DISTRIBUTION
Xenophon is far less concerned about the problem of distribution than Plato. He has no suggestions as to wages, profits, or prices, no ideal state where an equitable distribution shall be realized, no yearnings after equality, or complaints against the evils of extreme wealth or poverty. Like Plato, he would avoid civic discord in the state,[[470]] but by the increase of production and exchange rather than by their limitation. In Socrates’ parable of the dog and the sheep, he presents a suggestion of a theory of profits, but his plea is for the employer instead of the laborer. The right of the former to share in the profits of the business is based on his service as overseer of the work, and as protector of the workmen.[[471]]
Our author does not definitely reveal his attitude toward the poorer masses, but it seems probable that he had little interest in them, except in so far as their condition might affect the fortunes of the state. He was, of course, opposed to giving them full political rights,[[472]] and would probably have preferred a system such as that in Plato’s Laws, where all free citizens have sufficient income so that they can give their time largely to the state, and where all laborers are slaves. He did not think of suggesting that the poorer citizens work in the mines, or even that aliens do so, but suggested rather that each citizen have the income from three state slaves.[[473]]
While Xenophon is not usually considered among the socialists of Greece, he approaches perhaps even nearer than Plato to one phase of modern socialism. Like Plato, he opposes the extreme individualism of the political and private life of his day.[[474]] He also reveals the Greek feeling of the social obligation of private property.[[475]] Again, as do Plato and modern socialists, he magnifies the power of law to transform economic or social conditions.[[476]] But in advocating the modern doctrine of the socialization of industry, with an economic, and not a moral or political, motive, he has advanced beyond either Plato or Aristotle, and approaches modern socialism.[[477]] As seen above, however, his economic motive is not interest in the welfare of the masses, for by his scheme they would all be slaves. He desires only to abolish poverty among the citizens.[[478]] He would have the state become entrepreneur, not merely in one, but in many branches of industry. State merchant shipping,[[479]] public ownership of slaves,[[480]] public exploitation of the mines,[[481]] public buildings near the mines, for rental to strangers,[[482]] are all in his plan. The rich must finance the scheme, but their profit will be 18, 36, or even 200 per cent.[[483]] Companies are to be organized so as to obviate individual risk.[[484]] Thus will poverty be no more, plenty for all will reign, and there will be an era of prosperity and security for the state.[[485]]
His thesis is, in a word, that what private capital can accomplish for the enrichment of itself alone, state capital can accomplish to better advantage for the enrichment of the whole citizenship,[[486]] a doctrine which strikes a truly modern socialistic note.
CHAPTER V
THE ORATORS—DEMOSTHENES, ISOCRATES
Though the Attic orators constitute a very important source for our knowledge of economic conditions in Athens, they furnish but little definite material for a history of Greek economic thought. From the standpoint of theory, their chief value consists in the fact that they all reveal a positive interest in wealth and all the phenomena of practical economy. In this respect, they present a striking contrast to the negative attitude of the Socratics, and thus serve to correct our conception of the economic ideas of the average Athenian citizen. Specific consideration need be given only to Demosthenes and Isocrates.
The positive interest of Demosthenes in commerce and finance has already been indicated by some passages,[[487]] and this fact is so evident throughout all his orations that further citations are unnecessary. Instead, we may note briefly some slight hints in him of the negative moral attitude of the philosophers. He emphasizes the dominating influence of money in warping the judgments of men.[[488]] He praises the simple life of the previous generation, and criticizes in contrast the private luxury of his own day.[[489]] According to him, it is considered to be rare for a business man to be both diligent (φιλεργόν) and honest (χρηστόν).[[490]] In his assertion that poverty compels freemen to turn to menial work (δουλικά) and that many freewomen (ἀσταί) have been driven by the stress of the times to such vocations,[[491]] some aristocratic prejudice against common labor seems to be implied. A similar attitude toward traders and money-dealers is at least suggested by his question as to what is the worst (πονηρότατον) element in the state.[[492]] His scornful mention of Stephanus as one who loans money at interest, and takes advantage of another’s need,[[493]] is a slight reminder of the philosophic prejudice against interest, though here he is doubtless emphasizing loans for consumption merely, at an exorbitant rate.[[494]] But these traces of the Socratic attitude toward wealth are of very little significance, in the face of the evident economic interest that characterizes all the orations of Demosthenes.
Isocrates may, in a sense, be reckoned among the Socratics, and he exhibits more of their spirit in relation to wealth than do any of the other orators. He would have men strive for honest character rather than for wealth, since it is not always gain to acquire and loss to spend. The result depends rather upon the occasion and virtue.[[495]] Noble character is of more value than great riches,[[496]] for good reputation is not purchasable (ὠνητή) with money, but is itself the source of material possessions, and it is immortal, while wealth is only temporal.[[497]] Material and spiritual wealth are thus contrasted in true Socratic manner;[[498]] right use is emphasized,[[499]] and the common insatiety and injustice of money-makers is opposed.[[500]] Folly and license are named as the usual accompaniments of wealth, in contrast to the moderation that characterizes the poor and lowly.[[501]] But, like Plato, Isocrates considers neither luxury nor penury to be the ideal condition,[[502]] and clearly appreciates the evil effect of poverty in arousing discontent and civic strife in the state.[[503]]
But despite this moralizing tendency, he agrees with the other orators in appreciating highly the economic importance of the manual arts.[[504]] He points also, with apparent pride, to the extensive commerce of Athens as compared with that of other states,[[505]] and one of his chief arguments for peace is that thereby the city will be filled with merchants and strangers and metics.[[506]] This entire plea for peace, which he bases so largely on economic advantage, has a decidedly modern ring. He understood well the importance of industrial development in the general prosperity of a democracy. In almost Aristotelian language, he pictures how in the good old days the rich were accustomed to give the poor a start in business (ἀφορμή), either in agriculture, trade, or the arts.[[507]] This positive economic interest is further evidenced by his emphasis upon the increased skill that results from the application of the division of labor.[[508]]
Isocrates, like Plato, was especially opposed to civic strife and the extreme individualistic communism that demanded a redivision of lands and abolition of debts.[[509]] In the ideal past of his dreams, there were no extremes of wealth and poverty, private property was safe, and revolutions did not rend the state. Now, on the other hand, all is changed. Sparta is the only state that has not been torn by the bitter party strife.[[510]] He contrasts the high regard in which the wealthy were held in his boyhood with the present jealous discontent. To be known as a wealthy man now is almost equivalent to being considered criminal and is a thing for which to apologize.[[511]] This attitude toward the rich, of which Isocrates complains, is significant in the light of similar tendencies in our own democracy today.
Again, in agreement with Plato and Aristotle, Isocrates opposes the doctrine of mere arithmetical equality, and insists that the true equality apportions to each what befits his capacity.[[512]] But though he is hostile to the crasser type of communism, he makes the chief characteristic of the ideal past a noble community feeling and spirit of co-operation. In that happy time, the common weal was first in the thought of all, each had regard for others’ interests, the poor were not jealous of the rich, and the rich assisted the poor.[[513]] At times, he even approaches the modern humanitarian sentiment for the submerged classes. He defines true national prosperity as a condition in which no citizen is lacking the means of livelihood,[[514]] and thinks the poor might well be pardoned for their indifference to public welfare, in their anxiety over the daily means of subsistence.[[515]] He also states the somewhat socialistic principle so emphasized by Plato, that the character of the state will be like that of the ruler.[[516]]
CHAPTER VI
ARISTOTLE
In the writings of Aristotle, we find a much richer source for a history of Greek economic thought. Though no extant work of his is devoted to economics, he left a multitude of writings on diverse subjects, as a monument to his wonderful versatility and tireless industry.[[517]] Of these, the Politics and the Ethics are especially fruitful in economic ideas, though, as in the case of Plato, such material is incidental to the main discussion. His general attitude toward wealth and some of its problems, we shall find to be often substantially in agreement with that of Plato. His economic vision was prejudiced by the same ethico-aristocratic spirit. Yet his practical, scientific mind caused him to deal with many economic questions more extensively, more directly, and more incisively than is true of any other Greek thinker. Caution must be observed, however, against reading into his statements more meaning than he purposed to convey. He was not the creator of the science of political economy,[[518]] though his apprehension of many of the chief concepts of economics was probably clearer than has often been admitted by modern economists.[[519]]
At the very threshold of economic speculation, Aristotle advanced beyond Plato and Xenophon, in that he perceived the fallacy in the confusion of household and public economy. He saw that they differed, not only in size or numbers, but in essential type.[[520]] In his later discussion of wealth, however, he overlooked his distinction, and fell into the old Greek confusion.