COMMUNISTIC AND SOCIALISTIC IDEAS

The Greek theory of distribution was employed chiefly in the criticism of the institution of private property, and in the suggestion of more or less communistic systems to succeed it. This tendency, however, was not like the modern either in motive or in general type. Modern socialism aims to be scientific, and professes to build a scientific system on a basis of economic laws. Greek socialism had no such aim. It did not lay claim to any relation to economic law, but frankly presented itself for what it was, a politico-moral sentiment. Other points of distinction will be observed as we proceed, but this primary one must not be overlooked, if either the spirit or the meaning of the Greek social theory is to be understood.

Two considerations made the communistic sentiment a normal one to the Greek democrat. (a) The institution of private property had not become so thoroughly imbedded in the very foundations of society as it has today. The custom of family tenure was not entirely forgotten, and in some backlying districts may well have been still in vogue.[[287]] In some states, also, a part of the land was probably still held in common by the citizenship. The frequent establishment of cleruchies in conquered territories, in which the land was regularly assigned by lot, and the ever-recurring revolutions, which usually resulted in confiscation of the land in favor of the victorious party, must have assisted materially in unsettling the confidence of the Greeks in private property as a basal institution of society. The actual existence of a polity like that of Sparta, where private ownership does not seem to have been so absolute,[[288]] doubtless also exerted its influence on the imagination of Greek thinkers. (b) As is generally recognized, the Greek, far more than the modern, took for granted the subordination of the individual citizen to the state. We have also seen that he tended to magnify the power of legislation as sufficient to encompass any reform, even in the face of economic laws. To him, therefore, the demand that the state be made the dispenser of private property did not seem unnatural.[[289]] We should be on our guard, however, against exaggerating the extent of this sentiment among the Greek writers, or against reading into them the modern socialistic doctrines.

A consideration of the predecessors of Plato in social speculation may be conveniently introduced at this point, before we proceed to the discussion of the Republic. Some have thought to find traces of communism in Homer. The evidence of any real communism, however, is very slight, and the frankly individualistic spirit of the poems is against it. Moreover, this is a problem that concerns the economic conditions rather than the theory.[[290]] Little is definitely known of Pythagoras and his school, but it is improbable that he either taught or practiced a real communism.[[291]]

As for Hippodamas of Miletus, it is difficult to gain a clear idea of his ideal state from Aristotle’s meager description,[[292]] but it seems not to have been markedly socialistic. He divides his body of ten thousand citizens into artisans, farmers, and soldiers.[[293]] He makes a corresponding triple division of the land—sacred, to provide for the expense of worship; public, for the support of the soldiers; private, to be owned and worked by the husbandmen.[[294]] Thus only the farmers are to own land, and the question as to who shall work the land for the military class is left in obscurity.[[295]] It seems likely that Hippodamas intended that the farmers should work all the land, and own one-third of it for their own support. His system contains some communistic elements, as the fact that two-thirds of the land is public, but it is certainly not socialistic in spirit and purpose. The prime interest of Hippodamas was very probably not in a system to supplant private property, but rather in a plan of assured support for the priestly and military classes.[[296]]

Phaleas of Chalcedon, according to Aristotle’s description, approaches much nearer to the modern socialistic idea.[[297]] Aristotle makes him a type of those thinkers who lay chief stress on the right system of property as the necessary basis of civic peace.[[298]] His central tenet is equality of possessions and of education for all the citizens,[[299]] but he seems to have specified only landed property.[[300]] This demand, though only landed property is included, seems to strike a truly modern socialistic note. But nowhere better than here may we see the gulf that separates ancient and modern socialism. The avowed interest of Phaleas is not in the masses. The artisans are all to be public slaves.[[301]] His interest is rather in the classes, and not even in these primarily, but rather in the state itself. His entire system has for its fundamental motive the avoiding of civic discord in the state.[[302]]

The ideal state of Plato’s Republic has often been presented by socialists and other modern writers as the great prototype of all socialistic doctrine. We must consider to what extent such a view is justified. In his famous myth of the three metals, Plato divides his citizens into three classes—rulers, auxiliaries, and farmers and artisans.[[303]] His avowed purpose here, as indeed throughout his Republic, is to secure the highest degree of happiness for all the citizens.[[304]] In order to gain this end, he provides for a most thoroughgoing system of communism, including all property, both for production and for consumption, except such as is necessary for the immediate need.[[305]] He extends it even to the common possession of wives and children,[[306]] that all private interests may be reduced to a minimum.[[307]] He provides further for a common work[[308]] and education[[309]] for men and women.

Such, in brief, is the system proposed in the Republic.[[310]] Superficially considered, it would seem to be the parent of modern socialism and communism. There is, however, actually but slight similarity between them. The so-called communism of Plato extends only to the first two classes, which can include but a small minority of the citizenship.[[311]] Thus the masses, with whom modern socialism is especially concerned, are not directly touched by his system. Again, the primary motive of Plato’s communism is not the modern motive at all. His thought is not to secure a just share for all in the products of industry. Though he recognizes the importance of providing against the evils of extremes of wealth and poverty,[[312]] the motive is not the material interest of any class. It is an intense desire for unity and for escape from civic strife in the state,[[313]] for provision against graft, corruption, and tyranny in the rulers,[[314]] and for insuring as efficient work as possible.[[315]] Like Ruskin, Plato is no democrat. Equality is not in his thought.[[316]] Unlike many a modern socialist, he realizes that absolute arithmetical equality is impossible, and that if gained it would be the greatest injustice. He knows that the true equality must be proportional, demanding not that each receive exactly the same, but that each receive his due.[[317]] His third class, comprising a large majority of the citizens, is practically without political activity, a fact in marked contrast to the modern social-democratic spirit. His emphasis is not economic and material, as is that of modern socialism, but political and moral.[[318]]

In fine, the Republic contains some socialistic elements. Plato’s restriction of the freedom of the individual so as to subserve the interest of the whole,[[319]] his tendency to magnify the power of law in the face of economic principles and of human nature,[[320]] his interest in the welfare of the common people, his declaration against inequality of fortune, his denial of the right of private property for the upper classes, and his proposed community of wives and children, a measure too radical for the better type of modern socialism,[[321]] all seem socialistic in trend.

The tendency to magnify the power of law, and the submission of individual to state interest, however, were characteristics of Greek civilization, and not distinctly Platonic or socialistic. His interest in the welfare of the masses, as we have seen, was not primarily economic, but had for its ulterior motive the preservation of the peace of the state. His denial of private property and family interests to the guards, and his opposition to extreme wealth or poverty were, as seen above, devoid of socialistic motive. Moreover, in his hostility to retail trade, he was not moved by the modern socialistic demand for immediate contact between producer and consumer. The conditions that called forth such a demand were not then in existence,[[322]] as is also true of the modern agitation for a proper distribution of the profits of industry. Above all, Plato made no pretense to any economic basis for his communism, but presented it as a moral and political ideal. The Republic cannot therefore be classified as truly socialistic either in motive or in general plan.[[323]]

In any event, there is nothing in common between the high moral idealism of Plato’s so-called communism and the crass materialistic communism that is the subject of Aristophanes’ satire in the Ecclesiazusae. Dietzel[[324]] has well pointed out that the latter is extremely individualistic, atheistic, and immoral, demanding all from the state with no return; that the Republic, on the other hand, demands the loftiest morality and renunciation, and is a direct protest against such tendencies in Athens as are attacked by the comic poet. As he shows, the two are as far apart as are the watchwords, “All for self,” and “All for all.”

Plato’s idea that society is the exact counterpart of the individual in the large, however, is quite analogous to the modern comparison of society to an organism.[[325]] Both are wrong in attempting to press the analogy too far, yet they contain a truth of profound importance, which is at the foundation of the marked change in the spirit of economics in recent years. It is the notion of solidarity, which demands that the individual shall no longer seek the content of his being in himself alone, but also in the conditions that shall produce the highest life for the commonwealth.

In the Laws, Plato reluctantly abandons some of the utopian suggestions of the Republic for a more practical legislation,[[326]] though his ideal is really unchanged. Communism of property and of the family are both discarded even for the rulers, as feasible only for a supernatural order of beings.[[327]] As a noble ideal, however, it still hovers before him.[[328]] Private property is permitted to the citizens,[[329]] but under protest, and if practicable, Plato would like to prohibit it, as the primary root of all social disturbance and corruption.[[330]] He would advocate, therefore, a return to the old régime of family tenure, somewhat on the model of the Spartan system.[[331]] He would also hamper this by limitations so as to make it no real ownership at all. The land is to be practically state property, over which the citizens exercise merely the right of use.[[332]] It is to be divided into lots of equal value, corresponding exactly to the number of citizens.[[333]] Natural disadvantages shall be compensated for by an increase in the size of the lot, and part of each allotment shall be near, and part at a distance from the city, that all may be on an equal footing, and alike ready to defend against invasion.[[334]] In order that no citizen may lose his lot, and no man may possess more than one, very stringent regulations are advised.[[335]] No lot may be purchased or sold,[[336]] confiscated,[[337]] or divided by will to more than one heir,[[338]] and no citizen, in any manner whatsoever, may become owner of more than one lot.[[339]] The living of the other members of the family is arranged for by a provision for a general distribution of the product of the soil, in imitation of the Cretan law.[[340]] The annual product of grain and cattle shall be divided into three equal parts, one for citizens, one for their servants, and one for the artisans, metics, and strangers. The first two parts shall not be subject to sale, but each head of a family shall receive from them enough to nourish his family and slaves.

It is evident from all these regulations that Plato’s citizens do not actually own their lots, but merely enjoy the usufruct of them from the state on certain conditions. He takes away with one hand what he gives with the other. Under such a system all his precautionary measures could not have prevented the growth of an even more oppressive poverty, unless the growth of population could be checked.

The regulations limiting the acquisition or possession of personal property are even more stringent, though here an absolute equality is not attempted. He seeks, however, to prevent the rise of inequality of fortunes, at the very threshold, by making undue acquisition difficult or even impossible for the citizens. All money-making occupations are practically closed to them[[341]]—trade,[[342]] the mechanical arts,[[343]] and even agriculture, so far as their own personal work is concerned. The latter is given over to slaves,[[344]] the arts and trade to aliens, with strict limitations to be enforced by the officers of the market.[[345]] As seen above, two-thirds of the farm products are not to be subject to commercial dealings.[[346]] The loan of money at interest is forbidden, and he who disobeys will risk the loss of both principal and interest.[[347]] A bulky coinage of baser metal is provided for the daily use of private citizens, such as will not pass current in another country.[[348]] No dowries are to be given or received,[[349]] and there shall be no hoarding, but the entire produce of the lots must be annually distributed for consumption among the whole population of the state.[[350]] To make assurance doubly sure, Plato prohibits his citizens from owning personal property above four times the value of the lot,[[351]] or four minas.[[352]] Any amount in excess of this must be handed over to the state on pain of severe fine for disobedience.[[353]] This is to be accomplished by the regulation that all property except the lot must be publicly registered, and failure to fulfil this obligation entails the loss of all but the original lot, and public disgrace.[[354]]

In all this drastic limitation of property rights, Plato’s chief motive is to render excessive wealth or poverty impossible,[[355]] and to harmonize the citizenship by reducing all inequalities to a minimum.[[356]] This he purposes to accomplish, not merely by the foregoing restrictions, but also by means of a common education,[[357]] and by the institution of the sussitia.[[358]] He makes the road to comparative equality easier than in his first state by relegating all the third class, the artisans, merchants, and farmers, outside the pale of citizenship.[[359]] The actual difference, however, is not so great as it might appear. In the Republic there is equality in the upper class, while in the Laws there is comparative equality among the citizens who comprise only the upper class. In neither case is there a real equality in the whole state. Plato is well aware that only approximate equality can be attained, and that differences not only in property, but also in birth, virtue, strength, and beauty, are bound to exist.[[360]] He would therefore have taxes and distributions unequal in the same ratio, so as to avoid dissatisfaction and dispute.[[361]] The difficulties incident to such a scheme of legislation he would obviate by starting a new state in virgin soil.[[362]]

Souchon[[363]] recognizes the Plato of the Laws as a true socialist, and points to his attempt to prevent all inequality, and to his extreme state intervention as characteristic elements of socialism. Plato certainly does approach nearer to a real socialism in the Laws than in the Republic. In addition to the points noted by Souchon, there may be observed the application of the system of equality to the whole citizenship, though at the cost of shutting out all the workers; the strong sense of the social function of property;[[364]] the practical denial of real private ownership of land; the demand for publicity in business, which is one of the chief suggestions for the regulation of corporations today;[[365]] the active interest in the conservation of natural resources, which, while not socialistic, lies in the direction of greater social control;[[366]] and the fact that distribution of the products of industry is made practically a function of the state.[[367]] The demand for equality and unity is also somewhat analogous to the modern socialistic hostility to competition, which Ruskin calls the “law of death.”[[368]] It may be added further that Plato’s description of the economic strife in his day is slightly suggestive of the criticism of capitalism by modern socialism.[[369]] However, the basal motive of Plato is, again, not that of modern socialism. His aim is still primarily moral and political rather than material,[[370]] and he exhibits less interest in the welfare of the laborers than he does in the Republic.[[371]] Moreover, his demand for equality is prompted by exactly the same motive as was active in the Republic, not to ameliorate the condition of the laborer, whom he has relegated to slavery, but to avoid the hated civic discord (διάστασις) and to preserve the unity of the state.[[372]] The equality too, is in no sense analogous to that sought by modern socialism, for, as seen above, it is merely equality within a class, comprising the aristocratic minority of the state, and does not touch the working masses at all.[[373]] In fine then, though there are perhaps enough truly socialistic elements in the Laws to warrant the classification of Souchon, yet if Plato’s ideal were realized, it would be mainly a restoration of the old economic régime in Greece, based on agriculture and the family tenure of property. Such an ideal, modern socialists would doubtless fail to recognize as having much in common with their own.[[374]]

CHAPTER IV
XENOPHON

Xenophon was a man of affairs, whose interests touched the practical life of the world on many sides, as is evidenced by the broad scope of his extant works. He was also, however, a pupil of Socrates. In his economic thought, therefore, he vacillates between the positive interest of the practical economist and the negative criticism of the Socratics.[[375]] On the whole, his practical bent dominates, and is especially exhibited in his essay on the Revenues of Athens,[[376]] as also in the fact that he was the first writer to produce a work devoted entirely to economics.[[377]] The spirit of the moral philosopher, on the other hand, is prominent wherever the influence of Socrates is felt, as in the first chapters of the Economicus and in the Memorabilia. When the Socratic ideal dominates, he, in common with other Greek thinkers, confuses economics with ethics, and private with public economy.[[378]] He makes the science of economy deal with the management of private estates,[[379]] and believes with Plato and Ruskin that the same qualities are necessary for the successful handling of the affairs of either house or state.[[380]]