Plato’s theory of communism was certainly a corollary of his conception of justice. He believed that without communism there would be clash of ideas and interests between reason and appetite. Plato’s communism is based on the premise that property, family instincts and private interests would distract man’s attention from his obligations to the community.

He strongly opined that family and property are always impediments not only to philosopher king, but also to a commoner in his discharge of duties. As property and family relationships seemed to be the main source of dissension in the society, Plato stated that neither of them must be given any recognition in an ideal state. Therefore, a sort of communism of family and property was essential to offset the consequences of Plato’s design of ideal state.

Plato strongly believed that an economic division between the citizens of a state is the most dangerous political condition. This belief was mainly due to the widespread and frank opinions expressed by the Greeks that economic motives are very influential in determining political action and political affiliations.

Long before The Republic was written, Euripides had divided citizens into three classes, viz., the useless rich—who are always greedy for more, the poor—who have nothing and are devoured by envy, and finally the middle class—a strong body of men who saves the state.

An oligarchical state to a Greek meant a state governed by, and in the interest of the well-born whose possession of property was hereditary, while a democratic state was governed by and for the many who had neither hereditary birth nor property.

These economic differences were the key to the political institutions and it was no new idea, which the Greeks were following since ages. The cause for unrest that Plato was experiencing in Athens was mainly due to the troubles present since the days of Solon a statesman reforms in Athens.

This situation convinced Plato that wealth has a very pernicious effect on the government, but was dismayed at the fact that there was no way to abolish the evil except by abolishing the wealth itself. To cure greed among the rulers, there is only one way and that was to deny them any right to call anything their own. Devotion to their civic duties admits no private rival.

The example of Sparta, wherein the citizens were denied the use of money and the privilege of engaging in trade, undoubtedly influenced Plato in reaching this conclusion. The main reason for Plato to emphasize on communism of property was to bring about greater degree of unity in the state.

Plato was equally vehement about the institution of marriage and opined that family affections directed towards a particular person, as another potent rival to the state in competing for the loyalty of rulers.

He stated that anxiety for one’s children is a form of self-seeking more dangerous than the desire for property, and the training of children at homes as a poor preparation for the whole and sole devotion, which the state has the right to demand. Plato was, in fact, appalled by the casualness of human mating which according to him would not be tolerated in the breeding of any domestic animal.

The improvement of the race demands a more controlled and a more selective type of union. Finally, the abolition of marriage was probably an implied criticism of the position of women in Athens, where her activities were summed up in keeping the house and rearing children. To this, Plato denied that the state serves half of its potential guardians.

Moreover, he was unable to see that there is anything in the natural capacity of women that corresponds to the Athenian practice, since many women were as well qualified as men to take part in political or even military duties.

The women of the guardian class will consequently share the work of the men, which makes it necessary that both shall receive the same education and strictly be free from domestic duties. Plato’s argument about breeding of domestic animals refers to the sexual relations between men and women.

It is not that he regarded sex casually, but he demanded an amount of self-control that has never been realized among any large populations. According to him, if the unity of the state has to be secured, property and family stand in the way, therefore, they both must be abolished.

Forms of Communism

Plato’s communism is of two forms, viz., the abolition of private property, which included house, land, money, etc., and the second, the abolition of family, through the abolition of these two, Plato attempted to create a new social order wherein the ruling class surrendered both family and private property and embraced a system of communism. This practice of communism is only meant for the ruling class and the guardian class.

However, Plato did not bind this principle on the third class, namely, the artisans. In other words, they were allowed to maintain property and family, but were under strict supervision so that they do not become either too rich or too poor. Though Plato structured the society in this manner, he never made any attempt to work out his plan that ensured such a system to function.

The following is a brief description of each form of communism:

1. Communism of Property:

Plato’s communism of property is in no way related to the modern communism or socialism because there was no mention of socialization of the means of production. Plato’s approach was mainly concerned with one factor of production, that is, property that has to be socialized.

The land and its products were in the hands of the farmers. So, only the guardians were deprived of property. Plato deprived them of all valuables such as gold and silver, and were told that the diviner metal is within them, and therefore there is no need for any ornaments as it might pollute the divine thoughts.

The guardians were paid salaries just right enough for their maintenance. They were expected to dine at common tables and live in common barracks, which were always open. Thus, Plato’s communism was ascetic in character. Plato’s communism existed only for the governing class. Therefore, it was political communism and not economic communism.

2. Communism of Wives:

Plato’s scheme of communism deprived the guardian class not only of property, but also a private life or a family because family introduced an element of thine and mine. He believed that family would destroy a sense of cooperation that forms the basis for a state. To destroy family, it is important to destroy selfishness. Plato wanted the rulers of an ideal state not to get distracted from their work and get tempted towards self-interests.

Plato opined that family was the great stronghold of selfishness, and for this reason it has to be banned for the governing class. This situation brings about a question of Did Plato deny his guardians class a normal sex life? For this, Plato stated that mating was encouraged between those who can in the best possible manner produce children of the desired quality.

Another question that was raised was related to those children who were born out of this union. According to Plato, they would be the property of the state. Immediately after their birth, they would be taken to a nursery and nursed and nurtured there. This method would make sure that no parent would have any affection upon one child, and thus love all the children as their own.

Further, the guardians, instead of caring for the welfare of their progeny, would thrive for the welfare of all. Thus, guardians of the state would constitute one great family wherein all children would be treated equal and common. Bound by common joys and sorrow, there is personal or exclusive relation to one family and in the process the entire state.

Plato further stipulated the age for both men and women for begetting children. He stated that the proper age for begetting children: women should be between the age of 20 and 40 and men between 25 and 55 because at this time, the physical and intellectual vigor is more. If anybody flouted the rules, they were treated as unholy and unrighteous beings.

Thus, Plato’s communism of wives provided social, political and psychological bases for the ideal state. Plato believed that such a communism of family would remove the conflict between the personal interests and the objectives of the state.

Plato’s theory of Forms (or Ideas) is a central element of his philosophy, providing a framework for understanding reality, knowledge, and morality. According to Plato, the material world is impermanent, imperfect, and constantly changing, whereas the true reality lies in eternal, immutable, and perfect Forms, which are abstract archetypes of all things. Every object, quality, or concept in the physical world participates in or imitates its corresponding Form. For instance, all beautiful things participate in the Form of Beauty, and all just actions reflect the Form of Justice. Plato’s Forms aim to explain universals, objective knowledge, and moral absolutes, addressing the limitations of sensory perception.

Plato introduced his theory in works like The Republic, Phaedo, and Parmenides. The theory has several key features: transcendence (Forms exist beyond space and time), immutability (unchanging and eternal), perfection (ideal standard for material objects), and universality (common essence across instances). The Allegory of the Cave illustrates the distinction between the world of appearances (sensory experience) and the world of Forms (true knowledge). The Form of the Good holds the highest position, illuminating all other Forms and providing the basis for ethical and political understanding.

Despite its significance, the theory has faced critical scrutiny. Aristotle, Plato’s student, argued that Forms are unnecessary abstractions; reality should be studied through concrete particulars, not separate ideals. The Third Man Argument, highlighted by philosophers, points to a logical regress: if a Form explains the property of an object, then a new Form is needed to explain the similarity between the object and the original Form, leading to an infinite chain. Moreover, Plato’s reliance on transcendent, non-empirical entities is criticized for being unverifiable and metaphysically speculative, which weakens its practical applicability in ethics and science.

From a contemporary perspective, scholars like Karl Popper critique the theory as promoting dogmatism and authoritarian ideals, particularly when applied to politics, as in the philosopher-king model. Yet, defenders argue that the theory provides a moral and epistemological anchor, offering objective standards for truth, beauty, and justice in a world of subjective perceptions. Modern applications of Platonic thought are seen in fields like mathematics, where abstract entities exist independently of material instances, and ethics, where ideals guide moral reasoning.

In conclusion, Plato’s theory of Forms is a pioneering attempt to distinguish appearance from reality and to provide a foundation for knowledge and ethics. While its abstract, metaphysical nature invites criticism for practical inapplicability and logical difficulties, the theory remains philosophically influential, shaping subsequent debates in metaphysics, epistemology, and political theory. A critical assessment reveals that Forms are both illuminating as ideal standards and problematic as inaccessible realities, highlighting the enduring tension between idealism and empirical inquiry.