STOICS
The Stoics were the natural descendants in thought of the Cynics, whom they resemble closely in their attitude toward external goods. According to their definition, a good must have an unconditioned value (absolutum, αὐτελές). Whatever exists merely for the sake of something else, or is of value only in comparison to something else, is not a good.[[998]] A similar doctrine was held concerning evil. Thus spiritual goods were counted to be the only true wealth,[[999]] and he who had the right attitude toward all,[[1000]] and used all rightly, was thought to be the spiritual owner of all.[[1001]]
Zeno, the founder of the school,[[1002]] classified both wealth and poverty among the so-called “indifferents” (ἀδιάφορα),[[1003]] as neither good nor evil per se. Like the Cynics, he eulogized poverty, though not to such an extreme degree.[[1004]] He went with them only so far as to insist that wealth and poverty have no value, except in relation to the proper spiritual attitude.[[1005]]
In his argument that temples are not especially holy places, since they are the work of artisans (βαναύσων), Zeno exhibits the common negative attitude of the philosophers toward manual labor.[[1006]] His doctrine on money and exchange was also the negative teaching of the moralist, though his statements on these matters have special reference to an ideal future.[[1007]] His attitude on the problem of distribution is not altogether clear, though he wrote a Republic,[[1008]] in which he seems to have presented some communistic ideas. Like his followers, he looked to the time when the whole world should be one state, where artificial differences were no more, and all men were brothers.[[1009]] His state is utopian and anarchistic, without temple, court, gymnasium, money, or exchange. All are to wear the same clothing, and there shall be no artificial modesty.[[1010]] Community of wives, at least for the wise, was also probably among his utopian schemes,[[1011]] though it is very unlikely that he held the doctrine in the crass form as reported.[[1012]] His state is somewhat suggestive of the Christian ideal, as a unitary whole, a world-cosmos, united by love.[[1013]]
There is a peculiar mixture of individualistic and social conceptions in the philosophy of the Stoics. In their pictures of an ideal future world-state, they advanced beyond Plato and other thinkers, who limited their communities to the small city-state. In calling their state a “cosmos” also, they gave a positive social content to the narrow individualism of the Cynics.[[1014]] Moreover, as seen above, their ideal undoubtedly contained some communistic elements. However, according to the fundamental tenet of Stoicism, as expressed by Zeno,[[1015]] that only the wise can be free and citizens, we are still faced with the old duality and anti-socialistic ideal. The Stoics, like the Cynics, were after all essentially individualistic, and were probably believers in private ownership, though they dreamed of a future golden age of altruism, when private property would be no longer necessary.[[1016]]
Chrysippus, the greatest of the Stoics,[[1017]] continued and expanded the principle that virtue is the only absolute good, and that all other things are indifferents, depending for their worth upon right use.[[1018]] But since the wise alone are capable of right use of externals, they alone are truly wealthy.[[1019]] They are wealthy, even though beggars, and noble though slaves.[[1020]] They are not eager for wealth[[1021]] yet they are good economists, since they know the proper source,[[1022]] time, method, and extent of money-making. The worthless, on the other hand, are most needy, even though wealthy.[[1023]] Chrysippus seems to have advanced still farther, in teaching the negative doctrine that wealth is an evil, since it may come from an evil source,[##] an idea suggestive of the modern theory of “tainted money.” Naturally, he with the other Stoics, was in sympathy with the Socratics, in objecting to the use of one’s knowledge for purposes of money-making.[[1024]]
The cosmopolitan attitude of the Stoics caused them to be opposed to the theory of slavery as a natural institution.[[1025]] They taught that enforced service is no evidence of slavery,[[1026]] but that the real slaves are the ignoble and foolish.[[1027]] The wise, on the other hand, alone are free, though they are slaves to countless masters.[[1028]]
Chrysippus, like Zeno, probably had dreams of a future ideal state, where the highest eternal law would rule and individual strivings would be lost in the care for the common weal.[[1029]] If he taught family communism, it was doubtless in a Platonic form.[[1030]]
Utopian social theories after the time of Aristotle were by no means limited to those of Zeno and Chrysippus. As Souchon has observed,[[1031]] the period between the end of the fourth and the beginning of the second centuries was especially favorable to such speculation. The skeptical criticism of the Sophists had prepared the following generations to call in question the most elementary social principles. Ideal states, such as those of Phaleas and Plato, had opened the way for future imitations. The conquests of Alexander had broadened the vision of the Greek, so that he no longer thought in terms of Plato’s circumscribed city, but rather in terms of a world-state. Moreover, the utter political confusion and unstable economic conditions of the time aroused the more serious-minded to dream of an ideal past or golden age; to idealize the simple, “natural” life of the so-called “pious” barbarian nomads,[[1032]] or even of the animal world, as opposed to the “artificial” conditions of civilization; and to exaggerate the virtues and communistic character of the old Spartan constitution.[[1033]] The social theories were largely Stoic in tendency, and thus present a strange combination of individualistic and communistic ideas.[[1034]]
Dichaearchus of Messana, a pupil of Aristotle, described an original paradise, when men lived in accord with nature. In that golden age, they did not depend upon animals for food, but subsisted on fruits. Neither did they have any possessions to arouse hate and strife, until the evil of private property developed, and caused the degeneration of human society.[[1035]]
Ephorus,[[1036]] a disciple of Isocrates, represented the second tendency. He eulogized the life of the “milk-fed” (γαλακτόφαγοι), barbarian nomads of the north as true to nature and righteous.[[1037]] Their piety and simple life precluded the social ills that arise from individual ownership,[[1038]] for their communism even extended to the family, and all composed one brotherhood.[[1039]]
The third tendency is evident in the writings of Isocrates,[[1040]] Ephorus,[[1041]] Polybius,[[1042]] Plutarch,[[1043]] and was probably common to many other thinkers whose works are no longer extant.[[1044]] They idealized the ancient Spartan society, as a model of complete communism, which provided full equality and freedom for the citizens. It was free from the evils of luxury, excessive wealth, poverty, civic strife, commerce, and money-greed, a condition where all the citizens were wise, and where the Stoic ideal of independence (αὐτάρκεια) was fully realized.[[1045]]
It was but a step from this to the projection of these bizarre idealizations of the past and of primitive life into the present and future. They took the form of ideal utopias such as that of Zeno,[[1046]] or of romantic descriptions, purporting to portray ideal conditions as actually existing, such as found their model in Plato’s Atlantis.[[1047]] For a full discussion of this type of literature, the reader may consult Poehlmann’s work.[[1048]] We need give it only cursory notice here.
Theopompus, a pupil of Socrates, described a “Meropian” land.[[1049]] His aim, however, was probably the entertainment of the reader, rather than social reform, as is evidenced by the fantastic nature of his stories. They picture not only ideal communistic conditions, but also a state of the wicked (πονηρόπολις), and crassly emphasize the alleged free-love of the Etruscans.[[1050]]
The Cimmerian state of Hecataeus, an idealization of the kingdom of the Pharaohs, had a more serious social purpose.[[1051]] It describes a state in which all conquered lands are equally divided among the citizens, and where landed property cannot be sold. The people are free from greed of gain, civic strife, and all the ills that follow it. The ideal is not the greatest increase of wealth, but the development of the citizens to the highest social ideal.[[1052]]
Euhemerus wrote a “Sacred Chronicle” (ἱερὰ ἀναγραφή)[[1053]] of an ideal society on an island near India, ruled by a priestly aristocracy. Here, labor was held in high regard. The artisans were in the priestly class, the farmers were second, and the herdsmen were on an equality with the soldiers.[[1054]] All land and other means of production were common, except the house and garden (κήπου).[[1055]] The land was not worked collectively, but farmers and herdsmen alike brought their products to a common storehouse for common consumption.[[1056]] Thus neither money nor commercial class was necessary.
Jambulus, in his “Sun State,”[[1057]] outdoes even Euhemerus in his communistic ideas. He describes a sort of paradise of sun-worshipers at the equator. Here the trees never fail of ripe fruit, and the citizens never lose their strength and beauty. The whole social and economic life is under communistic régime. There is collective ownership of all the means of production, and each must take his turn at each kind of work.[[1058]] The communism extends also to the family.[[1059]] Thus Greek economic and social speculation, which always contained socialistic elements, ends in a communism for the whole citizenship, so thorough as to include both products and means of production, and to demand a leveling even of the natural inequalities that result from the different kinds of work.
CHAPTER VIII
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ON THE IMPORTANCE AND INFLUENCE OF GREEK ECONOMICS
Our conclusions as to the importance and influence of Greek economic thought have been fully presented in the previous discussion. A brief summary of the results, however, may be of advantage now, at the close of our survey. As seen above, despite the fact that Greek thought in this field was incidental to moral and political speculation, and despite a certain philosophic prejudice and limited economic vision, the contribution is by no means merely negative. We have seen that it included a recognition by one or more Greek thinkers of such important principles as the following: that society finds its origin in mutual need, and in the natural development of clan and family, not in the artificial social contract; that the state is a great business association, in which about the same economic laws apply as in private economy; that the final goal of economics is not property but human welfare; that the criteria of economic value are intrinsic utility, economic demand, and cost of production; that wealth must possess the quality of storableness; that true wealth consists only of commodities that minister to human welfare; that the three factors in production are land, labor and capital; that money originated in necessary exchange; that it serves as a medium of exchange, a standard of value, and a ticket of deferred payments; that it should possess intrinsic value, which is more stable than that of other commodities; that it should not be confused with wealth, but should be understood in its true function as representative wealth; that credit must play an exceedingly important part in business operations as representative capital; that agriculture is the basal industry, on which all others must depend; that the division of labor is the fundamental principle at the foundation of all exchange; that it results in certain important economic advantages, and that its extensive application depends upon large commercial development; that reciprocity is the fundamental principle in exchange, as also in the social structure; that exchange performs a legitimate social function in creating time and place values; that industrial expansion is limited by a law of diminishing returns; that the primary purpose of exchange should not be profit, but satisfaction of economic need; that commerce merely for its own sake does not necessarily increase the national store, but may produce only economic inequalities; that extremes of wealth and poverty cause industrial inefficiency, social strife, and crime; that excessive individual wealth is not usually compatible with just acquisition or just expenditure; that it also necessarily implies corresponding extremes of poverty; that the commercial spirit in nations is the chief cause of international differences; that the goal of economics is consumption rather than production, and that foolish consumption results in great economic waste; that all economic problems are moral problems; that private property is not a natural right, but a gift of society, and therefore that society may properly control its activities; that there is a certain unity in human nature, which is opposed to the doctrine of natural slavery; that the individual should have opportunity for personal development in accord with his capacities, aside from the mere struggle for physical existence; that true economic equality does not demand equal shares for all, but shares proportioned to capacities and services; and that gifts of charity merely for consumption are fruitful causes of poverty and indolence.
Besides the recognition of such principles, we have seen that many practical suggestions for the amelioration of economic and social conditions, which are being seriously presented today, were first proposed by Greek thinkers. Measures for the divorce of government from big business, state control of natural monopolies, conservation of natural resources, state supervision of trade and commerce, including regulation of prices and rates, publicity in business, pure food laws, and the socialization of industry and its products were all first proposed by Greeks. On the other hand, we have seen that practically all the modern stock arguments against socialism were long ago presented by Aristotle, and that the ideal of the Greek socialist was not primarily materialistic and selfish, as the modern, but moral and social.
Such a list of positive economic principles and practical suggestions should surely give the Greeks some claim to recognition in the field of economic thought. But they should be judged primarily, not by their positive contribution to economic theory or by the practical nature of their suggestions for legislation, but rather by the extent to which they realized the existence of the great economic and social problems, which are still crying for a solution. From this standpoint, we have seen that Plato and Aristotle especially reveal remarkable economic insight. Moreover, there still remains the outstanding fact that the Greeks were the forerunners of the moral, humanitarian, and social emphasis in present-day economy. This alone should give to them a distinct place in the evolution of economic thought, and should make it impossible for Souchon to conclude: “Ces mépris [of G. B. Say] sont pour nous apparaître plus justifiés que les admirations de Roscher.”[[1060]]
The influence of Greek thought upon later economic theory, however, seems not to have been very direct or extensive, probably owing to the incidental nature of their speculation. To be sure, mediaeval economic thought presents, in many respects, an unbroken continuity with the Greek. In their emphasis on the moral, in their doctrines on usury, just price, importance of agriculture, exchange for profit, and in their general conservative attitude toward money and commercial development, mediaeval thinkers are very similar to the Socratics.[[1061]] Doubtless much of this similarity may be traced to the direct influence of Aristotle, as is especially evident in the work of Thomas Aquinas and Nicholas Oresme.[[1062]] To a considerable extent, however, the economic ideas of the Middle Ages were a direct outgrowth of the economic and religious conditions under which the writers lived.[[1063]] In the following centuries, some Greek influence may be traced in Adam Smith, in the physiocrats,[[1064]] in utopian writers such as More, and in eighteenth-century thinkers like Rousseau.
It is usually asserted that the economic thought of the past century has been practically unaffected by Greek ideas. But our previous discussion has clearly shown that Plato and Xenophon, at least, dominated the economic thinking of Ruskin. If further evidence is needed, it is necessary only to turn to the names of Greek thinkers in the index to the monumental new edition of his works, which we have frequently cited above. He frankly and enthusiastically presents himself as an apostle of a “Greek theory of economics.”[[1065]] But despite some of his utopian and extravagant ideas, he is being ever more recognized by authorities in economics as having been one of the chief factors in the development of political economy to its present moral and humanitarian emphasis.[[1066]] His repudiation of the abstract “economic man,” his insistence upon human, moral, and social ideals in economics, his attempt to broaden the definition of economic value and wealth by emphasizing true utility, his constant stress upon proper consumption rather than upon production, his demand that all have opportunity up to their capacity, his opposition to the laissez-faire policy in economics and politics, his emphasis upon right education, all have borne rich and abiding fruit in the last few decades, and these are all distinctively Greek ideas, as we have seen above. Thus indirectly, through Ruskin, Greek economic thought has exerted a potent influence upon the evolution of nineteenth-century economics, and thus there is much truth in the words of Wagner, as quoted by Oncken,[[1067]] not merely for German, but for all modern economy: “Es ist im Grunde uralter wahrhaft classischer Boden, auf den jetzt die deutsche ökonomische und soziale Theorie und Praxis sich bewusst wieder stellen.” Souchon’s characterization of Greek economy as “morale étatisme”[[1068]] could well be applied to much in the economic thought of today.