Schumpeter (1954: 55-56) -
"...Plato's influence is obvious in many communist schemes of later ages, there is little point in labeling him a communist or socialist or a forerunner of later communists or socialists. Creations of such force and splendor [The Republic] defy classification and must be understood in their uniqueness, if at all. The same objection precludes attempts to claim him as a fascist. But if we do insist on forcing him into a strait jacket of our own making, the fascist strait jacket seems to fit somewhat better than the communist one: Plato's 'constitution' does not exclude private property except on the highest level of the purest ideal; at the same time it enforces a strict regulation of individual life, including limitation of individual wealth and severe restrictions upon freedom of speech; it is essentially 'corporative'; and it recognizes the necessity of a classe dirigente - features that go far toward defining fascism."
Do some masterpieces defy classification? Moreover is this irrelevant because the nature and manner by which humans perceive the world necessarily involves classification, multiple classifications, and classifications which may overlap and not be mutually exclusive. In other words - we do it anyway. Case in point.
What do you think of the features by which Schumpeter characterizes fascism? The list is missing the obvious role of a strong state military, but the point about the relatively greater amount of allowable private property is well noted. What about the dangers of the "philosopher kings" ideal leading to fascist dictator in practice?
BTW - Schumpeter thinks that Aristotle's "criticism of Plato....is strikingly unfair and, moreover, misconceives completely the nature and meaning of Plato's creation" (1954: 59). Despite the fact that "the arguments he [Aristotle] adduced for private property and the family and against communism were all the more successful..." (1954: 59).
