The Case for Democracy - Book 8

I disagree with Socrates in his claim that a democracy is worse than an oligarchy in Book 8. I think an oligarchy is at least as bad as a democracy if not worse. The greedy pursuit of wealth is possibly the worst corruption a city can experience because wealth, material possessions and the pursuit of instant gratification are delicate, temporary and fleeting. The sort of city would only be possible somewhere that already had an abundance of wealth in the first place, because the unabashed pursuit of decadence comes at a heavy economic price.
I also believe the distribution of rule among only those with money is worse than the random distribution of rule in the hypothetical democracy. With the random distribution of rule, at least there will be some good rulers in the mix. I believe the people with wealth and property in Socrates’ oligarchy are less to fit to rule as a whole than the poor people because they’re goal of absolute wealth is so narrow-minded and self-absorbed. At least the democracy has a sense of unity not governed by a dollar sign.
The democracy has the greatest potential of all the “unjust” cities but also has the worst potential for failure in that is the only city that can turn into a tyranny. It has the greatest potential in that it possesses absolute freedom and allows virtuous men to rise up of their own accord without the factor of wealth or lineage. It is the only city that could produce the philosopher king. However, freedom is a double-edged sword that allows the corrupt to rise into power, hence the probability of transformation into a tyranny. I believe the ideal democracy would realize that some freedoms must be sacrificed for the sake of societal unity, which I have concluded is the type of democracy we live in today.

-Justin C