I'm awaiting a response from PJ before I post on Book II of The Republic, but in the meantime I wanted to quickly correct an oversight in my earlier post on fascism. Simply put, I glossed over the important part in which one defines one's term before using it as a bludgeon. Since Jonah Goldberg has been influential in my education regarding fascism, I will use his definition:
Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politics and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the “problem” and therefore defined as the enemy. - Liberal Fascism, p. 23
Given the society which Socrates envisions in his attempts at justice, fascism is hardly off topic. My question, especially for Troutsky: is this definition is a good one? If not, how would you correct Goldberg's definition?