I guess it is also possible the rich will win (did he entertain that thought?) . . . that looks more likely in this day with a better shot then the Romans got from technology and advanced marketing (brainwashing) techniques. . . Didn't the Romans attempt to placate the masses with violent entertainment and welfare (bread and circuses)?
Yes he did... and to be honest, i can't remember what his answer was... i think it was just that eventually, there will be a 'hero' that can defeat the rich. You lose one, then another rises, until one succeeds.
Isn't the wealthiest group taking advantage of everyone else? They have effectively eliminated all but two of the main "choices" in our society.
Have they really? You're looking at the short term... you're looking at 10-20 years. But look at the overall picture. Taxes are higher now for the rich than they were 50 years ago. There are more social programs for the poor now than there ever was. And the trend is only enlarging. What do you think the US will be like in 100 years? Or 200 years?
I don't want to defend Plato, because he was flawed on many accounts. The democracy he knew it, Athenian democracy, was very different than the democracy as we know it. Our largest class is no longer the poor, but the middle class. And the middle class is growing larger, and people are more content in the middle class... so there's less desire to 'plunder' the rich. Also, the population is more educated today than during Plato's time. Most of us know that if we start to rob the rich, and industries and the economy starts to collapse, that we would suffer more than gain.