What Can Modern Society Learn from Plato's Notion of the "ideal State"? Schoolboy Attempt (B Grade)

The ideal state according to Plato could very easily be compared to a very right wing meritocracy. The ideal state is divided into three groups: Guardians (Rulers), Auxiliaries (soldiers), and Artisans (workers). Rulers are chosen from the idea of "good" which according to Plato is an objective morality to which they could maximise the happiness given to the state as a whole; Soldiers must be courageous and intellectually gifted individuals with a high education, the main difference between Auxiliaries and Guardians is of course the ignorance of the "good" that will benefit the state; workers are the most ignorant of all the groups who (like animals) work to fulfil their basic drives or their "appetites" which of course is held within control by the rulers itself.

How does this compare to modern society? The system of classes in our society are a lot more mixed within power; for example, a builder who is generally seen as a worker if highly skilled could potentially make as much money as a militant in the army or even an MP, where as Plato's ideal state would disallow such an imbalance in power. In fact, according to Plato's ideal state the only class to even use money and private ownership, are the workers. These materialistic hierarchies are avoided for the Soldiers because it is likely to lead to tyranny if they are not 100% reliant on the state (which if you compare to the Spartan society where soldiers rule supreme, you can see that this is very possible) but the ideal state also forbids rulers from moving towards any private property owning or even family life; which begins to make me ponder how this state allows the lineage of rulers to continue without training the workers (to whom are the only ones that are allowed to replicate and multiply) of the true good. Therefore it is impossible within Plato's society to not allow the classes to intertwine if we are to follow his rules to allow a utopia state. That issue asides however if we were to make our political leaders dependant on public expenses (a lot like a vicar gets everything provided for him instead of an actual salary) then would that solve the issue of the uneven hierarchy between the classes? If we were to compare this to the Buddhist way of thinking where desire leads to dissatisfaction and a clouded mind or even (probably more relevant) Plato's Cave where we must remove ourselves from society to truly see the outside of the cave and see what is true, due to Plato implying that all leaders should be philosophers; this however would not work in our society unless someone who was aware of the absolute good decided who the leader of our society was. Hence we need a meritocracy (or tyranny from a philosopher) to solve the problem of the intertwining classes.

Plato also stated that everyone should have compulsory and equal education. Although our society does have compulsory education we can not state that there is equal education for all; private educational schools give advantages to the naturally gifted and wealthy while the unwealthy and unnatural learners are generally left for state schools that are of lesser value (I'm not going to bring QES into this equation however they are an exception) so Plato wishes for everyone to get equal opportunity? A confusion here that arises is that how can they have a hierarchy within groups of power and keep it separate if everyone is having the exact same education? Can you maintain the ignorance within the workers if they acquire knowledge that will wish to make them try and cause an uprising and change the course of the government to their benefit? If education is of utmost importance than we can not completely manipulate the potential of the workers and/or soldiers. Would absolute equal education from primary school to university benefit the people that lived in our society? Most probably yes, but as for upholding what Plato believed was a perfect society it creates a lot of difficulties and paradoxes that disallow a true completely permanently separate three layered organism as a society.

We could also look at what keeps a human being satisfied, how can we fully decide how the appetite of worker is? Even if we continually intended on monitoring the worker's appetite and enforced any wrong doings there will always be more workers because they are the only class that are entitled to a family life. But Plato discourages all creative outlets that do generally give some people some satisfaction; throughout Plato's society however appreciation or satisfaction from art is frowned upon. It has been proven that creative outlets can help control extremities in mood; hence I honestly feel that if we were to suppress all artistic endeavours within this country there would most likely be an instantaneous uprising; although we could also refer to the "ignorance is bliss" theory and state that not being aware of art will disallow harm if you have a lack of it. But could we test this society on people who are aware on art and creativity? It is highly unlikely.

Plato's society is much better at being a basis of how a hierarchy can be flawed than a society that could be labelled as "ideal" and "satisfactory to all" when we are already used to and aware of malleability between classes and power. And even then it is unlikely that human nature would allow a society to exist without one shift in power or revolution, for example: the Russian government before the Communist revolution was incredibly capitalist and was easily reversed due to the larger population of the working class. We could also learn that if there was an objective good as Plato said, then our society would flourish with the philosopher who knows of the good at the front of our ruling. But if we are already ignorant to an objective good then will we ever be able to place this person with "the good" as a ruler to our society?