I was reading Plato's Gorgias recently and I was struck by how close this two and half thousand year old discussion was to the debate currently going on within the Labour Party. In brief, I think it is clear that Socrates would have been a Corbynista - for he advocated the need for a commitment to the principles of justice and he rejected the pragmatic need to flatter or pander to the electorate.
For those of you who have not read Gorgias I heartily recommend it. It is certainly rather funny.
It is a debate between Socrates and some of the leading teachers of rhetoric (the art of oratory) of his day. Socrates mercilessly attacks each of them and demonstrates that as the central function of oratory is to persuade others to an action which is independent of the justice of that action then the person persuaded (or the demos) has been corrupted.
The humour comes from the nearly visible eye-rolling and wry smiles you can imagine on the rhetoricians' faces as they think to themselves that - for all the truth of Socrates' critique - everything he says is unrealistic. People want to be flattered. We want politicians to lie to us. Justice feels far too much like hard work. Power is more important than principle.
And of course the wicked twist in this tail is that they were right. The Athenians killed Socrates for his truthfulness and his refusal to flatter them.
Today we hear that Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable, unpersuasive and unrealistic. He’s too principled. Far better that we accept someone to lead Labour who can 'reach out' to the middle and win those critical swing votes.
Is this the vapid choice that lies before us - between honest failure and the victory of the charlatan?
Well here are three reasons why I'll back Socrates and Corbyn over the current alternative:
Truth has its own victory. We behave as if the trick to justice is to get 'our man' (or woman) into power. But in the process, not only do we place an unreasonable responsibility on such a candidate, we also forget that true power comes through community. As Socrates observes, the tyrant inevitably loses that which is the very best thing - friendship. The desire to gain and to keep hold of ‘power’ by tricking people into believing in you is actually the desire to take on the lonely job of manipulating others to do your will.
We commonly confuse - as Hannah Arendt observed - power and force. Control of government only gives you force; real power comes through the collective action which can also shift the will and the understanding without coercion. Offering someone control of your democratic organisation, in the hope that they can then seize power over the country, but in the name of your part, is not the meaning of democracy.
Democracy is more important than Party. Simone Weil persuasively argues we'd all be better off without the Party Machine. This is another (connected) unrealistic idea. But, even if we do not achieve that utopia, surely we must all recognise that democracy in its current form is an inevitable process of victory and defeat and that 'our' party cannot be right all the time. The paradox is that this also means that we should want politicians to disagree, to hold out for principles and avoid the race to the middle. It is only through this kind of democratic process that we can expect to develop and improve our society.
The fact is that we are suffering under the most extreme Right-wing Government in the developed world precisely because Labour's long-term strategy has been to occupy the ground that is as close as possible the Tories. It is a strange form of competition to drive you to imitate your competition. In the end the result of this strategy has been to create no effective counterweight to the Rightward swing that began under Thatcher and has reached such extremes under Cameron. Debate has been stifled, interesting alternative policies are not considered and a stifling elitist consensus prevails.
In fact one of Socrates' most powerful arguments is that these experts in rhetoric cannot even name someone whose rhetoric has left Athens in a better state than he found it. Even the greatest of Athenians found themselves attacked or exiled after their periods of leadership. As Socrates says, a true leader would not have made the people more vicious, more eager to blame and less interested in true justice. What then the legacy of the New Labour as we enter year 6 of an austerity programme condemned by the United Nations for rejecting human rights?
Argument trumps rhetoric. Modern politics has abandoned any respect for evidence, logic and the wisdom of practice. We wish to be saved from our fears and anxieties and we rush to those who promise us safety. In the end we are disappointed and in fact we knew we'd be disappointed, because we'd listened to promises that we knew lacked substance. The salesman sells and we buy, because all we are offered are competing sales pitches. We do not really believe all the rhetoric - we have just come to accept that the only choice available is to choose the best salesman, the best spin doctor.
Corbyn's refusal to look the part, to sell himself, to use rhetoric and bombast - that's what I love about him. I'm sure that on many matters of detail I'd disagree with him. But so what? What appeals to me is that he is offering - both within and without the Labour Party - the chance for meaningful debate.
Socrates may also have been unrealistic and there is certainly no apolitical path to justice. What I'm looking for is someone who wants to open debate - not someone with all the answers. What I'm looking for is someone who remembers that justice is never safe in the hands of the rich and powerful. What I'm looking for is someone who knows I don't need a hero or even a leader; I just need someone who remembers that it’s ordinary people - the demos - who are the foundation of a just society.
And one last point. You may not have heard of Gorgias, but you've probably heard of Socrates. His ideas and his thinking survived his murder by his enemies.