DISTRIBUTION
As stated in the Introduction, the economic interest of Greek thinkers was particularly alive in the fields of distribution and consumption. It is here that they are especially interesting and suggestive.[[251]] However, they dealt very little with the important principles of distribution as laid down by modern economists. Theories of the several elements that enter into distribution—wages, profits, and rent—are for the most part conspicuously absent.[[252]]
The problem of distribution is also hardly considered from the modern standpoint. We look in vain for a treatment of the modern dominant question of the relation between capital and labor. Moreover, the Greek theories of distribution are, on the whole, not the outgrowth of the sentiment of human sympathy for the poor and the common laborer, which is so prevalent today. The purpose seems to be to guard against dishonesty rather than oppression from either contracting party.[[253]] This lack in Greek theory is not strange, in an age when slaves took the place of machinery, so that capital and labor were largely united in them, while the majority of free laborers worked directly for the public, or on the land.[[254]] The goal of the theorists, therefore, is the conservation of the state rather than the relief of any class of the citizenship.
Plato discusses the importance of a proper distribution of wealth in the Republic, but the point that looms large to him is the fact that excessive wealth or poverty is likely to endanger the stability of the state.[[255]] As seen above, also, some of his regulations in the Laws seem to strike a modern note. He would have a state commission fix prices,[[256]] would permit the state to limit the freedom of inheritance,[[257]] and perhaps even intervene in securing a just wage.[[258]] Yet in all of this, the dominant motive is to avoid civic discord.
Before proceeding to the larger subject in distribution, Plato’s theory of private property, we will discuss briefly his attitude toward the laboring classes.[[259]] It is commonly asserted that the Greek philosophers had little or no regard for the masses. As usually expressed, however, the statement is very unfair, and especially to Plato. Such extreme assertions as the following are frequent: “They [the masses] are of no account altogether.”[[260]] Plato in the Republic “voue à l’ignominie, au mépris, à la misère, à la servitude éternelle la classe des ouvriers.”[[261]] “Für die des Erwerb obliegenden Personen bedarf es keiner Erziehung.”[[262]] “Plato, in treating of the ideal state, deems it not worth while to concern himself with the trading and artisan classes.”[[263]] “Und im übrigen will er sie [the masses], wie es scheint, durchaus sich selbst überlassen.”[[264]]
To be sure, as above admitted, the interest of Greek thinkers was not marked by the modern sentiment of sympathy for the laborer. Their writings are characterized by a certain aristocratic feeling, and they do not emphasize the worth or importance of the masses. Yet they are far from being indifferent or hostile to them.
Aristotle himself was the first to make this false criticism of Plato.[[265]] But the author of the Republic foresaw that he might be misinterpreted, and excused himself for his indefiniteness in the details of the ideal state.[[266]] Moreover, Aristotle’s criticism is not borne out by a study of the Republic. Plato implies with sufficient clearness that his communistic regulations are limited to the two upper classes.[[267]] It is not true either, as Aristotle asserts,[[268]] that there is a rigid caste system in the Republic. The very opposite principle is laid down.[[269]] The myth of the three metals presents an aristocracy based strictly on intellectual and moral excellence. No arbitrary obstacle hinders either the degradation or the rise of any individual from his class. It depends entirely upon the possession of the gold of character and mentality, for which all may strive. Moreover, the life of the so-called first caste is literally dedicated to the best service of the rest. If this be aristocracy, we cannot have too much of it.[[270]]
Neither is Aristotle’s criticism warranted, that Plato makes the happiness of the whole state something different from the sum of its parts.[[271]] He merely states the principle, universally true, that no class has a right to expect to be happy at the expense of the whole state, and that, in the long run, the prosperity of each is bound up in the prosperity of all. Indeed, he puts the very objections of Aristotle and Grote into the mouth of Adeimantus, and answers them satisfactorily, in his illustration of the painted statue.[[272]] There could hardly be a better example of Plato’s lofty ideal, that each part is to contribute its share toward the utility, beauty, and happiness of the whole, and that through this cooperation each realizes the highest quantum of happiness for himself. This doctrine of mutual interdependence is the basal principle of Christianity, taught by Jesus and Paul in a strikingly similar figure of the body and its members,[[273]] though naturally Plato’s idea of brotherhood is narrower in scope.
The common assertion that Plato has no regard for the artisan class, then, is unwarranted.[[274]] The entire Republic is built upon the opposite principle, to prevent exploitation of the lower by the upper classes; and his comparison of good and evil rulers to shepherd dogs and wolves[[275]] is a precursor of the famous passages of Milton and Ruskin on the same theme. All classes of citizens in the state are brothers.[[276]] The rulers are saviors (σωτῆρας), allies, shepherds (ποίμενες), nurses (τροφέας), paymasters, and friends.[[277]] This happy unity (ὁμόνοια), or harmony (ξυμφωνία), of all classes is to Plato the highest goal toward which the true statesman should strive,[[278]] and the point of next highest importance to the communism of the guards is the proper regulation of wealth and poverty for the artisans.[[279]] The mere fact that he does not believe the artisans to be capable of political independence by no means indicates that he is indifferent to their social or economic welfare. It is to conserve this that he would put the government into the hands of the most capable,[[280]] and, in any event, the artisans are not to be held in subjection so much by external force as by their own free self-restraint.[[281]] This, in itself, is sufficient evidence that Plato intended to include the third class in his lower scheme of education, a fact borne out also by other passages.[[282]]
It must be admitted that a somewhat different spirit pervades the Laws, where he seems to have despaired of the lofty ideal of the Republic. He relegates the working classes to non-citizenship. But here, also, he is still anxious that they shall have the sort of education that befits their station,[[283]] and that justice be done them.[[284]] He also provides against the existence of beggary in the state.[[285]] Whatever may be said of his aristocratic spirit, therefore, he cannot be justly accused of the gross indifference of the early nineteenth-century economy and of modern capitalism toward either masses or public, in their concern for material wealth.[[286]]