they needed, but no more. For those who had the strength and commanded respect through their wealth, I also ensured that they would not suffer anything undignified.” Far from giving power to the demos, Solon prevented the revolutionary struggles—admittedly discontinuous, irregular, and episodic depending on the city, but extremely fierce at critical moments—from ultimately overthrowing the ruling classes completely. Tyranny arose in Argos, then Corinth, Sycyone, and even here in Megara, then Athens, Samos, Naxos, and Miletus, only because the hereditary aristocracies were incapable of containing or resolving the growing social conflicts that mobilized an increasing urban population and an indebted and impoverished peasantry. To these social factors were added other revolutionary political causes, such as the struggles between city-states, between Argos and Sparta, or between Athens and Megara. Tyranny took advantage of the need to resist powerful neighbors, not only neighboring city-states but especially Lydia, Persia, and Carthage. The great weakness of tyranny was that it depended on the abilities of a single man. As soon as power overstepped acceptable boundaries, anger would build and then explode at the slightest provocation : a deterioration of the climate, a drought, a violent storm, or an earthquake would signal that the gods no longer protected the regime and would be the signal for revolt. All tyrannies, one after another, fell in this way, just as monarchies had before them. Democracy has proven far more stable : those at the head may fall, but the regime as a whole remains in power despite social movements and revolutions. This was the system chosen by Athens.

As for Sparta, it favored the old system of shared poverty, akin to a community of property among citizens, peasants, and soldiers. These two systems, which proved relatively stable, were bound to grow in strength and eventually clash. The Spartan system was that of an armed people, where the state supported the ruling classes. The population consisted of Spartans, Perioeci, and Helots—that is, citizens, foreigners, and slaves. In fact, the Helot occupied an intermediate position between a free man and a slave. It was a servile condition. He was not part of the citizenry and had no political rights. The state monitored the Helots, defining their duties, obligations, and also their rights in relation to landowners.

This is how the helots were enslaved. The Achaeans fought their last battle against the Spartan king Alcamenes, and this city provided the first serfs of the state ; the name helots later became the common name for all those subjected to the same servitude, even the Dorians of Messenia. The helot class was an integral part of the social system in the so-called Constitution of Lycurgus, which represents the oldest institutions of Sparta. They worked, under the conditions we will see, the allotments distributed to the Spartans in the region that essentially comprised the Eurotas valley. The Messenian Wars led to the formation of a second group of helots. The first war deprived the Messenians of their political independence ; They mostly became perioikoi, had to swear never to revolt, and to take part, in mourning attire, with their wives and children, in the funerals of the kings of Sparta and the principal Spartan magistrates ; they retained possession of their lands, in exchange for the payment of a tribute equal to half the harvests ; perhaps a part of Messenia was reserved for the Spartans, in particular the lands whose owners had fled in various directions, to Argos, Sicyon, Eleusis, and Arcadia. The Third Messenian War was provoked by the uprising of the helots of Laconia, after the earthquake of about sixty years ago ; the Messenians, refugees on Mount Ithomius, resisted for ten years and obtained, by a capitulation, the right to withdraw freely with their wives and children, swearing never to return to the Peloponnese ; But the helots, leaders of the sedition, were executed, the others transformed into veritable slaves.
The division of social activities was as follows : the Spartans were content to wage war, while production was entirely ensured by the Perioeci and the Helots. Revolts among the Spartan Helots were constantly simmering beneath the surface and sometimes erupted with the full force of a conflagration. Revolutions were frequent in Sparta, and in particular, following Sparta's conquest of Messenia, Spartan citizens who had not participated in the war were sidelined by the warriors and, consequently, joined forces with the Helots to revolt. Then Messenia itself revolted against Spartan rule, and, due in particular to a very strong sense of discontent among the Spartans themselves, Sparta had great difficulty suppressing the uprising. When the Helots of Messenia revolted, it was not a new phenomenon. At the end of the century, the Penestae of Thessaly rose up. The Messenian revolt led to the Second Helot War, which this time ended with the complete subjugation of the vanquished. The Messenians lost their lands and were assimilated into the Lacenion Helots ; only a few coastal towns retained their status as perioikoi cities. The Messenians would henceforth constitute the vast majority of the Helots. A little less than a hundred years later, the entire political and social equilibrium of the principal archaic city, Sparta, was destroyed. Externally, too, Sparta was forced to maintain order in the Peloponnese, as any revolt in the islands risked joining forces with the Helots to overthrow the Spartan regime. Conversely, the growth of Athens, far exceeding the wealth and population of Sparta, could not support the continued existence of an independent city like Sparta. The foundations for endless internal wars were well established… It was inevitable that the Peloponnesian League, initially called “the Spartans and their allies,” would become the League of Athens and its allies, and then the Athenian Empire.
Unlike Sparta, all free men in Athens were always citizens. There were no Perioeci or Helots. All inhabitants were citizens, and all slaves came from outside the city. This did not prevent class struggles from existing in Athens. The aristocratic Eupatrid families were repeatedly threatened in their power and wealth by revolutions of the lower classes. Solon was an Eupatrid who understood that the development of revolutionary struggles would be catastrophic for the ruling classes if exploitation were not regulated and limited, and if rights were not granted to the lower classes, the plebeians. The aim of the successive reforms of Draco and especially Solon was to divert the anger of the poorest and diminish its power in order to stabilize society. But Solon never went so far as to seize land from the wealthy to distribute it to the destitute ! His reform was as much political as it was social. He established four classes based on land income, from which magistrates would be appointed. However, the lower classes were only eligible for the lowest magistracies. The people were involved in political leadership, but in a measured and carefully calculated way, based on social criteria. The poor were thus recognized as part of the demos, but only minimally.

However, it was a tyranny, that of the Pisistratids, and not democracy, that fostered in Athens the popular taste for gathering, for culture, for meeting in the heart of Athens, for celebrating festivals, and for practicing religions. They were the ones who built a great temple dedicated to Athena on the Acropolis (destroyed by the Persians, it would later be replaced by the Parthenon), and began another temple dedicated to Olympian Zeus. They developed the great popular cults, the tragic choruses, the competitions, the festivals, and, for the Dionysia, they called upon poets and musicians. When they were overthrown after two years of civil war, Cleisthenes reshaped the constitution, establishing the structures of Athenian democracy as we know them, drawing upon the patriotic sentiments that had already developed. At the time, religiously speaking, no sanctuary, not even on the Acropolis, could rival Delphi in importance. Through the Pythia, Apollo answered the questions of Greek citizens who came to him. The outcome of wars, civil wars, revolutions, and other everyday problems depended on the interpretations of the women who answered for Apollo, as the god's message was not explicitly stated. But the very importance of Delphi eventually became a problem for Athens, and if the Delphic Pythia declared herself in favor of Socrates or an alliance between Athens and Sparta, rather than Athenian domination, it is no wonder that the leaders of Athens preferred to have local gods under their control, gods who would deliver a message much more aligned with their interests.

Aeschines : Plato and Xenophon, allow me to address you both, since, after Socrates' death, you are the most renowned of the Athenian thinkers, you who followed our master for many years. Plato, I must acknowledge that you have always clearly and courageously defended the ideas you developed through philosophical training with the best teachers, and yet I deny you the right to speak in Socrates' name, particularly on the theses you have just developed concerning the State, which do not seem to me to be those I heard from his own lips. You should write in your dialogues : "This is what Plato thinks," and not "This is what Socrates said !" I will give you just one example, the one where Socrates said to Thrasymachus : "The State is an army, a band of brigands, thieves, or any other gang of criminals somehow associated for some evil deed."

That's a definition that has the merit of being clear ! And when Socrates says "the State," he's not talking about one country or another, nor one era or another. This vindicates those who claimed that Socrates supported the Spartan and Cretan states. On the other hand, when he speaks of his ideal society, it's no longer about the State. It's about the direct power of the people. Those he considers indispensable are artisans, fishermen, farmers, sailors, and merchants, but not the military, politicians, judges, administrators—the entire apparatus of the State. Plato, can you tell us if you differ from Xenophon's point of view ? And you, Xenophon, what do you think of what Plato has just said ? This is important for all of us, because you two are rightly considered the most illustrious of our master's disciples, those who have known and followed him for a long time, and the most brilliant thinkers of Greece. In order for us to see what future our group of followers of Socratic thought has, it is important for us to know if the most eminent among us agree on our goals. What would be the point of bringing together the most competent men from multiple fundamental fields if they have completely divergent objectives ?

Xenophon : Thank you for addressing me in this way, Aeschines. And I believe I have shown many times that I am not averse to developing my points of view. Everyone can form their own opinion, especially since, unlike Socrates, I have chosen to commit my analyses and reports on past history to writing. But why don't you ask me about your own point of view ? One is never so eager to hear the views of those close to us as one is to hear one's own opinions, and that is the most enriching. Isn't it ? Disagreements between us are possible even if we all claim to follow Socrates, and in convening this meeting in homage to Socrates, I certainly didn't intend for it to be an assembly based on the unanimity of the participants. I approve of you, Aeschines, placing the question of the State at the forefront, for what is decisive in the situation of a people is the way in which the State is governed. The state, you say, is not the savior of the people and cannot do much in their place. You are not wrong. However, it is important not to leave it in the hands of demagogues, the corrupt, and the vicious. You will agree. It is important to train those who will be entrusted with high office. For my part, I have never hidden the fact that I do not condemn the social order of Athens, but only its political and military leadership. I do not advocate changing the place of foreigners, slaves, or women in our society. The gods have adapted the nature of women to domestic work and care. Women must stay at home to raise children and manage the household. Residents have paid to live in the city, and this allows them to run shops and workshops. They must not divert their time with activities that would interfere with this trade. For example, they must not go to war or vote with the citizens. We cannot abolish the social order, because everyone is essential to everyone else. Without servile labor, there is no well-being and no democracy. That is my point of view.

Plato : Aeschines, I would first like to remind you that, in my opinion, the education of statesmen is the crucial point of any philosophy of governing society. I have thoroughly studied how the leaders of our societies, as well as those of neighboring societies, were educated, and it seems to me that Cyrus the Younger, the ruler of Persia, received a very limited education. If we are to influence kings, shouldn't those kings be philosophers ? Persia in recent years has not seemed to me to be governed by wisdom and philosophy any more than Athens at its worst… Let that suffice for my answer !

In my opinion, Socrates was not a victim of defeats or of the political and social crisis, but rather of the hatred his method of intellectual midwifery provoked among those who benefited from the system. His dialectic of questioning was wrongly perceived as denunciation or malicious mockery. Yet, Socrates was right : humankind needs this external questioning to discover itself, to recognize its deeply buried and hidden desires and feelings. Socrates' maieutic method earned him many enemies who eventually united against him. Nevertheless, even during his trial, Socrates remained committed to his method of discourse, based on questioning. And what saddens me today is not that some are for Sparta or against Athens, but that Socrates' method is so blatantly disregarded that no one even thinks to question the other… Socrates preserved his identity despite all the pressures, applying his own maxims to himself to the very end. We must not forget that Socrates always recalled the inscription on the Temple of Delphi : "Know thyself."

– Ichtyas : To reduce Socrates' aims to maieutics, the method of "midwifery" of souls, that accuses you far more, Plato, than all your possessions and all your income as a wealthy heir. Socrates had, in a sense, withdrawn from public life. He didn't run for office. He didn't participate in the farcical "democracy." He exposed it. But he pursued his own politics. Plato, you know this well, because even if today you would like to erase him with your writings, you participated in Socrates' clandestine political meetings and were even one of their most fervent and active organizers ! I see that Socrates' death was enough for us to completely free ourselves from his influence !

– Crito : There are already four Socratic schools of philosophy, and there's likely to be as many versions of who Socrates was and what he wanted as there are disciples of Socrates. Since our master never wanted to write down or have his words transcribed, it will be easy for anyone in a few years to attribute any words to him.

Eubulides : It's not so simple to invent what Socrates said. You can't make him out to be some kind of tranquil sage, because the Athenian authorities have just shown us that this philosopher was considered dangerous by those same authorities ! Certainly, Athens, and especially its ruling class, distrusted Socrates and his acerbic remarks. They don't like harbingers of doom. But that's not all. A power structure cannot tolerate someone with political influence refusing to participate in the political institutions of society, regardless of who the leaders are or the political regime, whether dictatorship or democracy. If you discover that this politician is discreetly maintaining a group of young people, you suspect it's not within the framework of the institutions. As soon as the social and political crisis worsens, the ruling classes no longer want this group. By getting rid of Socrates, they dissolved, in Athens, the group of young people close to Socrates. The leaders of Athens realized that Socrates' group, without its master, was nothing. Those who remained revolutionary had to leave the city.

This is where the Athenian power structure made its political gamble. There is no mortal danger to the ruling classes as long as there are revolutionaries without a revolutionary opportunity, or revolutions without revolutionaries. However, it is crucial for them to get rid of revolutionaries as quickly as potentially revolutionary crises loom. Consequently, it is certain that the Athenian ruling classes would have disposed of a discredited Socrates one way or another had his trial not yielded the expected result, even if it meant having him assassinated in a secluded street. The Athenian leaders knew that a segment of the citizens was seeking scapegoats for the military, political, and social catastrophe. By offering them the chance to accuse a philosophy teacher, they were appealing to the most easily manipulated citizens, particularly the poor youth, to indulge their resentment, jealousy, and hatred. They knew how a tribunal of suitably selected and incited Athenian citizens would react.

Charmides : I have listened carefully to your arguments, and I am sure I will anger you all with my intervention. However, I must say this : Socrates, you are the one who first put us in the state we are in. Our failure is your failure. Our catastrophes are also yours. And I will explain why. Socrates, you were a victim, and we are victims, first and foremost of your own method. Did you not cultivate the idea that one could educate the children of the ruling class in a revolutionary way in order to transform the politics of Athens and, consequently, of all of Greece ? Was this not an illusion ? You were able to see that, despite all the intelligence you instilled in Plato, he could not escape the constraints imposed by his class. Socrates, you fostered the dynamism of an Alcibiades whom you helped in countless ways to gain popularity, including helping him attain military honors that you deserved and he did not. You helped him in this way, but you also encouraged him to believe in himself, which produced the Alcibiades we knew, drunk on his own popularity. Socrates, you cultivated illusions about intellectual superiority and the ability to objectively analyze situations, to the point that some saw it as a superior means to social or political struggle. Some may have believed, through your influence, that philosophical ideas avoided such struggles. Yet, it is violence that engenders new societies, not your dialogues, however interesting they may be. Therefore, I believe, Socrates, if you can hear us, that your teachings in no way protected us from the misfortunes that were to befall us.

Aeschines : I believe our debate has had at least one merit : clarifying the differences between us, and they are now crystal clear. The divergent viewpoints of our friends highlight how far each of us has drifted apart by following our own path. And I think Socrates was the first to realize what was becoming of his disciples. They themselves risked pushing him to compromise with power, to back down in the face of the Athenian ruling class, whether out of calculation, fear, political realism, or opportunism. Yes, under these circumstances, Socrates chose to leave. The reasons for this choice have nothing to do with his advanced age or his state of health. To present Socrates as an old man fearful of old age is to misunderstand him ! As his end approached, didn't Socrates declare : "It would be shameful for a man of my age to worry about the approach of death" ? This doesn't mean he didn't fear death, but neither did it mean he feared old age… The fear of personal hardship and material suffering never guided him, he who had faced death in war so many times. For me, what explains his apparent reluctance to defend himself before his judges is, paradoxically, that he maintains his fight against society. In his statements, he doesn't back down on anything, doesn't renounce any idea, doesn't deny anything, doesn't admit any wrongdoing, and maintains his political project intact. On the other hand, he thus acknowledges that his political project—that of rebuilding the city by constructing, around himself, a circle of conscious and responsible citizens capable of leading it—has encountered unfavorable circumstances and reached its limits. But his ideas, his philosophy, his conceptions—that is his true work, and he defends it by accepting death. It was dying with dignity, as he had lived. His ideas were aimed at achieving immortality !

And the very cause of Socrates' political failure lies right here among us. Let's look at ourselves, my friends. We are the ones who killed Socrates. During his lifetime, didn't Socrates successively distinguish himself from each of us ? Didn't he say to Alcibiades, "Your advantages have inspired you with such pride that you despise all men as inferior to you" ? Didn't he say, regarding Plato, "By Heracles, what falsehoods this young man speaks about me !" ? Didn't Plato reply to Socrates, "I'm afraid I'm not what you would like me to be, but rather, according to Homer, the mediocre man who comes to the table of the wise man uninvited" ? Did he not say to those who, like Alcibiades or Charmides, desired to seize power, claiming to do good : "The city where those who should hold power are least desirous of power is necessarily the one that is best and most peacefully governed" ? I recall Socrates' words before the tribunal : "Throughout my life, whenever I have taken part in public affairs, you will find me the same ; the same again in my private relationships, never yielding anything to anyone against justice, not even to any of those tyrants whom my slanderers would have us believe were my disciples. I have never been anyone's master ; but if anyone, young or old, has wished to speak with me and see how I carry out my duties, I have refused no one this pleasure."

Unlike Socrates, and like each of you, I fear tyrants and I, too, dare not stand firm against them. Who among us has stood firm against dictatorship ? Who has never been tempted by power, honors, flattery, money, or luxury ? None !
Who among us, then, can truly call themselves a disciple of Socrates ? Which one could claim to be the continuator of his entire struggle ? Is it Charmides, today the most vindictive against us, but who, yesterday, proved himself a perfect member of a dictatorship when it came to wielding power in Athens ? Is it Xenophon, who insisted on pursuing his military adventures in other territories, even when his battles were far from being guided by the defense of any ideal or the general interest of the peoples whom Socrates championed ? Was it Plato who, during his lifetime, began selling Socrates' philosophy to the general public in as unrevolutionary a form as possible, to the point that Socrates had to publicly distance himself from it ? Was it Alcibiades who achieved great success first in Athens, becoming head of state and general, and then chose to go to Sparta, to the opposing army ? Was it Antisthenes, certainly radical and rigorous in his ideals, but who despised humanity ? Is it those among us who want to limit revolution to a few changes in the city's government ? Is it those who are more radical but unwilling to sacrifice anything of their own way of life ? Who dared to publicly advocate for the abolition of slavery, the very foundation of our societies ? Who openly campaigned for the liberation of women, the most suffering half of humanity ? Who wants to free children, who are considered the property of their fathers within the home, which has become their prison ? None ! In any case, none of us dares to publicly declare that they must be freed from their chains ! Yes, my friends, the tribunal that condemned Socrates was us : it was that of his disciples ! But in doing so, we have only condemned ourselves to impotence. As for Socrates, yes, he was a revolutionary. The Athenian state, in the process of building its dictatorship on Greece, did him the greatest honor by condemning him to death, which shows that it understood very well that ideas are a revolutionary force.

Yes, Socrates was a philosopher. But what kind of philosopher ? He himself said :

“It must be said, first of all, that from their youth, philosophers do not know which way leads to the agora, nor where the court, the council chamber, or any other public meeting place is located. They have neither eyes nor ears for the laws and decrees proclaimed or written. (…) Has any good or bad fortune befallen the State, (…) the philosopher has no more knowledge of it than of the number of drops of water in the sea. He doesn't even know that he is ignorant of all this (…) it is because only his body is present and dwells in the city, while his thought, regarding all this with disdain as petty and worthless things, roams everywhere (…) scrutinizing nature in every way (…) So, my friend, as I said at the beginning, this is what our philosopher is like in the private and public relationships he has with his fellow men. When he is forced to argue in a court or somewhere else (…) his terrible clumsiness makes him appear a fool.” In the heat of insults, he can't muster a single insult of his own against anyone. (...) When people praise and boast, he laughs, but genuinely, and is taken for a fool. He hears a tyrant or a king being praised, and imagines he's hearing the extolling of some shepherd, swineherd, shepherd, or cowherd who gets a lot of milk from his flock. (...) He hears a man who owns a very large tract of land described as prodigiously rich, and he finds it insignificant, accustomed as he is to considering the whole world his own. As for those who sing the praises of nobility and say that a man is well-born because he can prove he has seven wealthy ancestors, he believes that this praise comes from people with narrow and short-sighted views because, lacking education, they can never fix their gaze upon the whole of humankind, nor realize that each of us has countless myriads of forebears and ancestors, among them rich and poor, kings and slaves, barbarians and Greeks who have succeeded one another by the thousands in every family. That someone should boast of a line of twenty-five ancestors and trace their origins back to Heracles, son of Amphitryon, he sees in this only a strange pettiness of mind. (...) In all these circumstances, the common people mock the philosopher, who sometimes appears to them disdainful, sometimes ignorant of what is right at their feet, and perplexed about everything.

A curious description of what a philosopher should be ! It shows that the philosopher expects nothing from the State. That his object of study is rather the world, civil society, the society of people who work and live by their labor. Not that of politicians or the ruling classes. Philosophically, too, Socrates was revolutionary since he proposed to understand the world through its scientific study, whether it be the material world or human society.

The accusations at Socrates' trial were, admittedly, purely slanderous. Socrates was not leading the youth astray, nor was he corrupting them. He was merely trying to win them over to the revolutionary ideal. Aristophanes sought to ridicule this ideal and drag it through the mud, but he started from Socrates' true ideas in order to better refute them. He satirized them, ridiculing Socrates measuring the height of a flea's jump with Chaerephon, but he knew perfectly well what Socrates was trying to demonstrate : that the scientific study of reality leads to an understanding of the leaps, the discontinuities of reality, highlighted by Zeno of Elea. He knew that Socrates' dialectic was not one of discourse, but one encompassing nature, humanity, and society. Consequently, the established order could be brutally transformed into its opposite, for it contained within itself explosive contradictions. And the goal of men and women aware of human needs had to be to move from this exploitative society to one where the communal ownership of the means of production would lead human beings to work only to satisfy their true needs, for the well-being of all and not just a minority. This meant the liberation of slaves, the equality of all people, whether local or foreign, man or woman, former slaves or former citizens, adult or child. Yes, this ideal could frighten the ruling classes ! As Socrates said : "We believe we shape the happy city, not by taking a small number of its inhabitants aside to make them happy, but by considering it as a whole."

What should we call Socrates' ideal ? Neither virtue, nor good behavior, nor self-knowledge, nor good discourse, much to the chagrin of those who call themselves his disciples ! No ! It is communism....

Let us recall what Socrates declared to Glaucon :

"Let us first consider the State. (...) What constitution is meant by oligarchy ? It is the form of government founded on property ownership, where the rich rule and the poor have no share in authority. (...) This hoarding of gold, where everyone piles up, is what destroys this kind of government. First, they discover reasons for spending, and to satisfy them, they bend the laws and no longer obey them, neither they nor their wives. (...) Necessarily, such a State is not one, but two : that of the poor and that of the rich, who inhabit the same land and constantly conspire against one another. (...) Some will be excessively rich and others destitute. (...) It is evident that wherever you see beggars in a State, the same place harbors thieves, pickpockets, sacrilegious people, and evildoers of every kind. (...) Now, as it suffices for a A small, weak body, susceptible to illness from the slightest external shock, sometimes even to unforeseen disturbances, so too does a state, in a similar situation, become prey to disease and internal strife at the slightest opportunity. (...) Is it not the same in a democracy founded on money ? Was it not excessive wealth that served to establish the oligarchy ? (...) Well, it is the same pursuit of money, the same insatiable desire, that causes the downfall of the democracy founded on the same insatiable desire for the accumulation of goods. (...) The same disease that, born in the oligarchy, caused its ruin, also arises in democracy, develops there with greater force and virulence, and reduces the democratic state to slavery. (...) Let us mentally divide the democratic state into the three classes of which it is composed. The first is the same breed that developed at the head of The oligarchy. (...) Then there is another class that always distinguishes itself from the multitude. This is the class that seeks money. (...) The third class is the people, that is to say, all manual laborers and private individuals uninvolved in public affairs who possess only a small amount of wealth. In a democracy, this would be the most numerous and therefore the most powerful class if it were assembled. But it is hardly inclined to assemble. (...) The people are accustomed to choosing a favorite whom they place at their head and whose power they nurture and increase. (...) And the protector of the people begins to transform into a tyrant. (...) This is the moment for all the ambitious who have reached this point to resort to the famous request of the tyrant, to ask the people for bodyguards, so that the "defender of the people" may remain to serve them. And the people give them to him ; for all their fears are for the defender of the people. For their own defense, they do nothing Nothing : he's too self-assured. (...) In the first few days, he only smiles and greets everyone he meets, denying that he's a tyrant,He multiplies promises, both privately and publicly, he forgives debts and distributes land to the people and his favorites, and affects benevolence and gentleness toward everyone. (...) But, when he has finished with his external enemies, (...) he constantly stirs up wars so that the people will need a leader. And also, he arranges for the citizens to be impoverished by taxes and thus forced to attend to their daily needs and conspire less against him. And if he suspects that some of them are too independent-minded to submit to his rule, war gives him a pretext to destroy them by delivering them into the hands of the enemy. For all these reasons, a tyrant is always compelled to foment wars. (...) Thus, in reality, whatever some people may think, the true tyrant is a true slave, of extreme baseness and servility, reduced as he is to flattering the most wicked men, powerless to satisfy his own desires in the slightest (...) He spends his life in continual fear, prey to convulsive pains. (...) But besides these evils, he is a victim of those that power develops even further, namely envy, treachery, injustice, and a lack of friends. (...) So, will the wise man refuse to take part in public affairs if he has such ideas ? By Jove ! He will attend to them in his own state, and actively. 'I understand,' he replied, 'you are speaking of the state whose plan we have just outlined, and which exists only in our discussions ; for I do not believe that there is one like it anywhere in the world.' (...) It matters not whether this State has been realized somewhere or is yet to be realized, it is on this one and this one alone that it will base itself and whose laws it will follow."He is a victim of those things that power only exacerbates—I mean envy, treachery, injustice, and a lack of friends. (...) So, the wise man will refuse to take part in public affairs if he harbors such ideas ? No, by the Dog ! He will attend to them in his own state, and actively so. 'I understand,' he replied, 'you are speaking of the state whose plan we have just outlined, and which exists only in our discussions ; for I do not believe there is one like it anywhere in the world. (...) It matters little whether this state has already been realized somewhere or is yet to be realized ; it is on this one, and this one alone, that he will focus his attention and whose laws he will follow.'He is a victim of those things that power only exacerbates—I mean envy, treachery, injustice, and a lack of friends. (...) So, the wise man will refuse to take part in public affairs if he harbors such ideas ? No, by the Dog ! He will attend to them in his own state, and actively so. 'I understand,' he replied, 'you are speaking of the state whose plan we have just outlined, and which exists only in our discussions ; for I do not believe there is one like it anywhere in the world. (...) It matters little whether this state has already been realized somewhere or is yet to be realized ; it is on this one, and this one alone, that he will focus his attention and whose laws he will follow.'

It seems to me that, after such statements, we can hardly claim that Socrates was condemned by Athens simply because he practiced philosophy too freely. No, it was indeed Socrates' revolutionary politics, inseparable from his revolutionary philosophy, that was condemned.

His last words before his death were :

“Now, if you wish to discover the truth more easily, do not limit your inquiry to humankind ; extend it to all animals and plants, in short, to everything that comes into being, and let us see, in considering all this, whether it is true that nothing can come into being except from its opposite, when it has an opposite. (…) Let us see, then, whether it is a necessity that everything that has an opposite comes into being from nothing other than its opposite. (…) Another question : is there not, between all these pairs of opposites, a double birth, one that draws one of the two opposites from the other, and the other that draws the latter from the first ? (…) Is it not the same with what we call decomposition and combination, cooling and heating, and so on with everything ?” And if sometimes words fail us to describe it, in fact at least, it is always a necessity that it be so, that opposites are born from one another and that there is generation from one to the other. (…) Don't you admit that the opposite of life is death ? (…) And that they are born from one another ? (…) If, in fact, births were not balanced from one opposite to the other, and turned, so to speak, in a circle, if, on the contrary, they occurred in a straight line and only from one opposite to the one facing it, if they did not return to the other and did not take the opposite direction, you realize that in the end all things would have the same form and would fall into the same state and that generation would cease. (…) If, for example, drowsiness existed on its own, without the awakening that comes from sleep to balance it, you realize (…) that everyone would be asleep. (…) Where does the idea of equality come from ? (…) We say that there is something equal ; I don't mean one piece of wood equal to another piece of wood, nor one stone equal to another, nor anything of the sort, but something else that is beyond all these, equality itself. (…) We must therefore have been aware of equality before the time when, seeing equal things for the first time, we said to ourselves : “All these things tend toward equality, but are only imperfectly so.” (…) Equality must therefore have existed before we were born in order for it to appear to us afterward as a memory. (…) Does it also seem to you that all men can account for these realities we were discussing earlier ? (…) Don't you believe that all men are aware of these realities ? (…) Bring me the poison.

Until then, almost all of us had managed to hold back our tears ; but when we saw him drink, and once he had drunk, we were no longer in control. "What are you doing, my strange friends ?" he cried. "Be calm and steadfast."

Such was Socrates. Future generations will not forget him. He died so that his ideal might live on ! He now belongs to all humanity and he is eternal...

– Menexemus : Socrates practiced politics discreetly—that was his expression—in order to fight the system while protecting himself and avoiding too much attention. He didn't believe that the system could be reformed from within. When one is truly against oppression, dictatorship, slavery, exploitation, and the domination of foreigners, serfs, women, and children, one must wage one's battle without seeking to enter the institutions, however "democratic" they may be toward free men. He was able, discreetly, to assemble a small team of revolutionaries who reasoned and educated themselves together, in anticipation of times when the world would turn… At his trial, Socrates even allowed himself to explain this. I quote him : “Perhaps it seemed strange to you that I went about the streets, giving advice privately and meddling in the affairs of others, yet dared not appear in public assemblies to advise the republic. No one lives very long if they publicly oppose you or openly try to prevent many injustices and illegalities from being committed in the state. If you truly want to fight for justice and live for a while, you must do so discreetly and without making a public spectacle of yourself.” In fighting against injustice, one must organize discreetly, Socrates reminds us, and protect oneself from the ruling classes. The moment he was exposed, Socrates knew that the ruling classes would not let him live, understanding how dangerous such a man, with his courage and competence, could be to them. Of course, everyone can believe that Socrates' life depended on the outcome of the trial. But, since he had been singled out for public condemnation and in the poisonous atmosphere of the city, had he escaped, he would have been found dead in the streets. Socrates undoubtedly preferred that the murder be clearly attributed to Athens, rather than being eliminated anonymously, as had happened to Chaerephon, Thuicides, and many others during the same period. It was a way of forcing the city to take responsibility for its actions and, thus, to definitively mark history by giving full force to his ideas.

For whom would he have lived any longer ? For his disciples ? No ! He expected nothing but setbacks from them. That is why we must not be mistaken : Socrates left because he no longer counted on us. Who killed Socrates ? We did ! His disciples did ! Weakness ! Self-interest ! Cowardice ! "Protect me from my friends ; I can take care of my enemies" is a well-known proverb. Seeing that, one after another, his friends were either disappearing or becoming just like everyone else—men living for self-interest, without principles, without a worldview, without courage—Socrates understood what the future held for him and how much he would have lost by continuing his academy. Some would use philosophy for personal success, to create fame, or even to seize power. What awaited his "school" was disappointment, betrayals both small and large, and all sorts of abuses. He preferred to leave with his head held high…

Socrates' plea at his trial is a perfect demonstration of this. It didn't just shock his judges and the public ; it startled all of us who were there. We must admit it, even if we claimed to know and understand Socrates. This very astonishment speaks volumes about our distance from the master's personal philosophy. Socrates' entire personal stance, in his life as in his trial, was focused on a single fundamental point, decisive for all others : never to back down on any of his personal convictions, whatever the cost. And this meant : don't concern yourself with public opinion, form your own and then defend it against all odds ; don't change anything you think under the pretext of pleasing the majority ; no self-censorship, no allegiance to the powerful, but also no flattery of the oppressed and the common people. Finally, never give in to friends and family, for it is they (not enemies, not adversaries) who have the power to make us back down from our convictions, claiming that life is more important than ideas. Who did Socrates encounter in his struggle to remain steadfast ? The pressure of all his friends and family : we told him he could make amends, that there was nothing scandalous about pleading guilty, about backtracking on a few statements. All this to save his life, to stay with his loved ones, to live with his children, his family, his friends. Enjoying life seemed so much more important to us then than asserting that the gods were this way or that way, that philosophy should be this way or that way. And we, his friends—and it's true that only our love for him sustained us—we almost contributed to his true destruction by discrediting the very foundation of his life ! Socrates had risked his life countless times on the battlefield, not for honor, nor for glory, nor out of a love of war, but to protect friends, family, loved ones, and his people. And for this, for his ideal, he had not feared death. He had saved his friends at the peril of his own life. And now, his very friends were telling him that he shouldn't risk his life for his ideal, because we needed him to stay with us ! What could be more criminal ! And then we offered him another way to betray his principles, by fleeing from prison… That's how we demonstrated that friends are far more dangerous than enemies. It wasn't the accusers or the Athenian court that could kill Socrates' philosophy. Even today, the only ones capable of killing his philosophy are not Aristophanes or Anytus, or any other enemy of Socrates. It is we who are capable of destroying what Socrates was by giving him a false image, the one that suits us, the one that is bearable for us.

Like you, I am a poor revolutionary and a bad philosopher. Like you, all I can do is lament the death of Socrates, and it is myself I pity in this instance. And that means regretting that Athens is not as my illusions had envisioned the city. Socrates never thought that way. Socrates loved reality too much, finding it too fascinating, to distort it in his own eyes. In his final moments, seeing my sadness, he took me aside and whispered in my ear : “Dying is nothing. What is hard is leaving with the thought : I had wonders right beside me and I didn't even look at them.”

Apollodorus : I have only just understood, and it is to my misfortune. I have lost Socrates a second time ! I have only just opened my mind to what truly happened : it was Socrates who condemned Athens far more than Athens condemned Socrates. It was he who deliberately determined the outcome of the trial by definitively shedding his blood upon the city, which will forever be marked for having murdered the philosopher. But it is Socrates who has thus triumphed. On the other hand, we too are condemned, we his so-called disciples, for Socrates has thus turned away from us. I thought I had wept my heart out at his death, but it was not enough. That Socrates turned away from us is a new suffering. A tiny bit of knowledge has just penetrated me, and already I feel I am suffering too much ! I understand now why Socrates said that we know nothing. Knowledge attracts us like light attracts a moth, but we burn our wings in the process. For many, knowledge means power and the ability to act, but in reality, knowledge is a heavy burden and requires great courage. Have we had enough of that, my friends, to claim to carry on Socrates' legacy, I ask you... In any case, I have just witnessed a new trial : our own. And the conclusion, for me, is clear : we are condemned !

Plato : I understand your discouragement, Apollodorus. Socrates always said, "My questions are dearer to me than all the answers." For him, there is no knowledge without perpetual questioning. But being able to live in a state of constant questioning and challenging all established knowledge—that is the courage Socrates demanded. Where some saw denigration or irony, where others imagined a method of questioning, a dialectic of speech, there was in fact a profound and constant need to question one's vision of reality by asking others how they saw it. This was as much a necessity for understanding the thoughts of others as it was for discovering one's own thoughts and for discovering the world. Socrates' happiness lay in the joy of knowledge. Not the joy of possessing a great deal of knowledge, but the joy of always seeking to understand, of constantly deepening our vision of the world. And the joy of sharing this experience with others. He never tired of admiring the world and discussing it with us ! And for him, there were no those who possessed great knowledge on one side and those who did not on the other. For you too, Apollodorus, joy can continue to come from there : discovering, knowing, and sharing.

Eubulides : Socrates had nothing to regret, for he died for his ideals, just as he had lived. He harbored no illusions about the ruling classes and knew that, having revealed his plans, they would no longer allow him to live in peace. As for us, my friends, what Socrates demonstrates is that life can be founded on choices and that building a life is the finest work a person can accomplish. This work lies before each of us and depends on our will.

Phaedo : Don't be distressed, Apollodorus. Socrates died satisfied with the trick he played on his adversaries, and he had no regrets. And first of all, I want to tell you that it was the politicians, the profiteers, and the ruling classes of Athens who were smeared, not the Athenian people. And certainly not Socrates. The people were momentarily deceived, but they weren't the ones who orchestrated the maneuver to discredit Socrates. It was even orchestrated against the people, whose anger and revolts were feared. There's no reason for regret. What struck me was that Socrates departed content. Content, first of all, with the life he had led and the way he had lived it to the very end. For Socrates lived well. According to the principles he intended to uphold. He was poor, but he didn't care, and laughed at those who pretended to give him gifts, inviting him to courtly meals, for example. He looked at luxurious clothes and food and asked : is this really necessary ? He told off those who wanted to offer him slaves to live off the exploitation of other men. He said to Theodore : "The philosopher, when he hears someone speak of a man who owns ten thousand plethra of land as being prodigiously rich, finds it to be very little, he who is accustomed to thinking about the whole world..."Everything interested him except material gain or honors. He was constantly learning from everything and everyone. He was full of questions, because he believed that the most thoughtful person is always learning. He had already lived several lives. He was initially a brilliant sculptor like his father, having sculpted the statue of the Three Clothed Graces that adorns the entrance to the Acropolis. An infantryman in the Peloponnesian War against Sparta, he distinguished himself at the battles of Potidaea, Delos, and Amphipolis, managing to survive many deadly wars while saving several of his comrades. He pursued multiple activities simultaneously. Certainly, he engaged in politics and philosophy. But he also worked at the Euripides Theatre. He sculpted, and beautifully so ! He played the harp. He held every position, from soldier to strategist, from citizen to prime minister, from student to university professor. But his council was that of the revolution, his university, that of the street, his citizens were all people, not just Greeks, not just Athenians. And not just citizens or free men. Not just men, but women too. He did all this without ever abandoning his ideals, without compromising with his adversaries, without yielding to dictatorship or the pressures of democracy. He kept his ideal intact, in the worst of times as well as in times of calm. He yielded neither to misery nor to good fortune, nor to panic or popular fads, nor to the plague, nor to military occupations. He listened neither to the sirens of power nor to those of resentment. Everyone told him a thousand times that he could achieve greater personal success, or success for his ideals, by compromising himself in countless ways, and he simply smiled kindly at them. He questioned them about how to succeed and the goals of that success. And his questions all came back to this one : what is the purpose of life ? Happiness ! Are we happier because we are rich ? Isn't the greatest wealth internal ? How can we make the city happy ? By making people happy ! He didn't oppose collective happiness and individual well-being.

After such a life, Socrates was not afraid of death. This astonishes us, but let us acknowledge that his entire life astonishes us, and that none of us has ever felt capable of living the same life. Of course, we have lost Socrates, but he has not lost his battle. During his trial, he held his head high to the very end. He forced his adversaries either to recant their testimony or to go so far as to kill him. He was not one to beg for leniency by admitting to false accusations. He remained steadfast and upright, applying the principles of his life until his death.

Apollodorus, you raise some excellent questions, and I certainly don't presume to answer them or take them away from you. I wouldn't want to pretend you're simply ignorant and that we have definitive answers. Socrates himself would never have done that. We've simply done as you did and asked ourselves these questions. Your questions are fundamental issues. It's highly likely that generations later, if humanity still exists, others will come and ask them. The important thing is to ask such questions and to delve deeply into this inquiry, courageously and without preconceptions. You'll see that if we do this, we become rich. Not rich in a sum of knowledge, but rich in reflections, personal thoughts, a taste for observing the world, for the philosophical reflection it inspires, for the beauty of nature and for thinking about it. This is not a way for me to dodge your questions, as I will not hide the fact that I tried to answer them.

Even for you, Apollodorus, do not be sad. Socrates has not left you, since his ideas and his memory continue to trouble you. Even the fact that you are not cut out to become a philosopher, or a revolutionary on Socrates' level, nor capable of succeeding him, should not surprise you. You only claimed to have been a faithful friend, and many of us did not aim higher. It was already risky to be Socrates' friend and to accompany him. As for becoming his epigones, that would be tiresome and disappointing. You must be yourself and face reality. As you die, remember his last words. He did not tell us : be wise, nor be virtuous, nor be good revolutionaries, nor be good philosophers, nor be good disciples, nor even spread my ideas well. None of that. He told us : "My friends, be courageous . " In my view, this means : don't be afraid to go wherever your ideas lead you and then defend them to the very end, whatever the cost. Unwittingly, we, his disciples, have just put ourselves on trial ! So, now that our assembly is drawing to a close and nothing but a tribute to his memory is certain to come of it, I propose a libation. Not in honor of Socrates : that would be entirely unbecoming to our departed friend. Nor to the success of his disciples. But let us drink instead to the future humanity, freed from its chains ! I am sure that Socrates would have joined in such a toast in honor of his daimon !

So ! Let us drink together to humanity freed from its chains !

And they all drink, their laughter mingling with tears and sadness…

By Zeus, you will excuse the imprecision of Rovertos Paris's note-taking.

Disclaimer : Rovertos Paris, the rapporteur of this conference, wishes to disclaim all responsibility for the statements made by the supposed disciples of Socrates who participated and cannot guarantee that they were uttered verbatim, given the difficulty of taking notes and then transcribing them accurately. Considering the complexity of the issues addressed—historical, political, social, and philosophical—and given the rapporteur's limitations in understanding and knowledge, the debates of the Megara conference, as reported here, are presented with all due reservations. Anyone who finds that any of the interventions, as reported, are false, based on misinterpretations, nonsense, or have been borrowed from other authors and thinkers, should only address their complaints to the disciples themselves, by communicating them to Paris, who will forward them. Paris claims no ownership of the statements made at the conference, nor any exclusive right to their dissemination.

Socrates, dialectician and communist

What did Socrates mean by his famous "know thyself" ?

Socrates is condemned by us every day.

Ancient Greece : The philosophy of Zeno of Elea and Socrates

The permanent revolution and the end of women's oppression

Karob, Robert Paris — 2026-06-17T03:48:00Z

To the women who are fed up…

…fed up with being treated like sexual submissives

…fed up with a society where they always have to put themselves below

…fed up with a society where women are pointed at and objectified

…fed up with risking violence from men, including their spouses

…fed up with being threatened by wars and civil wars, by fascism and dictatorships, by the abuses of armies

…fed up with being told that their children will have to be sacrificed in the next wars and that they will have to be… satisfied or at least submissive once again
…fed up with their children suffering from diseases linked to capitalism and its stage of collapse (death in childbirth, death from respiratory diseases, cancers due to the agri-food industry, pesticides and fertilizers, due to the chemical, nuclear, metallurgical industries, etc.)

…fed up with this political and social world where women are even more enslaved than the exploited, because they are doubly oppressed and exploited

And to the men who are tired of playing such a role or being considered as such and who do not want to support patriarchal capitalism !

Two days before a women's demonstration on November 22nd, four femicides took place in France on Thursday, November 20th alone, in four very different locations, affecting women of all ages and backgrounds. All were killed by their partner or ex-partner.

Four in a single day in France demonstrates that the wave of violence against women is swelling in this otherwise democratic and wealthy country, as it is throughout the world. And far more than statistics suggest, women are frequently threatened with death, assaulted, raped, and abused, and young women are victims of crimes. Much of this violence occurs within the family and is not even due to external factors, despite the often-heard propaganda falsely attributing this violence to immigration !

According to UN figures, a woman or girl is killed every 10 minutes by her intimate partner or another family member.

Indeed, 85,000 women and girls were intentionally killed worldwide in 2023, and 60% of these crimes, or 51,000, were committed by an intimate partner or another family member. Every day, 140 women or girls die at the hands of their partner or a close relative.

There are of course other types of violence, particularly those near places of war, where women are considered spoils of war and violence against them is a way of punishing the population of the opposing camp.

There are also kidnappings carried out by armies at war, whether official armies like in Sudan or terrorist armies like in Nigeria.

It is no coincidence that at the same time we are told that we have to get used to it : we must accept dying… in war.

Because this is also a war that is currently being waged against women.

It's important to remember that women are far more anti-militarist and anti-repression than men, both young and old. Therefore, they must be terrorized to silence them and force them to remain silent for fear of the violence society might inflict upon them.

It is also about creating, through the rise in violence by men against women, a climate of war where young men are proud to participate in a slaughter, as Chief of Staff Mandon so eloquently and with well-chosen words expressed before the deputies and then before the mayors (not the mothers !)…

The more the slide towards widespread war becomes official, the more people know that society is about to descend into the worst kind of violence, and the more crucial the search for scapegoats becomes for the ruling classes who don't want to be blamed for this carnage. Of course, the opposing side is blamed : Russia and China, naturally, but also Iran and North Korea. But then there are immigrants, undocumented immigrants, the unemployed, the Yellow Vest-type rebels, the so-called conspiracy theorists, and the "let's block everything" crowd. And to all these scapegoats, women are inevitably added. They are accused of not understanding the benefits of militaristic nationalism, the necessities of the pursuit of profit even at the expense of the family, the needs of the warrior man and his precious rest…

It is remarkable that at the same time as society is officially fighting against violence and discrimination against women, these are multiplying without the dominant society doing anything to stop them.

To all those women (and men) who are fed up, we say : BREAK WITH THE CAPITALISTS, THEIR SYSTEM, THEIR STATES, THEIR SOCIETY, THEIR INSTITUTIONS, AND JOIN THE REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT TO OVERTHINK THE INFERNAL COUPLE OF PATRIARCHY-CAPITALISM
The permanent revolution and the end of women's oppression

The "permanent revolution" is a political orientation developed by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky. It has nothing in common with the organization in France, which adopted this name without even supporting any of the policies it espouses.

What, then, is this “strategy of permanent revolution” ? Permanent revolution is opposed to reformism, and even to gradual, step-by-step revolution, to supposedly realistic objectives, to the real or imagined prejudices of the proletariat, to the fear of radicalism, to the opposition between the immediate reformist program and the long-term communist program. It aims to transform into revolutionary weapons, to be turned against the system with the maximum force and determination, all the abuses, suffering, and oppression inflicted upon the people by the old reactionary society. To this end, the revolutionary proletariat must become the voice of all those who suffer these evils, their most radical defender, the only one that wishes, without the slightest hesitation, to put a definitive and irreversible end to these ills and their root causes inherent in the system itself.

And, used in this way, the oppression of women is an incredible potential bombshell that the proletariat can send in the face of the capitalist world and imperialist domination over the world.

With the "permanent revolution", the aim is to direct the social revolution of the proletariat in such a way that it is not satisfied with only one of its stages, one of its objectives, one of its demands, but combines them all, links them indissolubly, so that they reinforce each other, destroy the old social and political order from top to bottom, and serve to build the new order, to build socialism and communism.

Regarding the oppression of women, this is not about praising bourgeois and petty-bourgeois feminists, nor about subjugating workers' social movements to such leaders, of course. More generally, it is not a question of the proletariat subservienting itself to bourgeois or petty-bourgeois aspirations for changing an order that has become unbearable for everyone, but, on the contrary, of the proletariat taking the lead in all struggles and using them as weapons to completely overthrow the old economic and social order.

The goal of permanent revolution is not simply to reduce inequalities, nor even to advocate for equality (equality between capitalists and the exploited—what does that even mean ?), nor merely to narrow the immense chasm between rich and poor, to obtain a little more democracy, a little more respect from those in power, a little more peace, a little less war, a little more wealth distributed to the entire population and a little less to the wealthiest, to eliminate the most blatant and barbaric dictatorships, and other such illusory and supposedly progressive objectives. These objectives are all the more illusory because we have reached the stage of capitalist collapse where reform is more illusory than ever, even counter-reforms are no longer sufficient, and the capitalist elite needs an ultra-radical and violent counter-revolution !

No, the social revolution must be permanent, that is to say, it must not stop in the face of any obstacle, must not be satisfied with any half-measures, but must always go further, moving from the demolition of the old medieval and feudal order which still exists everywhere, particularly through religions, states, monarchies and even bourgeois republics, to the complete elimination of military dictatorships by completely disarming the old ruling classes and of course the capitalist bourgeoisie, by eliminating all of its armed forces, by liberating oppressed nationalities, oppressed ethnic groups, oppressed religions, oppressed women, oppressed youth, the impoverished middle classes, etc.

We have shown on this website, Matter and Revolution, that women were once masters of their own destiny and not only were not dominated but played a leading role in society. This is what has been called matriarchy, which is not the opposite of patriarchy in that it does not imply the oppression of men. This refers to the phase of humanity known as primitive communism, which existed throughout the world until the Neolithic period and sometimes even until the Bronze Age—that is, before the great development of agriculture, sedentary lifestyles, and the emergence of social classes and the state, but also before the exploitation of man by man. In other words, until the establishment of patriarchy across almost the entire planet.

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article8499

But for us, defending the thesis of an ancient matriarchy is not simply about rehabilitating the past of women in early societies. Certainly, this ideological position must be won, but it is for a current purpose, not just a scientific one (prehistoric and historical). Defending the idea of a matriarchy that dominated the world from the era of primitive communism to the Neolithic or Bronze Age is not merely correcting a scientific error ; it is also a flag pointing toward the future. This matriarchy meant that women long held somewhat greater power than men, even if it was not state-based power, founded on laws, repressive measures, or the oppression or exploitation of men (males, in short), as patriarchy is founded on the exploitation and oppression of women with the help of the state and for the greater profit of the exploiting class. Under matriarchy, the exploitation of man by man did not yet exist or was barely embryonic due to the limited labor capacity of each human being. The division of labor among human beings was not yet established.

And patriarchy has since dominated almost everywhere to this day, except where social revolution has triumphed, such as in the Paris Commune of 1871, the Russian Revolution of 1917, or the Spanish Revolution of 1936. History has long since demonstrated the link between social revolution and the liberation of women.

How the permanent revolution intends to work towards the liberation of women, and how it plans to use this objective to significantly strengthen the revolution, is the question that must now be explored. The oppression of women is an ancient remnant of the old pre-capitalist systems of oppression that capitalism has adopted and fully exploited for its own benefit. Even when capitalist society was at its peak, it never relinquished this horror. Now that the capitalist system is in its death throes, it feels an even greater need to exacerbate the oppression of women in order to maintain its power over the world.

The best definition of permanent revolution is to say that it is about transforming all forms of oppression and exploitation of the old, rotten society into weapons of the proletariat to definitively overthrow capitalism and imperialism as well as all more ancient forms of oppression such as religious oppression or the patriarchal oppression of women.

Capitalism has chosen patriarchy as a means of domination to ensure the stability of its society of exploitation of proletarian labor. Well, in order to liberate themselves, the latter, who are the main revolutionary force of the old society, must have no fear or reluctance to transform women's aspirations for liberation into weapons of struggle, they must even take the lead in this struggle, they must place this fight at the forefront of their battle banner, they must not even wait for the hour of revolution to proclaim this objective in factories and neighborhoods, to carry it into the unions as well as the committees of the working people, to denounce all the parties and unions that are reluctant to do so or that only pretend to support women's rights and claim that capitalism and its states are working towards gender equality.

We have already shown in articles on the Matière et Révolution website that capitalism is constantly worsening the situation of women around the world :

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article2545

We have shown that the liberation of women has never come and will never come from the institutions of the bourgeoisie :

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article2931

We have shown that decaying, abiding capitalism, more antisocial and bloody than ever, is even more incompatible with women's freedom :

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7743

We have shown that capitalism and patriarchy reinforce each other and that, in order to end capitalism, we must also end patriarchy :

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article4397

We have shown that patriarchy is an instrument of war waged by big capital against women and against people :

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article5352

We have shown that oppressed women and exploited workers can fight together for the overthrow of capitalism :

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article6903

It remains for us to show how to transform the social horror of the oppression of women into a real bomb that the revolutionary proletariat and rebellious women can throw directly into the mouth of the system of exploitation and oppression that has long dominated the world.

We repeat, the policy of permanent revolution consists of turning the weapons of the capitalist system against itself. The oppression of women must, in the revolutionary strategy of the proletariat, be a weapon aimed directly and violently against the entire system.

And it is first and foremost the objective of the socialist and proletarian revolution that must be clearly established and declared, namely, a return to… matriarchy ! We will be told : “But that would be oppressing men (in the masculine sense) !” Not at all. The old matriarchy was not a system of oppression and exploitation. It did not serve to support a society of oppression and exploitation, since such a society did not yet exist. Primitive communism knew neither private property nor the exploitation of man. And since socialism seeks to challenge these two foundations of the backwardness of current human societies, it is logical to consider returning to the relations between men and women that existed then. This can only frighten the timid and amuse only fools. These people will tell you : “Proletarian men are incapable of it ; there are no more misogynistic men !” "This is where we see how much reformists and opportunists despise the capabilities of the proletariat, as soon as it decides to break in a revolutionary way with the old mess of the world.

It is by affirming this radical objective, the most radical one that exists in this matter, that the proletariat can take the lead in the struggle for women's liberation. And they will not only destroy the patriarchy. They will also affirm that other mortal enemies of women must be definitively eliminated : the standing army of the bourgeoisie, the cause of wars in which women and children are the first victims ; the false, macho, and misogynistic domination that makes women victims of permanent and deadly sexist violence ; and sexual and pedophilic exploitation by completely liberating women and giving them real power.

And we have shown on our website, Matter and Revolution, that the old matriarchy was a system where women held slightly more power than men. But, as the skeptics and moderates will say, "all you have to do is demand equality between men and women." It's clear that these people are primarily afraid of going too far, of being too radical, of having too much trouble convincing others, but they aren't afraid of weakening the proletarian camp in the death war being prepared against capitalism and imperialism. No super-powerful weapon will be superfluous in this fierce struggle that is brewing ! "We'll cut ourselves off from the masses who haven't reached that point yet" is the leitmotif of these people, including those who call themselves revolutionaries, as soon as anyone suggests going to the root of the problem to cut it off radically. They keep saying that "it's going to hurt too much, it's going to be too difficult," like passengers going into space who don't want the rocket's thrust to be too strong so as not to inconvenience the passengers, and who, on the other hand, are not afraid that the rocket will fall back down…

These are the same pseudo-radicals, whether they call themselves far-left or not, who refuse to promote the dictatorship of workers' councils—in short, the soviets ! That would scare away moderate workers (or rather, the working-class elite within the union apparatus) ! They also refuse to advocate for the dismantling of the repressive apparatus : army/police/prisons/gendarmerie/special forces ! Nor do they want to promote the arming of the proletariat… But they also refuse to establish a link between the proletariat and all the oppressed, all the exploited, all the victims of the system (petty bourgeoisie, the poor, women, young people, the unemployed, the homeless, fishermen, farmers, undocumented immigrants, etc.). Here again, the aim is not to alarm the union apparatus that shelters these so-called radicals !

So, you think, proclaiming from the rooftops that we're going back to matriarchy is way too much, even if these people occasionally write that they want to one day put an end to capitalism and therefore build socialism and communism. But that's a long way off… one day…

But matriarchy, even if it's not the direct oppression of men by women, nor their exploitation, is still the primacy of women, their power first. It's unequal, some say. They want "equality."

But then, for our budding radicals, workers' power means more power for the workers than for… others ! That's unequal, isn't it ? In fact, they just want a little more democracy, these famous "radicals".

As Karl Marx said, to be truly radical is to attack evil at its root ! That is why he said he was not only for revolution but for permanent revolution, the kind that never stops digging, deepening, getting to the heart of things, attacking the very core of evil, of the old society and uprooting it completely.

This is what we are going to do with the patriarchy. And this also means uprooting the capitalist army. Uprooting, too, the religions that blame women (in all the Gardens of Eden), that trap women (and men) in an anti-feminine ideological snare. Uprooting bourgeois education, both formal and informal. Uprooting the misogyny and machismo of the media, science, philosophy, art, and so on.

Some radicals are content to see women at the forefront of the uprisings, whether it be the one that began in 2010-2011 in North Africa, the Arab world, and then worldwide, including the beginning of the Yellow Vest movement. But they fail to draw the truly radical conclusions that are necessary. Women will be at the head of the struggle because they suffer a double oppression, both as the exploited and as women. Therefore, they must also have primacy in the society that will be built.

But no, our critics will say, they will have equality. Well, my critics, you will understand that to straighten a stick, you have to bend it in the other direction. That's what happens with the dictatorship of the proletariat, and it's even necessary to take away democratic rights from the former exploiters, the former political or military leaders. You don't go directly from the crooked to the right. You have to, as Hegel would say, go through the negation of the negation to arrive at the affirmation ! Patriarchy negated matriarchy. Matriarchy must negate patriarchy ! And it is the negation of the negation that will liberate both women and men.

Yes, men need to free themselves from their false superiority, from their false needs : to despise, to dominate, to hit, to subdue, to decide alone, to believe themselves superior, to satisfy their sexual and psychological needs at the expense of the other sex, to be attracted to forbidden and forced relationships, all kinds of false needs that the capitalist and patriarchal system, using all modern media and technologies, has implanted in their heads.

The radicalism of these false radicals is limited to a few changes in vocabulary, allowing women to access (verbally) professions that linguistics attributes only to (masculine) men.

This so-called feminist linguistics does not change the reality of women's lives.

And especially not in a phase of society where the ruling class is working to generalize war, fascism, dictatorship, crush revolts, oppress, impoverish, terrorize more than ever, all things of which women are the first victims.

No, bourgeois and petit-bourgeois feminism, which is too timid to even seriously criticize the dominant system and recognize that it is dying, is not enough. It will require a new system, and it won't be established with just… words !

Fundamentally, it will be necessary to destroy the capitalist state (including that of the so-called democracies) and imperialism, and for this, women absolutely need to unite with revolutionary proletarians, and the reverse is also true.

The so-called democracies didn't lift a finger when the revolts around the world were crushed, with women being the first to be targeted. Oh no ! They lifted a finger to support dictatorships. Including in the Arab world. Including in Saudi Arabia. Including in Afghanistan. Including in Iran. Including in Algeria. In the Yellow Vest movement, as in the one in the US, the forces of repression of "democracy" struck first… women !

So, you who fight capitalism, you still don't want to put women first in the future society ?

La vallée du Rhône, couloir de la mort...

Robert Paris — 2026-06-16T22:33:00Z

La vallée du Rhône, couloir de la mort de l'industrie chimique

Il faut déjà remarquer que ce ne sont pas les ministères de la Santé, de l'Industrie, de la Justice, de la Police ni des services sanitaires de l'administration française qui ont relevé l'activité criminelle des industriels de la région de Lyon mais l'ONU !

Document 1

Document 2

Le couloir de la mort de l'industrie chimique

L'industrie capitaliste chimique se défend mais ni pour défendre les emplois ni pour défendre la population…

La population se défend

Les « accidents » se multiplient et révèlent une dangerosité accrue…

La chimie de la région de Lyon pollue mortellement et sciemment…

Un des résultats est l'empoisonnement aux PFAS. L'Etat est au courant et…ne fait rien…

Les cancers et autres maladies se multiplient dans la vallée et la région de Lyon. Le risque catastrophique est sans cesse évité de justesse… IL FAUT ARRETER LA MACHINE A TUER !!!

La vraie lutte écologique est une lutte contre les capitalistes, une lutte de classes !

The IWW and Revolutionary Syndicalism in the USA

Robert Paris — 2026-06-16T09:17:03Z

The IWW and Revolutionary Syndicalism in the USA

“We are adversaries of the existing order ; we are its enemies through and through. We do not respect the flag of the United States. It is a symbol of oppression… It flies over the worst places and carries no message for us. We do not believe in a hierarchy of wages. We propose to abolish the entire wage system and give every man a chance. We do not believe in God. The preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ is the biggest plasphemy in the world because it preaches submission to the current order, promising a better life… in the future.”

IWW, San Diego Union Meeting, April 25, 1912

“We are opposed to the existing order ; we are against it from bottom up. We do not respect the laws or flag of the United States. It is a symbol of oppression ; . . . It floats over the vilest places and has no message for us. We do not believe in the system of wages. We propose to overthrow the whole system and give every man a chance. We do not believe in a God. The preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ has been the greatest curse in the world because it preaches submission to the present order, promising something better in a future life.”

IWW, San Diego Union, April 25, 1912

During the period of rapid industrial development and concentration, the American labor movement also experienced significant growth in the 1870s and 1880s, taking on unique forms. For example, the Knights of Labor, a producers' fraternity—initially secretive for security reasons—reached 700,000 members by the mid-1880s. Open to women and Black people, it advocated for the eight-hour workday, the nationalization of railroads, the abolition of monopolies, and the formation of cooperative enterprises. It brought together skilled and unskilled workers, union members and non-union members alike, as well as artisans and small business owners. Consequently, its leadership rejected class conflict, and after a series of deadly clashes, its influence declined, challenged by the American Federation of Labor (AFL). This organization, led by Samuel Gompers, brought together trade unions, without seeking to unify their actions or to open itself up to unskilled workers and the unemployed, and openly advocated negotiation, compromise and reform.

In various sectors of the American economy, particularly in railroads and mining in the western United States, workers rejected the methods of the AFL and organized themselves based on their industry. From this regrouping emerged the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in 1905, a labor federation founded on industry-based organization. The IWW—later nicknamed the Wobblies—adopted revolutionary syndicalist principles, comparable to those of the Charter of Amiens, and methods of direct action—strikes or sabotage if necessary—rather than negotiation between union leaders and employers. For more than ten years, they spearheaded numerous struggles across the United States.

Committed internationalists, they opposed US participation in World War I and faced deadly repression. Although they still exist, the IWW has since been unable to mobilize a significant number of workers, but their principles—one union for all workers—and the forms they took in their actions have continued to influence social struggles in the United States.

The First World War also served to crush the revolutionary workers' movement in the USA !

In 1912, the IWW, a revolutionary syndicalist organization advocating class struggle, had some 50,000 members, primarily concentrated in the Northwest, among dockworkers, farm laborers in the Midwestern states, and textile and mining regions. The IWW was involved in over 150 strikes, including the Lawrence Textile Strike (1912), the Paterson Silk Strike (1913), and the Mesabi Range Strike (1916). They were also involved in what is known as the Wheatland Hop Riot on August 3, 1913.

Between 1915 and 1917, the IWW's Farm Workers Organization (AWO) brought together hundreds of thousands of seasonal farmworkers throughout the Midwest and Western United States, registering and unionizing them, often in the fields, on the railroads, and in hobo camps.10 During this period, IWW workers were practically indistinguishable from hobos. Since itinerant workers could scarcely afford other means of transportation to reach their next job, covered freight cars, which hobos called "side-door coaches," were frequently plastered with IWW posters. An IWW membership card was considered sufficient for rail travel. Workers often obtained better working conditions through direct action at the workplace, staging sit-down strikes that consciously and collectively slowed down their work. The working conditions of seasonal farm workers saw a huge improvement thanks to Wobbly's unionism.

Building on the success of the AWO, the Lumber Workers Industrial Union (LWIU) used similar methods to organize loggers and other forestry workers in both the Deep South and along the Pacific coast of the Pacific Northwest in the United States and Canada between 1917 and 1924. The IWW lumbermen's strike of 1917 led to the eight-hour workday and greatly improved working conditions in the Pacific Northwest. Although mid-century historians credited the U.S. government and "visionary lumber magnates" for these concessions, it was an IWW strike that secured them.

Beginning in 1913, the Marine Transport Workers Industrial Union (MWW) proved itself a force to be reckoned with. It competed with the unions of the American Federation of Labor for dominance in the industry. Given its commitment to international solidarity, its efforts and successes in this area were not surprising. Local 8, a branch of the union, was led by Ben Fletcher ; he had recruited primarily African American longshoremen from the docks of Philadelphia and Baltimore. Other leaders included the Swiss immigrant Waler Nef, Jack Walsh, E.F. Doree, and the Spanish seaman Manuel Rey. The IWW was also present on the docks of Boston, New York, New Orleans, Houston, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Eureka, Portland, Tacoma, Seattle, Vancouver, as well as in ports in the West Indies, Mexico, South America, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and other nations.

The IWW often struggled to maintain its gains, even where, as in Lawrence, it had won its strikes. In 1912, the IWW rejected collective bargaining agreements and advocated a permanent struggle on the shop floor against the employer. However, sustaining this revolutionary momentum against employers proved difficult. In Lawrence, the IWW lost almost all its members in the years following the strike, as employers gradually undermined the resistance of their employees and eliminated most of the union's most ardent supporters.

Clarice Stasz, Jack London's biographer, notes that he "saw the Wobblies as a beneficial contribution to the socialist cause, although he wasn't radical enough to call for sabotage, for example." She mentions a personal meeting between London and Big Bill Haywood in 1912.

The effectiveness of the IWW's nonviolent tactics provoked a violent reaction from the government, business circles, and groups of "citizens." In 1914, Joe Hill (Joel Hägglund) was accused of murder and, despite only circumstantial evidence, was executed by the state of Utah in 1915. On November 5, 1916, in Everett, a group of businessmen, appointed as sheriffs and led by Sheriff Donald McRae, attacked union members on the ocean liner Verona, killing at least five (six others were never found and likely disappeared in Puget Sound). Two members of the gang were killed, and although the exact circumstances remain unknown, it is believed that the two deputies were hit by friendly fire.

Many IWW members opposed US participation in the First World War. The organization passed a resolution against the war at its November 1916 convention. This echoes the view expressed at the IWW's founding convention that war is a struggle among capitalists, in which the rich get richer, and where the poor often die at the hands of other workers.

The IWW's daily newspaper, the Industrial Worker, wrote just before the United States entered the war : "Capitalists of America, we will fight against you, not for you ! There is no force in the world that can force the working class to fight if it does not want to." Yet, when the declaration of war was passed by the U.S. Congress in April 1917, Bill Haywood, general secretary and treasurer of the IWW, became firmly convinced that the organization should adopt a low profile to avoid the perceived threats to its existence. It ceased all anti-war activity, such as printing anti-war posters and documents. Anti-war propaganda was no longer part of the union's official policy. After much debate in the IWW General Executive, with Haywood advocating a low profile while Frank Little supported continued agitation, Ralph Chaplin found a compromise. The resulting declaration denounced the war, but IWW members were encouraged to express their opposition through legal conscription procedures. They were advised to register, indicating their request for exemption by writing "IWW, opposed to the war."

Although the IWW moderated its verbal opposition, the mainstream press and the American government succeeded in turning public opinion against it. Frank Little, the IWW's most virulent opponent of the war, was lynched in Butte, Montana, in August 1917, just four months after the declaration of war.

The government seized the opportunity presented by the First World War to break up the IWW. In September 1917, agents from the Department of Justice conducted simultaneous raids on 48 IWW meeting places across the country. Also in 1917, 165 union leaders were arrested for conspiracy to obstruct conscription, encourage desertion, and intimidate others in labor disputes, under the Espionage Act ; 101 were tried before Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis in 1918. All were convicted—even those who had not been union members for years—and received prison sentences of up to 20 years. Sentenced to prison but released on bail, Haywood fled to the Soviet Union, where he remained until his death.

In his book "The Land That Time Forgot," published in 1918, Edgar Rice Burroughs portrayed a member of the IWW as a particularly despicable traitor and scoundrel. This wave of denigration led to vigilante groups attacking the IWW in many places. In Centralia on November 11, 1919, Wesley Everest, a union member and veteran, was handed over to a mob by jail guards. He first had his teeth broken with a rifle butt, then was castrated and lynched three times in three different locations, and finally his body was riddled with bullets before being buried in an unmarked grave. The official coroner's report attributed the death to "suicide."

After the war, repression continued. IWW members were prosecuted for violating various federal and state laws, and the Palmer Raids of 1920 targeted foreign-born members of the organization. By the mid-1920s, membership had already declined due to government repression, a decline that increased substantially during the 1924 schism, caused by internal disputes when the union split between "Westerners" and "Easterners" over a number of issues, such as the role of the general administration (often simplistically portrayed as a struggle between "centralizers" and "decentralizers") and attempts by the Communist Party to control the organization through infiltration.

https://iwwjoehill-net.translate.goog/Troubadour-de-la-revolte.html?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr

https://bataillesocialiste-wordpress-com.translate.goog/2014/04/24/une-page-dhistoire-les-i-w-w-americains/?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr

https://www-marxists-org.translate.goog/history/usa/unions/iww/?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr

The revolutionary syndicalist movement of the IWW, as reported by Daniel Guérin in "The Labor Movement in the United States (1867-1967)

On June 27, 1905, two hundred activists met in Chicago to form what they decided to call "The Industrial Workers of the World"

They claimed to be creating a new central trade union in opposition to the old AFL—which they punningly called the "Separation of Labor" (instead of Federation of Labor). They vehemently denounced the trade unionism of the trades, the business world, and class collaboration, contrasting it with a vision of industrial unionism based on worker solidarity and class struggle. They aimed to organize those whom the AFL had neglected : the unskilled workers, whose numbers were constantly increasing due to the development of machinery and whom they rightly considered the "granite foundation of the working class."

The founders of the IWW dominated Gompers by a hundred cubits. The manifesto launched by the activists who had taken the initiative to convene the founding congress, Haywood's interventions at this assembly, the speeches given by Debs in a series of propaganda meetings in favor of the new organization, the pamphlet in which Daniel De Leon commented on the IWW program, all these texts still shine today with a brilliance that time has not tarnished.

Gomperism, however, materially survived the indictment leveled against it. It survived, for a time, and only by making concessions, willingly or unwillingly, to the ideas of its adversary. But its historical condemnation dates from 1905.

“The division of trades,” declared the Manifesto of 1905, “prevents the development of class consciousness among workers, engenders the idea of a harmony of interests between the exploiting employer and the wage slave (…). The universal economic evils afflicting the working class can be eradicated only by a universal workers' movement. Such a movement of the working class is impossible as long as separate trade and wage agreements favor the employer against other trades in the same industry, and as long as energies are wasted in sterile jurisdictional struggles that serve only to increase the personal power of the union leaders. A movement fulfilling these conditions must consist of a single great industrial union encompassing the whole of industry (…). It must be based on the class struggle, and its general administration must be conducted in harmony with the recognition of the irrepressible conflict between the capitalist class and the working class.”

But while the founders of the IWW were armed with a powerful idea, the means at their disposal to put it into practice were inadequate. The founding congress was composed mainly of individuals representing only themselves or only a small portion of the organizations to which they belonged and which had not delegated them.

The only mass organization to join the IWW was the Western Federation of Miners, with its 27,000 members, and its satellite, the American Labor Union, with 16,500 members. But very quickly, as early as 1906, the Western miners decided to regain their independence. They were disheartened by the factional disputes that had erupted early on within the IWW. The organization, instead of becoming the new labor federation they envisioned, was becoming a battleground where rival sects and individuals clashed. In this environment where they constituted the only mass organization, they felt out of place and left.

Furthermore, the Western Federation was beginning a transformation that would ultimately lead it back to the AFL and diminish its activism… This departure was a severe blow to the IWW. The Western Federation was their backbone, as well as their main source of funding.

The initial weakness of the IWW was that, at first, they failed to attract any mass unions other than the Western Federation of Miners. The absence, in particular, of the Federation of Coal Miners was an irreparable handicap. The founders of the new unionism were right in believing that the AFL was not capable of reforming itself and that the initiative had to come from outside. But perhaps the IWW underestimated the possibilities for reform from within. For example, the creation, in 1898, of a Teamsters (truckers) federation within the AFL had instilled a new spirit into the old organization. The Teamsters possessed a sense of worker solidarity that the old craft unions rarely demonstrated.

After the departure of the Western Federation of Miners, which was finalized in 1907, one might have thought that what remained of the IWW would quickly disintegrate amidst sectarian squabbles. In 1908, a split divided the IWW in two : Daniel De Leon and his followers created an authoritarian branch of the IWW, headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, while William Haywood (who, in the meantime, had relinquished his leadership of the Western Federation of Miners) took the helm of a group known as the Chicago branch. On one side were the "political" and "doctrinaire" factions ; on the other, the "anarcho-syndicalists" and "wobblies," proponents of "direct action" alone. (Wobbly literally means : rolling or swaying irregularly from side to side. It seems the nickname was invented by the bourgeois press to ridicule the IWW, who, on the contrary, took pride in it.)

And yet, it was only after these successive splits that the IWW, under Haywood's leadership, truly entered the social struggles in the United States. It was no longer, as in the original model, a vast union federation intended to defeat the AFL, but an active minority, a kind of mobile force ready to move immediately to any point on the battlefield and take the lead in the struggles undertaken by the workers. Thus, while the IWW did not accomplish the grand mission it had originally intended to undertake, it nevertheless rendered an important service to the American working class. Faced with the shortcomings of Gomperism, it was the only organization to intervene in the labor struggles of the unskilled.

Initially, the IWW had taken the easy route : they paid little attention to the unorganized and turned their attention to disaffected union members, attempting to detach a number of trade union branches from the AFL. In the more advanced centers of the East, such as New York and Chicago, they achieved some results. In Shenectady, New York, a General Electric stronghold and AFL bastion, they managed to launch a sit-down strike at the end of 1906, one of the first of its kind in the United States. But these attempts didn't get them very far. Therefore, they decided to leave the trade federations alone and devote their efforts to organizing unskilled workers. They turned, in particular, to migrant farmworkers and lumberjacks in the West, predisposed by their isolation and instability to a libertarian revolt : recourse to direct economic action, contempt for all political activity, and an inability to form any permanent organization. These wanderers, known in America as hobos, joined the IWW en masse and helped secure the victory of Haywood's anarcho-syndicalist faction over the authoritarian faction represented by Daniel De Leon. At the 1908 convention, the "Western Brigade" alone constituted half of the delegates.

To meet the needs of migrant workers and take into account their specific circumstances, the IWW devised a new tactic : free speech fights. Using public squares was the only way to spread propaganda and recruit among dispersed and isolated workers who periodically gathered in towns around employment offices, searching for new jobs. Street speakers were thrown in jail ; others immediately replaced them. Mobile squads of IWW members rushed in from outside and were arrested in turn. These free speech fights shook the entire West between 1909 and 1911.

In 1910, the IWW attacked the organization of loggers in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas. These loggers were neither immigrants nor migrants, but old-school Americans, primitive and violent. Suddenly transformed into wage laborers and harshly exploited, they were receptive to the IWW's arguments. The strike they launched was one of the most violent in the annals of the American labor movement. But it failed, and the union that the IWW had helped organize was crushed.

In 1912, the IWW turned eastward and set its sights on the textile workers. The 25,000 unorganized workers at the American Woolen Company in Lawrence, Massachusetts, went on strike to protest starvation wages. They were mostly recent immigrants from 28 different nationalities, with Italians predominating. One of the IWW leaders, Joseph Ettor, took charge of the strike and led it with a firm hand.

The small town was placed under siege and Ettor arrested. Haywood replaced him. A procession of 10,000 to 15,000 strikers gave him a triumphant welcome. He implemented bold innovations. Assisted by a valuable activist, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, he organized European-style solidarity, directing the strikers' children to the homes of friends and sympathizers in other towns. He involved women in the struggle, and they fought like lions. He established continuous pickets around the factories, composed of thousands of workers. He successfully drew public attention to the strikers' cause. He secured support from the press. A committee of inquiry was formed in Washington, and a delegation of sixteen children, boys and girls under the age of sixteen, traveled to the nation's capital to describe the terrible living conditions in Lawrence. One of these children called Samuel Gompers, who had come to testify against the strike, a liar.

The employers eventually gave in. Upon hearing of their victory, the workers (a very rare occurrence in the United States) sang the Internationale in all languages. The impact of this event was immense and extended far beyond Lawrence. As a result, 25,000 workers obtained a wage increase.

Another strike broke out in early 1913 in the silk industry in Paterson, New Jersey. It spread into a general solidarity strike. Haywood took the lead in the movement. A procession of 35,000 workers of all nationalities marched to a meeting to hear him speak. He was arrested ; when the AFL organized its own meeting, the workers boycotted it in protest against the refusal to allow the IWW leaders to speak.

Haywood, a master of publicity, brought 1,200 strikers to New York, where they marched through the streets. A large rally was held in Madison Square Garden, illuminated by a gigantic transparent screen bearing the three letters "IWW" in red. The strikers themselves described their living conditions in Paterson, sang songs they had composed, and performed a play recounting the events of their struggle. The press ran extensive reports. Haywood, ever innovative, organized meetings for the strikers' children, helped them form a strike committee, and fostered their class consciousness by telling them the fascinating story of a city of children, without adults, police, prisons, banks, or bosses. Despite all these efforts, the struggle ended in failure.

The textile workers' uprising made a powerful impression on the workers in mass-production industries, whose organization had been completely neglected by the AFL. In 1913, in Akron, Ohio, the rubber capital, the unorganized workers of the large tire factories spontaneously rose up. The IWW took the lead in the movement. Soon, 20,000 rubber workers were on strike. The indefatigable Haywood rushed to the scene. Aided by James P. Cannon, the future Trotskyist leader, he organized mass pickets, as he had in Lawrence. Here, the AFL's union of unions supported the movement and considered calling a general strike. But ultimately, the movement failed. One of the causes of this defeat was the hostile attitude of William Green of the Miners' Federation, Gompers' future successor as head of the AFL. Then a senator from Ohio and chairman of a legislative inquiry committee, he denounced the IWW leaders, calling them "outside agitators".

Similarly, in Detroit, Michigan, another stronghold of the new big industry, the Wobblies launched a strike at the Studebaker plant during the summer of 1913. Eight thousand workers, all unorganized, walked off the job for a week. They displayed remarkable cohesion, but the movement missed its mark. Almost simultaneously, the IWW organizers focused their efforts on the Ford plants, flooding them with newspapers and leaflets, while orators addressed the workers at the factory gates. Rumors spread that the Wobblies were planning a strike at Ford for the summer of 1914. It was then that Ford, feeling threatened, launched its "high wages" policy.

Three years later, in 1916, the miners of Minnesota's Mesaba Iron Range, who extracted the raw material needed for the steel mills of Pittsburgh and Chicago, revolted in turn. These recent immigrants, mostly of Finnish origin, were looking for leadership. The IWW answered their call. Joseph Ettor and Elisabeth Gurley Flynn went to the site. The strike became general and encompassed 16,000 miners. Finally, U.S. Steel granted a 10% wage increase, an eight-hour workday, and improved working conditions.

However, after 1914, the IWW again directed the bulk of its efforts westward. Despite their successes in the East, they had failed to establish a permanent organization there, and the prevailing economic crisis diminished the militancy of unskilled workers in the industrial regions of the Atlantic coast. In 1915–1916, they undertook to organize farmworkers, particularly in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Minnesota. They succeeded in unionizing 18,000 migrant workers. Then they turned their attention to the loggers of the Northwest and the copper miners of Arizona.

In 1917, the IWW reached its peak, at least in terms of membership. In one year, they had grown from 40,000 to 100,000. But the United States' entry into the war unleashed a fierce crackdown against them. All the combined forces of capitalism, the government, and veterans were employed to crush them. Samuel Gompers, happy to finally be rid of a troublesome rival, gave President Wilson free rein. Thousands of Wobblies were arrested and sentenced to long prison terms. The movement was effectively decapitated. It never recovered.
THE CHICAGO CONVENTION

Daniel DeLeon

The Daily People

June 27, 1905

(Note : This article refers to the 1905 industrial unionists' convention which established the Industrial Workers of the World. — Also, the phrase “the Krag-Jorgensen policy of settling the Labor question” refers to the use of military force to suppress the workers. The Krag-Jorgensen was a rifle that was used by the US Army and National Guard. ”ML)

Frederick Engels, next to Karl Marx the greatest Socialist philosopher, reiterates in his great work, “Socialism, Utopian and Scientific,” the old Greek philosophy first clearly enunciated by Heraclitus, who said, “Everything is and yet is not, for everything flows, is in constant motion, is in constant process of formation and dissolution.” In other words, life is not a fixed but an ever changing and growing phenomenon. In no phase of life is this philosophy so applicable in its general characteristics as in the economic and social spheres of man. There integration and disintegration are constant and incessant.
Today, a large portion of the working class of this country is turning its gaze in the direction of Chicago. In the Great Lakes city of the West there opens today a convention of workingmen, which, judging from the manifesto calling it, is destined to mark an important change in the history of labor in this country. This convention promises to launch an economic organization of the working class on the lines of the conflicting interests of capital and labor, in direct contradistinction to the prevailing organization, that is based on the principle of the mutual interests of capital and labor. Such an organization necessarily demands integration and disintegration. It necessarily ignores those who regard the present form of trade unionism as fixed and stable, and proceeds to build up in conformity with sound principles, philosophical as well as economic.

That such promises as those of the Chicago manifesto have been held out before and have ended in comparative failure—that the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance and the American Labor Union, for instance, have attempted the same thing with a measure of success less than that confidently expected—is no valid reason for discrediting such promises, or not aiding in the work that would fulfill them - integration and disintegration are processes that must often be accompanied by failure and experimentation in order to be finally successful. The fact that the efforts to launch a classconscious organization of labor are achieving a certain cumulative force, despite their comparative failures, argues well for their final triumph.

Another fact, worthy of consideration, is the more favorable condition of affairs in which the new organization will be launched.

First, it is backed by a large number of weekly and monthly papers, free from the throttling influences of capitalist trade unionism that never supported such a movement before. Headed by the DAILY and WEEKLY PEOPLE, and the Swedish, Jewish, German, Hungarian and Italian organs of the Socialist Labor Party, it has a press that wields a wide influence and can do much constructive as well as destructive, much defensive as well as offensive, work in its behalf. Again, the growth of Socialist sentiment and revolutionary Socialism are factors that cannot be ignored. They possess a power for good in combating the fallacious and treacherous workings of capitalist unionism, that was not so conspicuously present in the past attempts of the kind promised by the Chicago manifesto. With them present, capitalist reasoning and calumny no longer possess the field undisturbed, but are confronted by opponents whose increasing strength threatens them with overwhelming disaster.

Finally, the new movement has the existing disgust against the treachery and futility of Gompersism, combined with its disintegrating tendencies, to help it. The working class look from Frisco to Fall River. They note mutual scabbery, snatchry and defeat everywhere. They note the National Civic Federation and its malignant influence in their affairs, as exemplified in the subway strike. They are, accordingly, alive to Gompersism's impotency and treachery. Moreover, and above all, they note the organic changes in the system of capitalism itself, and the corresponding fallacy of the Gompers unionism. Hence, they are leaving the latter and are turning toward classconscious unionism, with all that implies. When were the promises of such unionism ever more favorable and worthy of support ? Never before in the history of the American labor movement.

It is to be hoped that the Chicago convention is alive to these facts, and will improve upon them. A step backward from the manifesto would be deplorable, while conditions justify many steps forward. The mere declaration of Industrial Unionism will not suffice without the determination to make classconsciousness the essence of the new movement.

Some sapient “Socialists” proclaim the International Typographical Union an Industrial Union, because it includes in its ranks many branches of the printing industry. The fact that these are the better paid branches, who use the inferior branches to raise their own salaries exclusively, a was done in the Brooklyn Eagle strike, doesn't affect the thinking apparatus of these wiseacres any. Nor does the International Typographical Union's endorsement of the Krag-Jorgensen policy of settling the Labor question, have the slightest impression upon their “wisdom.” They, now as always, are pleased with the form, for the essence is beyond them. Save us from such “industrial unionism.” It is the old poisonous adulteration with a new label !

If the Chicago convention measures up to its duty and answers labor's prayer for relief, it will progress as it deserves. Otherwise retrogression will be its lot, while integration and disintegration will continue in the world of labor as of yore.
Max Eastman 1921

Bill Haywood, Communist

The title of this article will be interesting news to those who have always loved the IWW, and felt that it is the only real contribution America has made to political history since 1789. We have been a little saddened of late years to see the rigidity and lethargy of age creeping over the IWW It seems as though all organizations which do not achieve within ten or fifteen years the purpose for which they are formed begin to be more interested in themselves than they are in their purpose. That instinctive gregarious loyalty which made them possible in the beginning makes them stiff and complacent and useless in the end. Have a split and start a new organization every ten years, might almost be a universal rule — a 22nd point — for the guidance of revolutionary movements. And it seemed as though even the IWW were not going to escape the application of this rule.
But something is happening. The long arm of the Moscow engineers is active in Chicago. Tired, discouraged, jail-worn and work-worn editors and organizers are talking about a new subject with a new enthusiasm — an enthusiasm that Bill Haywood describes as “quiet and warm.” The subject they are talking about is an endorsement of the International Council of Trade and Industrial Unions, affiliation with it, and the resolute fulfillment of its purposes in this country.
“I would like to see a unanimous vote for affiliation on the part of the IWW,” Bill Haywood said to me. “I only want to live to see the dream of the Red Labor International come true. That's all I want. That's the IWW”

He had in his pocket a leaflet written by an English delegate to the Council, JT Murphy. In that he showed me a footnote stating that the delegates had voted to draft an appeal to the IWW, and to other organizations of syndicalist tendency which had not yet declared for affiliation.

“That got me,” he said. “To think of the workers of several nations, including one nation of a hundred and eighty million, causing the draft of an appeal to the IWW ! That shows what has happened to the world. I don't have to wait for their appeal. I've read their plans and their instructions, and I know this is something at last that we can work with. They are carrying out the original aims and purposes of the IWW, and you can say for me that I think every genuine labor union in the United States ought to affiliate with the International Council of Trade and Industrial Unions with its central bureau at Moscow.”
I asked him whether he though the IWW would affiliate with it at their convention in May, and he said, “I have not heard a word in opposition.”

Bill Haywood is not the IWW, of course, and he is not at present in a position to speak for its executive policies. But he represents, more than any other one man could, the memory and momentum of it. He was the chairman of the first conference that considered his training, and the chairman of the first convention when it was called. He has never been absent from his counsels except when he was in jail. And even when the executive work was in other hands, he always stood out in the public storm as the head of the IWW. He has stood out in the storm with something of the impassive grandeur of a monument. Slow-moving, but powerfully self-possessed and intelligent, Bill Haywood occupies a position of real influence in America among those who are not foolish enough to believe the newspapers. And I imagine that this present change, or development, of his judgment about the tactics of the revolution, is an indication, not only that the IWW is going to swing again into its place in advance of the front line, but that American industrial unionists in general are going to accept the larger political philosophy of Communism.

Bill Haywood is no more friendly to the idea of political campaigning, or what is called “parliamentary action,” than he ever was — not a bit. But he fully accepts the necessity of a genuinely revolutionary party forming the vanguard of the movement of the revolution.

“I feel as if I'd always been there,” he said to me. “You remember that I used to say that all we needed were fifty thousand real IWWs, and then about a million members to back them up ? Well, isn't that a similar idea ? At least I always realized that the essential thing was to have an organization of those who know. Don't call them leaders. I call them engineers.”

I did remember Bill Haywood's remark about the fifty thousand IWWs. I remember what a wild idea it seemed to me at the time. But I also remembered that in those days his fifty thousand engineers were to be pure industrial unionists, and he seemed to conceive the whole movement then as essentially a fight for the shops. I asked him what had produced the change.

“It is simply because they have done wonderful things over there that we have been dreaming about doing over here,” he said. “It is the fact, the example, that has caused any change in me that may seem contradictory. And even now I would hesitate to confirm such a movement if everything that emanated from Moscow did not show that they want to put the workers in control, and eventually eliminate the state.”

Here Bill Haywood delivered a short eulogy of the Bolshevik revolution, and what he said would astonish a great many people who know him only as the terrible bad Man of America with one eye and a great big Black hat.

“Max,” he said, clenching one of his exceedingly small hands in a gesture firm but not very ferocious, “to say nothing of the expropriation of industry, the thing of greatest importance, they've already accomplished three other things over there, any one of which would justify such a revolution there, or here, or anywhere else. Shall I tell you what they are ?

“The first is the education of the children. I Russia every child gets food and clothing and books and amusement and a real education. And, by God, for that one thing alone I'd favor a revolution in this country !

“And the second is the relief that has been given to women in motherhood. In this country we do it for thoroughbred horses and pedigreed cattle. In Russia every woman is supported for eight weeks after confinement. That is the work of Alexandra Kollontay — a good friend of mine — and that again is enough all by itself to justify a revolution.

“The third thing is the transfer of land to the peasants. The peasants have control of the land, and of course that is a more fundamental thing.”

I asked him for the reason why American labor is so much behind the labor movements of Europe in following the lead of the Russians, and he said, “The principal reason is the AF of L.”

“Do you think it is possible for the revolutionists to capture the AF of L.?” I asked.

“Some parts of it,” he answered. “Only I would not say capture them, I would say educate them.”

I asked him what parts he referred to, and he said after a moment of hesitation :

“The United Mine workers. That is already an industrial union, and it is the body of the AF of L. the craft unions are its arms and tentacles. The craft unions are what enable the AF of L. to strangle any germs of life or inspiration that may come to American labor.

“To the general way of thinking it is the official bureaucracy that is responsible for this. It isn't. It is the craft unions with their high initiation fees, and their policies of excluding the unskilled workers, and even excluding skilled workers who have not served a long conventional apprenticeship. A further thing that outsiders do not understand about these unions is that they are absolutely controlled by the Lodges — Masons, Moose. Knights of Columbus and so forth — working through organized groups within them. It is these Lodges that elect their officials and direct their policies, and it is from these groups within them rather than from the unions themselves that the workers receive what benefits they do receive.

“But if you say that the United Mine Workers are the body of the AF of L.,” I said, “and that it is possible to bring the United Mine Workers to a revolutionary attitude, isn't that practically saying that it is possible for the revolutionists to capture the AF of L.”

Bill Haywood's answer to this question was immediate and brief. “if the United Mine Workers do anything,” he said, “then the AF of L. is no more.”

“Do you mean,” I asked, “that the organization would transform itself into something entirely new, or that the United Mine Workers would withdraw and leave nothing ?”

He smiled at my word, transformation. “I don't know what kind of a bug it would germinate into. It certainly wouldn't be a butterfly that would come out of that chrysalis.”

“No,” he continued, “you don't realize what the AF of L. is. The AF of L. is nothing but an executive Board, receiving a small per capita tax from a large membership — a tax sufficient to maintain their office, and pay their salaries, and keep up a lobby at Washington — an executive Board that in thirty-nine years of its existence has never done a single thing fro the American working-class.

“That is what the AF of L. is. And if the unions that form the body of that membership acquire a revolutionary understanding the AF of L. will cease to exist. That is the only answer there is to this question.”
“Do you believe,” I asked, “that in such a case the United Mine Workers would associate themselves with the IWW ?”

“Perhaps not,” he said. “If the United Mine Workers become revolutionary and don't want to become part of the IWW, the IWW can become a part of them, or whatever they form.”

It was that statement — which like practically all the statements in the interview, is quoted verbatim — that made me feel most vividly the magnanimous practicalness of mature communism in Bill Haywood's attitude.

“The IWW reached out and grabbed an armful,” he said. “It tried to grab the whole world, and a part of the world has jumped ahead of it.”

Read in English upon the IWW

1917
The Communist International to the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World)

January 1920

Comrades and fellow workers,

The Executive Committee of the Communist International, meeting in Moscow, at the heart of the Russian Revolution, hails the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) as the revolutionary proletariat of America.
Capitalism, ruined by the world war, no longer able to contain the immense forces it has created, is in decline.
The hour of the working class has struck. The social revolution has begun, and its first vanguard battle has been fought in Russia.
History has not asked us whether we wanted it or not, whether we were ready or not. The opportunity is before us. Let us seize it, and the world will belong to the workers ; let it pass, and entire generations will perish before it arises again.
It is no longer time to speak of "building the new society within the framework of the old." The old society is breaking free from its shell. It is up to the workers to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, which alone can build the new society.

An article published by your official organ, One Big Union Monthly, asked : "Why must we follow the Bolsheviks ?" The author believed that the Bolshevik revolution had "given the Russian people only the right to vote."

This is, of course, false. The Bolshevik Revolution dispossessed the capitalists of factories, mills, mines, land, and financial institutions, and transferred everything to the working class.
We understand and share your disgust with the principles and tactics of the "yellow" politicians who have discredited the very term "socialism" worldwide. Our goal is the same as yours : a community without a state, without a government, without classes, in which the workers will manage production and distribution for the benefit of all.

We send you this message, fellow workers of the International Workingmen's Association (IWW), as a token of our appreciation for the heroic part you have been playing for so long in the class struggle that you have brought about in your country, and to make you well acquainted with our communist principles and our program.

We invite you, revolutionaries, to rally to the Communist International, born at the dawn of the universal social revolution.

We invite you to take the place to which your courage and revolutionary experience entitle you, in the front rank of the proletarian Red Army fighting under the banner of communism.

Communism and the IWW

The American capitalist class is revealing its true colors.
The rising cost of living, the ever-increasing unemployment, the ruthless suppression of all efforts by workers to improve their condition, the deportation and imprisonment of "Bolsheviks," the laws against strikes, against "criminal unionism," against the "red flag," against all propaganda in favor of the "violent overthrow of the government and attacks on property"—all these laws and measures can have only one meaning in the eyes of the conscious worker.
Industrial slavery is as old as capitalism ; and workers have known other forms of slavery before it.
But now the capitalists of the world—Americans as well as French, Italians, English, Germans, etc.—are intent on reducing workers definitively to absolute and inescapable servitude.

There is no alternative : either this servitude, or the dictatorship of the working class. And the workers must choose now.
Capitalism is making desperate efforts to rebuild its crumbling edifice. The workers must, through a coup, seize the state and rebuild society according to their interests.

The new slavery

Before the Civil War, Black slaves in the Southern states were bound to the land. Northern industrial capitalists, who needed a floating workforce to supply their factories, proclaimed slavery an offense against humanity and abolished it by force. Now, industrial capitalists are trying to bind workers to their factories.
During the war, and in every country, workers practically lost their right to strike and even their right to stop work. Remember the laws that prevailed in your own country : work or fight !

And since the war ended, what have we seen ? The cost of living has risen steadily, while capitalists have striven to reduce wages. And when workers are driven to strike by hunger, all the forces of the state are mobilized against them to force them back to work. When railroad workers stopped work in California, they were threatened with the deployment of federal troops. When the Railroad Engineers' Union demanded a wage increase or the nationalization of the railroads, the President of the United States threatened it with the full force of armed repression. When American miners left their pits, thousands of soldiers occupied the mines, and the Federal Court adopted the most cynical measures against the strike, forbidding leaders from ordering a work stoppage and prohibiting the payment of relief to strikers. The United States Attorney General finally declared officially that the government would not tolerate strikes in industries "necessary to the community."
Judge Garry, who headed the steel trust, could refuse the President's request to negotiate with a workers' committee. But when the steelworkers went on strike, demanding a living wage and the basic right to unionize, they were branded Bolsheviks and shot in the ensuing riots by Pennsylvania Cossacks.

And you, IWW comrades, you who keep the bitter memories of Everett, Tulsa, Wheatland, Centralia, where your comrades were massacred ; you whose thousands of brothers are in jails, you who nevertheless perform the hardest labor in the fields, in the docks, in the forests, you must clearly distinguish the process by which capitalists attempt, using their tried and tested weapon, the State, to institute a society of slaves.

The capitalists' cry, "Produce more ! Produce even more !" resounds from all sides. In other words, workers must provide more labor for less pay, so that their sweat and blood, now monetized, can serve to pay off the war debts of the devastated capitalist world.

For this to happen, workers must be deprived of the right to leave their jobs ; they must be prevented from organizing to extract concessions from employers or to benefit from competition among them. The workers' movement must be stopped and crushed at all costs.

To save the old system of exploitation, capitalists must unite and chain the worker to the machine.

The social revolution

Will the capitalists succeed ?

They will succeed unless the workers declare war on the entire capitalist system, overthrow capitalist governments and replace them with a working-class government which must destroy capitalist private property and institute common ownership of all wealth.

This is what the Russian workers did, and it is the only way for workers in other countries to free themselves from industrial servitude and to organize the world so that the worker benefits fully from the product of their labor and no one can exploit the labor of another.
But if the workers in other countries do not rise up against their own capitalists, the Russian revolution cannot survive. Capitalists throughout the world, understanding the danger posed by the example of Soviet Russia, have joined forces to destroy it. The Allies, momentarily forgetting their hatred of Germany, have invited German capitalists to join them in the common interest.
And the workers in other countries are beginning to understand. In Italy, Germany, France, and England, the tide of revolution is rising. In America, even the most conservative members of the American Federation of Labor are realizing that strikes for wage increases and better living conditions are, in reality, meaningless, as the cost of living continues to rise. They proposed all sorts of remedies to this situation, reforms of the "Plumb Plan", nationalization of the mines, etc. They founded a so-called Labor Party which aimed to achieve municipal or government ownership of industry, a more democratic electoral mechanism, etc.

But even if these reforms were implemented, they wouldn't solve the problem. As long as the capitalist system exists, people will profit from the labor of others. All the reforms of the current system only deceive the worker into believing they are being robbed a little less than before.

The social revolution has begun, and its first battle is raging in Russia. It leaves the workers no time to experiment with reforms. The capitalists have already destroyed the Hungarian Soviet Republic. If they succeed in suppressing and breaking the workers' movement in other countries, industrial slavery will be established.

Before it is too late, conscious workers must prepare to repel the assault of capitalism, and in turn take the offensive to defeat it and eradicate it from the world.

The Capitalist State

The war and its consequences revealed with striking clarity the real functions of the capitalist state — its laws, its courts, its police, its armies, its bureaucracy.

The state serves to defend and consolidate capitalist power and to oppress workers. This is especially true in the United States, whose constitution was designed by merchants, speculators, and landowners to protect their class interests against the majority of the people.

As for the present, the United States government is obviously just a weapon of the capitalists against the workers.

The IWW must understand this better than anyone, having been rageously persecuted by the government, having seen their leaders imprisoned, their newspapers suppressed, their members deported or imprisoned on fabricated charges, their bail denied, their prisoners tortured, held incommunicado, their premises closed, their propaganda reduced in some states to becoming clandestine.

The workers see this. The people elect governors, mayors, judges, sheriffs ; but in times of strike, the governor summons the militia to defend the foxes ; the mayor orders the police to beat and arrest the militants in the streets ; the judge charges them with "disturbing the peace," labels them "rioters," and imprisons them ; and the sheriff pays thugs he sends out as strikebreakers...

The whole of capitalist society presents a united front to the workers.

The priest told him to resign himself ; the press cursed him and called him a "Bolshevik" ; the police arrested him ; the court condemned him ; the sheriff seized him for debts, and the poorhouse took in his wife and children.

To destroy capitalism, the proletariat must first wrest political power from the capitalists. They must not merely seize it ; they must abolish the old capitalist system entirely.

For the experience of revolutions has shown that workers cannot seize the state and use it—as the yellow socialists claim. The capitalist state is built to serve capitalism ; it can do nothing else.

In place of the capitalist state, the workers must build their own state, the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The dictatorship of the proletariat

Many members of the IWW refuse to agree. They are opposed to "any state, in general." They propose to overthrow the capitalist state and immediately establish Industrial Commonwealth.
The Communists are also enemies of the state. They too want to abolish it and replace the government of men with the administration of things.

Unfortunately, this cannot be done immediately. The destruction of the capitalist state does not mean that capitalism disappears automatically and instantly. Capitalists have other weapons that must be wrested from them ; they are still defended by legions of good employees, administrators, managers, and shrewd businessmen who will sabotage industry—and who must be persuaded or forced to serve the working class ; they have officers who can betray the revolution, priests who can stir up old superstitions against it, professors and orators who can distort it in the eyes of the ignorant, scoundrels who can be paid to discredit it, newspapers that can deceive the people with constant lies, yellow socialists, and so-called laborers who prefer capitalist democracy to revolution. Their efforts must be severely repressed.

To tear down the edifice of the capitalist state, to break the resistance of the capitalist class and disarm it, to confiscate its property and transfer it to the community of workers—these tasks require a government, a state, the dictatorship of the proletariat by means of which the proletarians can, with an iron hand, break the enemy class.

This is what is currently happening in Russia.

But the dictatorship of the proletariat is only temporary. We communists also want the abolition of the state. The state can only last as long as the class war continues. The function of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to abolish the capitalist class as a class ; in fact, to eliminate all class distinctions. Once this goal is achieved, the dictatorship of the proletariat will automatically disappear, giving way to an industrial administration, likely analogous to the General Executive Bureau of the IWW.

In a recent article, Mary Marcy writes that without theoretically recognizing the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the IWW will be forced to admit it in fact in times of revolution, in order to defeat the counter-revolution.

That is true. But if the IWW refuses to recognize in advance the necessity of the workers' state, confusion and weakness are likely to prevail in its ranks at times when firmness and speed of action will be imperatively required.

The Workers' State

What form will the Workers' State take ?

We have before us the example of the Russian Soviet Republic, whose structure, too often distorted abroad by contradictory information, it may be useful to point out here.

The unit of government is the local Soviet or Council of Workers', Red Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies.

In the cities, the Soviet is elected as follows : each factory elects one delegate for a certain number of workers, and each local trade union elects a certain number of others. These delegates are elected from lists of political parties or individually, at the workers' discretion.

The deputies of the Red Army are elected by their units.

In the countryside, each village has its Soviet, which sends delegates to the Soviets in the towns. These towns, in turn, elect the District Soviet. These, in turn, form the Provincial Soviet.
Anyone who exploits the labor of others is ineligible to vote.

Every six months, the Soviets of cities and provinces elect delegates to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, the supreme authority in the country. The Congress decides on the main political measures for a six-month period and chooses the two hundred members of the Central Executive Committee, responsible for implementing the measures enacted by the Congress. The Congress also elects a Cabinet—the People's Commissars.

The mandates of these officials are revocable at any time by the Central Executive Committee. Members of the Soviets can likewise be recalled by their constituents.

These Soviets are not only legislative bodies but also executive bodies. Unlike the American Congress, they do not simply draft laws that the President is then responsible for promulgating and implementing ; and there is no supreme court tasked with deciding whether the adopted measure is "constitutional" or not.

In the intervals between meetings of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, supreme power in Russia rests with the Central Executive Committee. This committee meets at least every two months, and in the interim, the management of affairs is handed over to the Council of People's Commissars, while the members of the Central Executive Committee work in their respective regions.

Organization of product production and distribution

In Russia, workers are organized into trade unions, with all workers in an industry belonging to their union. For example, carpenters and painters working in a metalworking factory belong to the Metalworkers' Union. Each factory has its own local union, and its Shop Committee, elected by the workers, acts as an executive committee.
The All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Federation of Trade Unions is elected by the annual Trade Union Congress. A special committee elected by this same congress establishes the wage scale.

With few exceptions, most large Russian factories have been nationalized and are currently owned by the workers. The task of the trade unions is therefore no longer to fight capitalism but rather to manage industry.

The Labor Commissariat of the Soviet government works in full agreement with the trade unions. Moreover, it is only elected by the Congress of Soviets with the approval of the trade unions.

An elected Supreme Council of the People's Economy is responsible for directing the country's economic life. It is divided into sections, such as those for metals, the chemical industry, etc., each headed by technicians and workers appointed by the Supreme Council with the approval of the Trade Unions.

Production in each factory is directed by a committee of three members : a representative of the Factory Committee, a representative of the Central Executive Committee of the Trade Unions and a representative of the Higher Council of the People's Economy.

Democratic centralization

The trade unions thus form a branch of government, and this government is the most highly centralized in existence.
It is also the most democratic government in history, for all organs of government are in constant contact with the working masses and under their direct influence. Furthermore, local soviets throughout Russia enjoy complete autonomy, enabling them to manage local affairs as they see fit, provided they conform to the national policy of the Congress of Soviets. Moreover, the Soviet government, representing only the workers, cannot help but act in their interests.

Many members of the IWW oppose centralization because they do not accept that it can be democratic. But where large masses are involved, recording individual wills is no longer possible ; only the will of the majority can be recorded, and Soviet Russia is administered in the common interest of the working class.

The private property of the capitalist class, in order to become the social property of the workers, cannot be handed over to individuals or groups of individuals ; it must become the property of the entire community and a centralized authority is necessary to accomplish this transformation.

Industries that supply the needs of the entire population concern not only the workers they employ but the whole community and must be managed for the benefit of all. Modern industry is, moreover, so complex, its branches so interdependent, that in order to achieve the highest possible output with maximum efficiency, it must be subjected, according to a comprehensive plan, to a single management.

The revolution must be defended against the formidable assaults of the combined forces of global capitalism. Large armies must be raised, trained, equipped, and led. This means centralization. For two years, Soviet Russia alone withstood the repeated attacks of the capitalist world. Would it have been possible to form a Red Army of more than two million men without a central authority ?

The capitalist class has a highly centralized organization that allows it to throw all its forces against the divided and dispersed groups of the working class. The class struggle is a war. To overthrow capitalism, the workers must form an army with a general staff—but a general staff elected and controlled by the workers.

In times of strike, every worker knows that a strike committee is necessary—a centralized body charged with directing the action and whose orders must be obeyed—elected and controlled by the working masses. Soviet Russia is on strike, facing the entire capitalist world. The revolution is a general strike against the capitalist system. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the strike committee of the social revolution.

The proletarian revolutions currently underway in America and other countries will likely give rise to new forms of organization. The Bolsheviks do not claim to have had the last word on social revolution. But the experience of two years of workers' government in Russia is naturally of the utmost importance and must be closely studied by workers in other countries.

Policy

The word "politics" affects many IWW members like the sight of a red flag affects a bull—or a capitalist. For them, "politics" means "politician" and usually conjures up the image of the yellow socialist vying for their votes in the hope of securing a comfortable seat where he can conveniently forget the very existence of the workers.

Our "anti-political" working-class comrades are opposed to the communists, who, in their view, constitute a political party and who, indeed, sometimes participate in political struggles.
This is using the word "political" in far too narrow a sense. One of the principles upon which the IWW association was founded is expressed in these words of Karl Marx : "All class struggle is a political struggle." This means that every struggle of the workers against the capitalists is a struggle for political power—for the power of the state.

And it is in this sense that communists use the word "politics".

The yellow socialists imagine they can gradually conquer political power by using the very mechanism of the capitalist state to obtain reforms, and when they have obtained a majority in Congress, in legislative assemblies, when they have elected the president, the mayor and the sheriff, they believe they can use the legislative apparatus of the bourgeois state to peacefully abolish capitalism and likewise institute the community of labor.

This leads them to preach various reforms of the capitalist system, to open their ranks to small capitalists, to political adventurers of all kinds, and ultimately to conclude deals and make various concessions.

The IWW do not admit it any more than the communists.

As communists, we do not believe that governmental power can be seized through the mechanisms of the capitalist state. Since the state is the specific weapon of the capitalist class, its mechanisms are naturally designed to defend and strengthen the power of capitalism. Capitalist control of all institutions that shape public opinion—press, schools, churches, and public platforms—and capitalist control of the workers' political attitudes through control of their means of subsistence, make it extremely unlikely that workers will ever be able to "legally" elect, under a democratic capitalist system, a government dedicated to their interests.
And, at present, while the capitalist class of the entire world pursues with desperate ferocity its campaign of repression against the organizations of the conscious proletariat worldwide, this hypothesis is simply inadmissible.

But even if it were possible for workers to conquer the capitalist state through political means, the latter could not serve to establish the industrial community. The real source of capitalist power lies in capitalist ownership and control of the means of production. The capitalist state exists only to extend and defend this ownership and control. It cannot, therefore, serve to abolish them.

So far, the IWW and the communists agree. The capitalist state must be attacked by direct action. This action, in the correct sense of the term, is also political, because it has a political aim—the conquest of governmental power.

The IWW (International Workers' Party) proposes to achieve this goal through a general strike. The communists go further. History clearly indicates that the general strike is insufficient. Capitalists have weapons, and the experience of the White Guards in Russia, Finland, and Germany proves that they have sufficient experience and training to use their weapons against the workers. Furthermore, they have food stocks that allow them to hold out longer than the workers, who are constantly under pressure from want.
The communists, too, rely on the general strike, but they believe it must transform into an armed insurrection. The general strike and insurrection are forms of political action.

Revolutionary Parliamentarism

If this is the case, if communists do not believe they can seize control of the state through the ballot box, why do communist parties participate in elections and present candidates ?
The question of whether or not communists will participate in elections is secondary. Some communist organizations participate ; others do not. But the former do so only for propaganda purposes. Political campaigns give revolutionaries the opportunity to speak to the working class, to show them the class character of the state and what the workers' true interests are. They allow them to highlight the futility of reforms, to demonstrate the real interests that dominate capitalist and yellow socialist political parties, and to emphasize why the entire capitalist system must be overthrown.

The task of communists elected to Congress or legislative assemblies is to conduct propaganda ; to constantly expose the true nature of the capitalist state, to oppose the actions of the capitalist government and reveal their class character ; to demonstrate the futility of capitalist reforms and measures. Within the legislative assemblies, from the highest platforms of the nation, communists can denounce capitalist brutality and call workers to revolt.

Karl Liebknecht demonstrated what a communist could achieve in Parliament. His speeches in the Reichstag resonated throughout the world.
Others in Russia, Sweden (Höglund), and other countries did the same.

The most common objection to sending activists to capitalist legislative assemblies is that, regardless of their revolutionary value, they will invariably be corrupted by their entourage and led to betray the workers.
This belief is the product of long experience, gained primarily with socialist politicians and smooth talkers. But we, as communists, maintain that a truly revolutionary party will elect only genuine revolutionaries and will know how to keep them under its control.

Many IWW members are staunch opponents of using legislative assemblies or any other government institutions for propaganda purposes. However, the IWW organization has often not disdained such means. During the Lawrence strike of 1912, the IWW even used socialist Senator Victor Berger, who brought the demands of the strikers and IWW members before the House of Representatives. William D. Haywood, Vincent St. John, and many other IWW leaders readily testified before the U.S. government's Industrial Commission, taking advantage of this opportunity to disseminate their organization's ideas. But the most striking example of the use of the state's political machinery for propaganda purposes came in 1918 when the Chicago Federal Court, where one hundred IWW leaders were on trial, became a veritable workers' propaganda rally for three months.

These are examples of how the political mechanisms of the capitalist state can be used for propaganda purposes among the masses. These methods must be employed according to the circumstances—as must parliamentary action. The use of any weapon should not be condemned outright.

The specific task of the IWW is to prepare the workers to seize control of industry and to lead it. The special function of the communist political party is to prepare the workers for the conquest of political power and the exercise of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Every worker must be a member of both the revolutionary trade union in their industry and the political party that fights for communism.

The social revolution and the future society

The goal of the IWW is to "build a new society within the old." This means : to organize the workers so completely that the capitalist system will eventually break down and give way to the already fully developed Industrial Community.

Such an undertaking requires the organization and discipline of the majority of workers. Before the war, it seemed possible to accomplish this task, although despite their fourteen years of activity, the IWW was only able to organize a tiny fraction of American workers.

At present, this design is merely utopian. Capitalism is in decline, revolution is at our doorstep, and history will not wait for the majority of workers to be organized—100%—according to the plan of the IWW or any other organization. We no longer have the prospect of a long, normal industrial development, which alone would have allowed the realization of such a design. The war has plunged the peoples of the world into a vast cataclysm, and they must think of immediate action, not of developing elaborate plans whose fulfillment would require years.

The new society will not be built, as we once thought, within the old one. We cannot wait for that. The social revolution is here. When the workers have overthrown capitalism, when they have crushed all attempts to re-establish it, they will be able to freely build the new society within their Soviet state.

In the face of social revolution, what is the immediate and major task of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) ?
As the most important revolutionary syndicalist organization in America, it is incumbent upon them to take the initiative in providing a single basis for the unification of all unions of a distinctly revolutionary character, of all workers who accept the principle of class struggle. These include the One Big Union, the WIIU, and certain dissident unions of the American Federation of Labor.

This is not the time for petty squabbles over names or minor organizational matters. The essential task is to unite all workers capable of mass revolutionary action in times of crisis.

As revolutionaries, they cannot refuse the invitations of the American communists eager to conclude an agreement with them for joint revolutionary action. The political party and the economic organization must march in step toward the common goal—toward the abolition of capitalism through the dictatorship of the proletariat and the Soviets, toward the disappearance of classes and the state.
The Communist International extends a fraternal hand to the IWW.

The President of the Executive Committee of the Communist International,

G. ZINOVIEV.

January 1920.

Le BAC de Philosophie en France, c'est Nietzsche !

Robert Paris — 2026-06-15T22:51:00Z

Le texte de Nietzsche au programme du BAC de Philo en France

Expliquer le texte suivant :

« Les méthodes scientifiques sont une conquête de la recherche pour le moins aussi considérable que n'importe quel autre résultat : c'est en effet sur la compréhension de la méthode que repose l'esprit scientifique, et tous les résultats des sciences ne pourraient, si ces méthodes venaient à se perdre, empêcher un nouveau triomphe de la superstition et de l'absurdité. Les gens cultivés ont beau apprendre autant qu'ils veulent des résultats de la science, on s'aperçoit toujours à leur conversation, et particulièrement aux hypothèses qu'ils y proposent, que l'esprit scientifique leur fait défaut. Ils n'ont pas cette défiance instinctive contre les écarts de la pensée, qui, à la suite d'un long exercice, a pris racine dans l'esprit de tout homme de science. Il leur suffit de trouver sur un sujet une hypothèse quelconque, ils sont alors tout feu tout flamme pour elle et croient qu'ainsi tout est dit. Avoir une opinion signifie par là même chez eux : en devenir aussitôt fanatique et finalement la prendre à cœur comme une conviction. Ils s'échauffent, à propos d'une chose inexpliquée, pour la première idée qui leur passe en tête et qui ressemble à une explication. D'où résultent continuellement, notamment dans le domaine de la politique, les plus fâcheuses conséquences. C'est pourquoi chacun devrait de nos jours avoir appris à connaître au moins une science à fond ; alors il saura toujours ce que c'est qu'une méthode et combien est nécessaire la plus extrême prudence. »

Friedrich NIETZSCHE, Humain, trop humain (1878)

Certes, un tel texte peut sembler très raisonnable et intelligent. Mais le propos de Nietzsche ne s'en tient pas là…

Citons quelques extraits significatifs…

Tout d'abord donnons la suite de l'extrait de Nietzsche du BAC que l'on n'a pas donné aux candidats…

« C'est particulièrement aux femmes qu'il faut donner ce conseil ; car elles sont maintenant incurablement victimes de toutes les hypothèses, surtout si celles-ci donnent l'impression de l'ingénieux, du séduisant, du vivifiant, du fortifiant. Plus on observe avec exactitude, plus on s'aperçoit que la grande majorité des gens cultivés demande encore au penseur des convictions et rien que des convictions, et qu'une petite minorité seulement veut une certitude. Ceux-là désirent être fortement entraînés, pour acquérir eux-mêmes par là un surcroît de force ; ceux-ci, le petit nombre, ont cet intérêt pour les choses mêmes qui fait abstraction des avantages personnels, même dudit surcroît de force. C'est sur la première classe, de beaucoup prédominante, que l'on compte partout où le penseur se prend et se donne pour un génie, partant se considère intérieurement comme un être supérieur, qui a droit à l'autorité. En tant que le génie de toute espèce entretient le feu des convictions et éveille de la défiance envers l'idée prudente et modeste de la science, il est un ennemi de la vérité, quand même il se croirait au plus haut point parmi ses amants.

Il y a, il est vrai, une toute autre espèce de génie, celui de la justice ; et je ne puis absolument me résoudre à l'estimer inférieur à quelque génie que ce soit, philosophique, politique ou artistique. Il consiste à se détourner, avec une cordiale répugnance, de tout ce qui aveugle et égare le jugement sur les choses ; il est par conséquent un ennemi des convictions, car il veut donner à chaque objet, vif ou mort, réel ou imaginaire, ce qui lui revient — et pour cela il lui faut en avoir une connaissance nette ; il met donc chaque objet dans le meilleur jour et en fait le tour avec des yeux attentifs. Finalement, il donne même à son ennemie, la myope « conviction » (comme l'appellent les hommes : — chez les femmes, elle se nomme « foi ») ce qui revient à la conviction — pour l'amour de la vérité. »

https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Humain,_trop_humain/IX

Le mépris de Nietzsche contre les femmes n'a pas été cité par les examinateurs du BAC. Tiens, tiens…

Vous admirez Nietzsche ? Pourtant, c'est un des sommets « intellectuels » du mépris et de la haine des femmes !!!

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article5438

Donnons quelques citations de l'ouvrage qui a été choisi pour le BAC : "Humain, trop humain" :

Civilisation et caste. — Une civilisation supérieure ne peut naître que là où il y a deux castes distinctes de la société ; celle des travailleurs et celle des oisifs, capables d'un loisir véritable ; ou en termes plus forts, la caste du travail forcé et la caste du travail libre. Le point de vue de la division du bonheur n'est pas essentiel, quand il s'agit de la production d'une civilisation supérieure ; mais en tout cas la caste des oisifs est la plus capable de souffrances, la plus souffrante, son contentement de l'existence est moindre, son devoir plus grand. Que s'il se produit un échange entre les deux castes, de sorte que les familles les plus basses, les moins intelligentes, tombent de la caste supérieure dans l'inférieure et qu'au rebours les hommes les plus libres de celle-ci réclament l'accès à la caste supérieure : un état se trouve atteint au-dessus duquel on ne voit plus que la mer ouverte des vœux illimités. — Ainsi nous parle la voix expirante des temps antiques ; mais où y a-t-il maintenant des oreilles pour l'entendre ?

Par le sang. — Ce que les hommes et les femmes ont par le sang d'avantage sur les autres et ce qui leur donne un droit indiscutable à une estime plus haute, ce sont deux arts que l'hérédité a de plus en plus accrus : l'art de savoir commander, et l'art de l'obéissance fière. — Or il se produit, partout où le commandement constitue une besogne journalière (comme dans le monde du grand négoce et de la grande industrie) quelque chose de pareil à ces races « par le sang », mais il leur manque la noble attitude dans l'obéissance, qui chez celles-là est un legs des conditions féodales et qui dans notre climat de civilisation ne doit plus s'accroître.

Guerre. — Au désavantage de la guerre on peut dire : elle rend le vainqueur brute, le vaincu méchant. En faveur de la guerre : elle introduit la barbarie dans les deux conséquences susdites, et par là ramène à la nature : elle est pour la civilisation un sommeil ou un hivernage, l'homme en sort plus fort pour le bien et pour le mal.

Propriété et justice. — Quand les socialistes prouvent que le partage de la propriété dans l'humanité actuelle est la conséquence d'innombrables injustices et violences, et qu'ils déclinent in summa toute obligation envers une chose dont le fondement est si injuste : ils ne considèrent qu'un fait isolé. Tout le passé de l'ancienne civilisation est fondé sur la violence, l'esclavage, la tromperie, l'erreur ; mais nous ne pouvons pas nous-mêmes, héritiers que nous sommes de toutes ces circonstances, et concrétions de tout ce passé, l'anéantir par décret, et nous n'avons pas le droit d'en supprimer un seul morceau. Les sentiments d'injustice sont également dans les âmes des non-possédants, ils ne sont pas meilleurs que les possédants et n'ont pas un privilège moral, car ils ont eu quelque part des ancêtres possédants. Ce n'est pas de nouveaux partages par la violence, mais de transformations graduelles des idées qu'on a besoin ; il faut que chez tous la justice devienne plus forte, l'instinct de violence plus faible.

Les esprits dangereux parmi les révolutionnaires. — Qu'on distingue ceux qui rêvent un bouleversement de la société en gens qui veulent atteindre quelque chose pour eux-mêmes et en gens qui le veulent pour leurs enfants et petits-enfants. Les derniers sont les plus dangereux ; car ils ont la foi et la bonne conscience du désintéressement. Les autres peuvent être assouvis : pour cela la société dominante a toujours assez de ressources et d'habileté. Le péril commence aussitôt que le but devient impersonnel ; les révolutionnaires par intérêt impersonnel peuvent considérer tous les défenseurs de l'état de choses existant comme égoïstes et par là se sentir supérieurs à eux.

Importance politique de la paternité. — Quand l'homme n'a pas de fils, il n'a pas un droit intégral à délibérer sur les besoins d'un État particulier. Il faut qu'on y ait, comme les autres, hasardé ce qu'on a de plus cher : cela seul attache solidement à l'État ; il faut que l'on considère le bonheur de sa postérité, partant qu'on ait avant tout une postérité, pour prendre à toutes les institutions et à leur changement une part équitable et naturelle. Le développement de la morale supérieure dépend de ce que chacun ait des fils ; cela l'affranchit de l'égoïsme, ou plus justement, cela étend son égoïsme dans la durée et fait qu'il poursuit avec zèle des fins qui vont au delà de son existence individuelle.

Fierté des aïeux. — On peut à juste titre être fier d'une lignée ininterrompue d'aïeux bons de père en fils, — mais non pas de la lignée même ; car chacun en a tout autant. La descendance d'aïeux bons fait la vraie noblesse de naissance ; une seule solution de continuité dans cette chaîne, un seul ancêtre méchant, supprime cette noblesse. On doit demander à quiconque parle de sa noblesse : N'as-tu parmi tes ancêtres aucun homme violent, avide, extravagant, méchant, cruel ? S'il peut en toute science et conscience répondre : Non, qu'on recherche son amitié.

Esclaves et ouvriers. — Le fait que nous attachons plus de prix à une satisfaction de vanité qu'à tout autre avantage (sécurité, abri, plaisirs de toute espèce) se montre à un degré ridicule en ceci, que chacun (abstraction faite de raisons politiques) souhaite l'abolition de l'esclavage et repousse avec horreur l'idée de mettre des hommes dans cet état : cependant que chacun doit se dire que les esclaves ont à tous égards une existence plus sûre et plus heureuse que l'ouvrier moderne, que le travail servile est peu de chose par rapport au travail de l'ouvrier. On proteste au nom de la « dignité humaine » : mais c'est-à-dire, pour parler simplement, cette brave vanité, qui regarde comme le sort le plus dur de n'être pas sur un pied d'égalité, d'être publiquement compté pour inférieur. — Le cynique pense autrement à ce sujet, parce qu'il méprise l'honneur ; — et c'est ainsi que Diogène fut un temps esclave et précepteur domestique.

Mon utopie. — Dans un meilleur ordre de société, le travail pénible et la peine de la vie seront attribués à celui qui en souffrira le moins, partant au plus stupide, et ainsi de suite par degrés jusqu'à celui qui est le plus accessible aux espèces les plus raffinées de la souffrance et qui, par conséquent, même dans l'allégement le plus grand de la vie, souffre encore.

Illusion dans la théorie de la révolution. — Il y a des rêveurs politiques et sociaux qui dépensent du feu et de l'éloquence à réclamer un bouleversement de tous les ordres, dans la croyance qu'aussitôt le plus superbe temple d'une belle humanité s'élèverait, pour ainsi dire, de lui-même. Dans ces rêves dangereux persiste un écho de la superstition de Rousseau, qui croit à une bonté de l'humaine nature merveilleuse, originelle, mais pour ainsi dire enterrée et met au compte des institutions de civilisation, dans la société, l'État, l'éducation, toute la responsabilité de cet enterrement. Malheureusement on sait par des expériences historiques que tout bouleversement de ce genre ressuscite à nouveau les énergies les plus sauvages, caractères les plus effroyables et les plus effrénés des âges reculés : que par conséquent un bouleversement peut, bien être une source de force dans une humanité devenue inerte, mais jamais ordonnateur, architecte, artiste, perfecteur de la nature humaine. — Ce n'est pas la nature de Voltaire, avec sa modération, son penchant à arranger, à purifier, à modifier, mais les folies et les demi-mensonges passionnés de Rousseau qui ont éveillé l'esprit optimiste de la Révolution, contre lequel je m'écrie : « Écrasez l'infâme ! » Par lui l'esprit de lumières et d'évolution progressive a été banni pour longtemps : — voyons — chacun à part soi, — s'il est possible de le rappeler !

Résurrection de l'esprit. — Dans la maladie politique, un peuple se rajeunit d'ordinaire lui-même et retrouve son esprit qu'il perdait peu à peu dans la recherche et la conquête du pouvoir. La civilisation n'est redevable à rien plus qu'aux temps politiquement faibles.

Temps heureux. — Un siècle heureux est absolument impossible par la raison que les hommes ne veulent que le souhaiter, mais ne veulent pas l'avoir, et tout individu, lorsque lui viennent d'heureux jours, apprend formellement à demander au ciel le trouble et la misère. Le destin des hommes est disposé pour d'heureux moments — toute vie en a de tels — mais non pour des époques heureuses. Néanmoins, ces époques restent comme l'« au-delà des monts » dans l'imagination des hommes, comme un legs des ancêtres ; car on a sans doute, depuis des temps reculés, emprunté cette conception du siècle heureux à cet état où l'homme, après la tension violente de la chasse et de la guerre, s'abandonne au repos, étend ses membres, et entend bruire autour de lui les ailes du sommeil. C'est par un raisonnement faux que l'homme, conformément à cette vieille habitude, s'imagine que, maintenant encore, après des périodes entières de détresse et de peine, il peut goûter, à un degré et dans un temps proportionnels, cet état de bonheur.

Le socialisme au point de vue de ses moyens d'action. — Le socialisme est le fantastique frère cadet du despotisme presque défunt, dont il veut recueillir l'héritage ; ses efforts sont donc, au sens le plus profond, réactionnaires. Car il désire une plénitude de puissance de l'État telle que le despotisme seul l'a jamais eue, même il dépasse tout ce que montre le passé, parce qu'il travaille à l'anéantissement formel de l'individu : c'est que celui-ci lui apparaît comme un luxe injustifiable de la nature, qui doit être par lui corrigé en un organe utile de la communauté. Par suite de cette parenté, il se montre toujours dans le voisinage de tous les déploiements excessifs de puissance, comme le vieux socialiste type Platon à la cour du tyran de Sicile ; il souhaite (il exige à l'occasion) le despotisme césarien de ce siècle, parce que, comme j'ai dit, il voudrait en être l'héritier. Mais cet héritage même ne suffirait pas à ses fins, il lui faut l'asservissement complet de tous les citoyens à l'État absolu, tel qu'il n'en a jamais existé de pareil ; et comme il n'a plus le moindre droit de compter sur la vieille piété religieuse envers l'État, qu'au contraire il doit, bon gré mal gré, travailler constamment à sa suppression — puisqu'en effet il travaille à la suppression de tous les États existants, — il ne peut avoir d'espoir d'une existence future que pour de courtes périodes, çà et là, grâce au plus extrême terrorisme. C'est pourquoi il se prépare silencieusement à la domination par la terreur et enfonce aux masses à demi cultivées, comme un clou dans la tête, le mot de « Justice », afin de leur enlever toute intelligence (après que cette intelligence a déjà bien souffert de la demi-culture) et de leur procurer, pour le vilain jeu qu'elles auront à jouer, une bonne conscience. — Le socialisme peut servir à enseigner de façon brutale et frappante le danger de toutes les accumulations de puissance dans l'État, et en ce sens insinuer une méfiance contre l'État même. Quand sa rude voix se mêlera au cri de guerre : « Le plus d'État possible », ce cri en déviendra d'abord. plus bruyant que jamais : mais bientôt éclatera avec non moins de force le cri opposé : « Le moins d'État possible. »

L'homme européen et la destruction des nations. — Le commerce et l'industrie, l'échange des livres et des lettres, la communauté de toute la haute culture, le rapide changement de lieu et de pays, la vie nomade qui est actuellement celle de tous les gens qui ne possèdent pas de la terre, — toutes ces conditions entraînent nécessairement un affaiblissement et enfin une destruction des nations, au moins des nations européennes : si bien qu'il doit naître d'elles, par suite de croisements continuels, une race mêlée, celle des hommes européens. À cette fin s'oppose actuellement, sciemment ou non, l'exclusivisme des nations par la production des inimitiés nationales, mais la marche de ce mélange n'en avance pas moins lentement, malgré tous les courants contraires momentanés : ce nationalisme artificiel est au reste aussi dangereux que l'a été le catholicisme artificiel, car il est par essence un état de contrainte, un état de siège forcé, imposé par un petit nombre au grand nombre, et a besoin de ruse, de mensonge et de violence pour se maintenir en crédit. Ce n'est pas l'intérêt du grand nombre (des peuples), comme on aime à le dire, mais avant tout l'intérêt de certaines dynasties princières, puis celui de certaines classes du commerce et de la société, qui mène à ce nationalisme ; une fois qu'on a reconnu ce fait, on ne doit pas craindre de se donner seulement pour bon Européen et de travailler par le fait à la fusion des nations ; à quoi les Allemands peuvent contribuer par leur vieille qualité éprouvée, d'être interprètes et intermédiaires des peuples. — En passant : tout le problème des Juifs n'existe que dans les limites des États nationaux, en ce sens que là, leur activité et leur intelligence supérieure, le capital d'esprit et de volonté qu'ils ont longuement amassé de génération en génération à l'école du malheur, doit arriver à prédominer généralement dans une mesure qui éveille l'envie et la haine, si bien que dans presque toutes les nations d'à présent — et cela d'autant plus qu'elles se donnent plus des airs de nationalisme — se propage cette impertinence de la presse qui consiste à mener les Juifs à l'abattoir comme les boucs émissaires de tous les maux possibles publics et privés. Dès qu'il n'est plus question de conserver ou d'établir des nations, mais de produire et d'élever une race mêlée d'Européens aussi forte que possible, le Juif est un ingrédient aussi utile et aussi désirable qu'aucun autre reste national. Toute nation, tout homme a des traits déplaisants, même dangereux : c'est barbarie de vouloir que le Juif fasse une exception. Il se peut même que ces traits présentent chez lui un degré particulier de danger et d'horreur ; et peut-être le jeune boursicotier juif est-il en somme l'invention la plus répugnante de la race humaine. Malgré tout, je voudrais, savoir combien, dans une récapitulation totale, on doit pardonner à un peuple qui, non sans notre faute à tous, a parmi tous les peuples eu l'histoire la plus pénible, et à qui l'on doit l'homme le plus digne d'amour (le Christ), le sage le plus intègre (Spinoza), le livre le plus puissant et la loi morale la plus influente du monde. En outre : aux temps les plus sombres du moyen-âge, quand le rideau des nuages asiatiques pesait lourdement sur l'Europe, ce furent des libres-penseurs, des savants, des médecins juifs qui maintinrent le drapeau des lumières et de l'indépendance d'esprit sous la contrainte personnelle la plus dure, et qui défendirent l'Europe contre l'Asie ; c'est à leurs efforts que nous devons en grande partie qu'une explication du monde plus naturelle, plus raisonnable, et en tout cas affranchie du mythe, ait enfin pu ressaisir là victoire, et que la chaîne de la civilisation, qui nous rattache maintenant aux lumières de l'antiquité gréco-romaine, soit restée ininterrompue. Si le christianisme a tout fait pour orientaliser l'Occident, c'est le judaïsme qui a surtout contribué à l'occidentaliser de nouveau : ce qui revient à dire en un certain sens, à rendre la mission et l'histoire de l'Europe une continuation de l'histoire grecque.

La guerre indispensable. — C'est une vaine idée d'utopistes et de belles âmes que d'attendre beaucoup encore (ou même : beaucoup seulement alors) de l'humanité, quand elle aura désappris de faire la guerre. En attendant, nous ne connaissons pas d'autre moyen qui puisse rendre aux peuples fatigués cette rude énergie du champ de bataille, cette profonde haine impersonnelle, ce sang-froid dans le meurtre uni à une bonne conscience, cette ardeur commune organisatrice dans l'anéantissement de l'ennemi, cette fière indifférence aux grandes pertes, à sa propre vie et à celle des gens qu'on aime, cet ébranlement sourd des âmes comparable aux tremblements de terre, avec autant de force et de sûreté que ne fait n'importe quelle grande guerre ; les ruisseaux et les torrents qui se font jour alors, roulant il est vrai dans leur cours des pierres et des fanges de toute sorte et ruinant les prés des cultures un peu délicates, remettent ensuite en mouvement, dans des circonstances favorables, les rouages des ateliers de l'esprit, qui se reprennent à tourner avec une force nouvelle. La civilisation ne peut absolument pas se passer des passions, des vices et des méchancetés. — Lorsque les Romains parvenus à l'Empire furent un peu las des guerres, ils essayèrent de retirer de nouvelles forces des battues à la bête fauve, des combats de gladiateurs et des persécutions contre les chrétiens. Les Anglais d'aujourd'hui, qui semblent en somme avoir aussi renoncé à la guerre, prennent un autre moyen de recréer ces forces qui décroissent : ces périlleux voyages de découvertes, ces traversées, ces ascensions, entrepris, à ce qu'on dit, pour des buts scientifiques, en réalité pour rapporter chez eux des aventures, des dangers de toute nature, un supplément de force. On inventera sous diverses formes de pareils substituts de la guerre, mais peut-être feront-ils voir de plus en plus qu'une humanité d'une culture aussi élevée et par là même aussi fatiguée que l'est aujourd'hui l'Europe, a besoin non seulement des guerres, mais des plus terribles — partant de retours momentanés à la barbarie — pour ne pas dépenser en moyens de civilisation sa civilisation et son existence mêmes.

La richesse, origine d'une noblesse de race. — La richesse produit nécessairement une aristocratie de race, car elle met en état de choisir les femmes les plus belles, de payer les meilleurs maîtres, elle procure à l'homme la propreté, le temps d'exercer son corps et surtout la possibilité d'éviter le travail corporel abrutissant. En ce sens, elle crée toutes les conditions nécessaires pour faire qu'en quelques générations les hommes se comportent, et même se conduisent noblement et vertueusement : la liberté plus grande de conscience, l'absence des mesquineries misérables, de l'abaissement devant ceux qui procurent le pain, de l'épargne sou à sou. — Précisément ces avantages négatifs sont la plus riche dot de bonheur pour un jeune homme ; un homme très pauvre se ruine d'ordinaire par sa noblesse de pensée, il ne professe pas et n'acquiert rien, sa race n'est pas viable. — Mais il faut là-dessus considérer que la richesse exerce presque les mêmes effets, qu'un homme puisse dépenser trois cents écus ou trente mille par an : il n'y a dès lors plus de progression réelle des circonstances favorables. Seulement, avoir moins, mendier dans son enfance et s'humilier, c'est chose terrible : quoique pour des gens qui cherchent le bonheur dans l'éclat des cours, dans la subordination aux hommes puissants et influents ou qui veulent devenir des princes de l'Église, cela puisse être le bon point de départ. — (On y apprend à se courber pour pénétrer dans les sentiers souterrains de la faveur).

Relation avec le Moi supérieur. — Tout homme a son bon jour, où il trouve son Moi supérieur ; et la véritable humanité veut qu'on n'apprécie chacun que d'après cet état et non d'après les jours ouvrables de dépendance et de servilité. On doit, par exemple, juger et honorer un peintre d'après la vision la plus haute qu'il a été capable d'avoir et de rendre. Mais les hommes eux-mêmes ont des relations très diverses avec ce Moi supérieur et sont souvent leurs propres comédiens, en ce sens qu'ils recommencent toujours à imiter dans la suite ce qu'ils sont dans ces moments. Beaucoup vivent dans la frayeur et l'humilité devant leur idéal et voudraient le renier : ils ont peur de leur Moi supérieur, parce que, quand il parle, il parle arrogamment. En outre il jouit de la liberté mystérieuse de venir et de partir comme il veut ; c'est pourquoi on l'appelle souvent un don des dieux, tandis qu'en réalité c'est tout le reste qui est un don des dieux (du hasard) : mais lui est de l'homme même. »

Fin des citations de "Humain, trop humain".

Source : https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Humain,_trop_humain/VIII

D'où il découle non une pensée scientifique mais une pensée ultra-réactionnaire, raciste, élitiste, violente, anti-humaniste, anti-sociale et anti-socialiste, contre-révolutionnaire. Comme les etxes suivants le démontrent !

Nietzsche critique, on l'a compris, l'idée que les idées libertaires, révolutionnaires, républicaines, socialistes, voire anarchistes affaiblissent l'Homme et que pour y remédier, il faut qu'une élite résiste et s'extirpe des codes établis sous cette influence néfaste, se débarrasse de toute morale et ne craigne pas de faire table rase des sentiments « trop humains ». Ne regardez pas du côté d'Hitler…

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article1100

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article5599

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article1261

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article3586

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article5438

Matière et Révolution

Histoire de la Roumanie

Histoire de la Roumanie

Leur « marxisme » n'est pas le nôtre

Leur « marxisme » n'est pas le nôtre

Le marxisme révolutionnaire, matérialiste, dialectique et internationaliste

Le marxisme des sociaux-démocrates qui se disaient marxistes

Le marxisme des staliniens

Le marxisme des faux trotskistes

Le marxisme des gauchistes (gauche communiste)

Défense du marxisme

La terminologie de Hegel - Glossaires

La terminologie de Hegel

L'Italie était-elle mure en 1919 pour les soviets ?

Est-ce le moment de former des « soviets » ?

Réponse de Clara Zetkin à Karl Kautsky sur la révolution russe

Clara Zetkin De la dictature à la démocratie

The second trial of Socrates, that of his friends

The permanent revolution and the end of women's oppression

La vallée du Rhône, couloir de la mort...

La vallée du Rhône, couloir de la mort de l'industrie chimique

Le couloir de la mort de l'industrie chimique

L'industrie capitaliste chimique se défend mais ni pour défendre les emplois ni pour défendre la population…

La population se défend

Les « accidents » se multiplient et révèlent une dangerosité accrue…

La chimie de la région de Lyon pollue mortellement et sciemment…

Un des résultats est l'empoisonnement aux PFAS. L'Etat est au courant et…ne fait rien…

Les cancers et autres maladies se multiplient dans la vallée et la région de Lyon. Le risque catastrophique est sans cesse évité de justesse… IL FAUT ARRETER LA MACHINE A TUER !!!

The IWW and Revolutionary Syndicalism in the USA

The IWW and Revolutionary Syndicalism in the USA

Le BAC de Philosophie en France, c'est Nietzsche !

D'où il découle non une pensée scientifique mais une pensée ultra-réactionnaire, raciste, élitiste, violente, anti-humaniste, anti-sociale et anti-socialiste, contre-révolutionnaire. Comme les etxes suivants le démontrent !

Clara Zetkin
De la dictature à la démocratie