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]]