The Prince and the Republic

the two profoundest books I've read have really similar although completely opposite titles- Plato's The Republic and Machiavelli's The Prince. The argument by many historians and academics is that both books encouraged Fascism and totalitarianism. While the argument that THE PRINCE is PROTOFASCIST may have some credence, there is incredible evidence to prove that THE REPUBLIC is clearly NOT PROTOFASCIST. With a name like "THE REPUBLIC", it is ironic that many people actually consider it to be a book that is philosophically supportive of tyranny. For Plato although favored philosophical rule, he didn't support any form of Greek-Nazism. The book, the Republic is hence not a greek version of THE PRINCE written many centuries earlier but a different kind of book altogether. The book may not have the same present day usage as the Prince, because unlike the Prince, the Republic is a bit unreal and idealistic. Yet we have a lot to learn from it. The book is not only a source of Greek literature but also a thesis on how to train our politicians. Plato through socratic dialogue envisions a republic whose rulers will have the philosphical thirst for knowledge and education rightly suited for the purpose of governance. We may argue that such philosphical kingdoms is anithetical to the concept of democracy, but in Plato's time the concept of direct democracy wasn't working. Even Tyrannies weren't. A compromise was needed and Plato provided it. He did so with many assumptions and presuppositions which even he couldn't defend well enough in his book. The Republic hence is a book philosphical different from THE PRINCE. And while it is true that Machiavelli was inspired by Pluto, their respective ideas for governments were totally different and their need to imagine such governments even more different!