Key Arguments

• The oligarchic goal is unlimited accumulation: "The good at which such a State aims is to become as rich as possible, a desire which is insatiable?"
• Rulers profit from the ruin of spendthrift youth and refuse legal limits on extravagance: "refuse to curtail by law the extravagance of the spendthrift youth because they gain by their ruin; they take interest from them and buy up their estates"
• Love of wealth is incompatible with civic moderation: "the love of wealth and the spirit of moderation cannot exist together in citizens of the same state to any considerable extent"
• Oligarchies generate dispossessed citizens who hate and conspire: "men of good family have often been reduced to beggary" and "they hate and conspire against those who have got their property"
• Predatory lending multiplies drones (idle consumers) and paupers: "insert their sting—that is, their money—into some one else... and so they make drone and pauper to abound in the State"
• Military and civic encounters reveal the weakness of the rich, emboldening the poor: "the wiry sunburnt poor man... when he sees such an one puffing and at his wits'-end, how can he avoid drawing the conclusion that men like him are only rich because no one has the courage to despoil them?"
• Like a diseased body, slight provocations trigger factional illness; external alliances intensify internal weakness: "as in a body which is diseased the addition of a touch from without may bring on illness... the one party introducing from without their oligarchical, the other their democratical allies"
• Democracy arises when the poor prevail and redistribute power equally: "after the poor have conquered their opponents... they give an equal share of freedom and power; and this is the form of government in which the magistrates are commonly elected by lot."

Source Quotes

Well, I said, and how does the change from oligarchy into democracy arise? Is it not on this wise?—The good at which such a State aims is to become as rich as possible, a desire which is insatiable? What then?

What then? The rulers, being aware that their power rests upon their wealth, refuse to curtail by law the extravagance of the spendthrift youth because they gain by their ruin; they take interest from them and buy up their estates and thus increase their own wealth and importance? To be sure.

To be sure. There can be no doubt that the love of wealth and the spirit of moderation cannot exist together in citizens of the same state to any considerable extent; one or the other will be disregarded. That is tolerably clear.

That is tolerably clear. And in oligarchical States, from the general spread of carelessness and extravagance, men of good family have often been reduced to beggary? Yes, often.

That is true. On the other hand, the men of business, stooping as they walk, and pretending not even to see those whom they have already ruined, insert their sting—that is, their money—into some one else who is not on his guard against them, and recover the parent sum many times over multiplied into a family of children: and so they make drone and pauper to abound in the State. Yes, he said, there are plenty of them—that is certain.

Such is the state of affairs which prevails among them. And often rulers and their subjects may come in one another's way, whether on a journey or on some other occasion of meeting, on a pilgrimage or a march, as fellow-soldiers or fellow-sailors; aye and they may observe the behaviour of each other in the very moment of danger—for where danger is, there is no fear that the poor will be despised by the rich—and very likely the wiry sunburnt poor man may be placed in battle at the side of a wealthy one who has never spoilt his complexion and has plenty of superfluous flesh—when he sees such an one puffing and at his wits'-end, how can he avoid drawing the conclusion that men like him are only rich because no one has the courage to despoil them? And when they meet in private will not people be saying to one another 'Our warriors are not good for much'?

Yes, he said, I am quite aware that this is their way of talking. And, as in a body which is diseased the addition of a touch from without may bring on illness, and sometimes even when there is no external provocation a commotion may arise within—in the same way wherever there is weakness in the State there is also likely to be illness, of which the occasion may be very slight, the one party introducing from without their oligarchical, the other their democratical allies, and then the State falls sick, and is at war with herself; and may be at times distracted, even when there is no external cause. Yes, surely.

Yes, surely. And then democracy comes into being after the poor have conquered their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing some, while to the remainder they give an equal share of freedom and power; and this is the form of government in which the magistrates are commonly elected by lot. Yes, he said, that is the nature of democracy, whether the revolution has been effected by arms, or whether fear has caused the opposite party to withdraw.

Key Concepts

• The good at which such a State aims is to become as rich as possible, a desire which is insatiable?
• refuse to curtail by law the extravagance of the spendthrift youth because they gain by their ruin; they take interest from them and buy up their estates
• the love of wealth and the spirit of moderation cannot exist together in citizens of the same state to any considerable extent
• men of good family have often been reduced to beggary?
• and so they make drone and pauper to abound in the State.
• how can he avoid drawing the conclusion that men like him are only rich because no one has the courage to despoil them?
• wherever there is weakness in the State there is also likely to be illness
• democracy comes into being after the poor have conquered their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing some, while to the remainder they give an equal share of freedom and power; and this is the form of government in which the magistrates are commonly elected by lot.

Context

Socrates explains the causal transition from oligarchy to democracy in Book VIII, tracing economic motives and social dynamics that destabilize oligarchies and empower the poor.

Perspectives

Plato

Agrees: this fits his broader cyclical theory of regimes where moral corruption in oligarchy (pleonexia) breeds class conflict and regime change. He would stress the ethical psychology—unchecked appetite—and the structural instability of rule by wealth.

Socrates

Affirms as a diagnostic of civic character: when love of money overrides moderation, civic illness follows. He emphasizes the observed dynamics—exploitation, resentment, and the emboldening of the poor—as sufficient causes of democratic revolution.