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.