d) Economic facts are a commonplace of daily life, and familiarity breeds contempt.[[66]] This statement contradicts the first reason given by Haney. Moreover, it is somewhat unfortunate as applied to Greece, since the very opposite reason is given for the prominence of political speculation—the commonness of practical politics.
e) Perhaps the strongest reason for the comparative unimportance of Greek economic thought is usually not emphasized. It is the patent fact that almost our only extant sources are the Socratic philosophers, who represent avowedly a direct moral reaction against the commercial spirit and money-greed of their age.[[67]] Thus the limited development of Greek economics, so far from being an evidence of primitive economic conditions in Greece, is a direct argument for the opposite. To be sure, a man with the scientific mind of Aristotle would scarcely have failed to gain a clearer apprehension of certain fundamentals of economics than he did, had his economic environment been more complex. Yet the fact remains that he and Plato are moral prophets, protesting against that very capitalism whose existence many modern historians have sought to deny to their age.
CHAPTER III
PLATO
As seen above, Plato was the first great economic thinker of Greece.[[68]] Plato, however, was primarily interested in neither economics nor politics, but in moral idealism. He is pre-eminent, even among the Socratics, for this. All his economic thought is a direct outgrowth of it, and is shot through with its influence. Yet, despite this fact, he exhibits considerable insight into some of the basal principles of economics,[[69]] and his entire Republic is founded upon an essentially economic theory of society. He traces its origin to mutual need,[[70]] and makes little of the innate social impulse, so prominent in Aristotle’s analysis.[[71]] He is the predecessor of Aristotle, however, in opposing the social contract doctrine of the Sophists with its interpretation of law as mere convention, by a natural theory of social origins. To his thought, the very foundations of society are established in eternal justice. They are not the result of mere convention, nor altogether the work of inspired lawgivers, but a complex product of natural and artificial elements.[[72]]
VALUE
Strictly speaking, Plato’s contribution to a theory of economic value and a definition of wealth is practically nil. In his discussion of just price, he merely hints at the fact of exchange value. He implies that, since goods exchange according to definite proportions, they should have a common quality capable of measurement, and that just price corresponds to this.[[73]] He offers no suggestion as to the nature of this quality, except that, in stating that “the artisan knows what the value of his product is,” he seems to be thinking of labor, or cost of production, as the chief element in value.[[74]]
In other passages, he insists on the doctrine taught previously by Democritus,[[75]] and later by Xenophon and other philosophers, that so-called goods depend for their value upon the ability of the possessor to use them rightly.[[76]] This idea is represented in modern thought especially by Ruskin.[[77]] The theory is, of course, true of absolute value, and, in a sense, even of economic value, in that “all exchangeableness of a commodity depends upon the sum of capacity for its use.”[[78]] It cannot be made a criterion of economic value, though the allied idea, implied by Plato and urged by Ruskin, that the innate quality of the thing, its capacity for good or harm, is a real element in economic value, is being recognized today. This is evident in the increasing hostility toward such so-called commodities as opium and intoxicating liquors. Since we have begun to define political economy in terms of human life rather than in terms of property, Ruskin’s definition of wealth is more acceptable: “the things which the nature of humanity has rendered in all ages, and must render in all ages to come ... the objects of legitimate desire.”[[79]]
WEALTH
Plato has much to say of wealth, though he deals with it strictly from the standpoint of the moralist. We look in vain for a clear definition, or for a consistent distinction of economic wealth from other goods. His terms are πλοῦτος, used of both material and spiritual wealth; χρήματα, often interpreted literally of “useful things,” as the basis of the subjective doctrine of value discussed above; κτήματα, “possessions,” and such words as χρυσός and ἀργύριον. His use of these terms, especially the first, is ambiguous. At times he means material goods only; again, like Ruskin, he includes every human good, intellectual and moral as well;[[80]] again he means “excessive wealth.”[[81]] As a result of his conception of value, he includes in material wealth all those objects that depend for their worth upon wise use and character in the possessor.[[82]] Material wealth is regularly placed last by Plato, as inferior to all other goods of soul or body, a mere means, and not an end in itself,[[83]] for virtue does not come from property, but property and all other goods from virtue.[[84]] Material goods should be the last thing in one’s thought,[[85]] and the fact that people universally put them first is the cause of many ills to state and individual alike.[[86]] Wealth is not blind, if only it follows wisdom.[[87]] The things usually called goods are not rightly so named, unless the possessor be just and worthy.[[88]] To the base, on the other hand, they are the greatest evil.[[89]] In all of this, Plato is the forerunner of Ruskin, with his characteristic assertions: “Only so much as one can use is wealth, beyond that is illth”; and “Wealth depends also on vital power in the possessor.”[[90]]
Plato especially inveighs against excessive wealth and luxury.[[91]] Men are urged not to lay up riches for their children, since great wealth is of no use to them or the state.[[92]] The prime object of good legislation should not be, as is commonly supposed, to make the state as rich as possible,[[93]] since excessive wealth and luxury decrease productive efficiency,[[94]] are incompatible with the highest character or happiness, being based on both unjust acquisition (κτῆσις) and unjust expenditure (ἀναλώματα),[[95]] produce degeneration in individual and nation,[[96]] and are the direct cause of war[[97]] and civic strife.[[98]] Were it feasible, he would prefer to go back to the simpler life of earlier times, before luxury and the inordinate desire for riches had so dominated all society.[[99]] Of course he realizes that such a return is impossible, but he has little hope of any other escape from the evils. He is thus led to express the belief that the fewer wants the better, a doctrine common also to Ruskin, Carlyle, and Thoreau.[[100]]