[315]. 421D.
[316]. Ruskin thinks that inequality of possessions, in itself, does not necessarily mean either evil or good for a nation (Unto This Last, II, 31 [Vol. XVII, 46 f.]); he argues that each is born with an absolutely limited capacity, and calls the idea of natural equality of men “radical blockheadism” (Fors Clav., VIII, Letter 95, 6 [Vol. XXIX, 496]); cf. Unto This Last, III, 54 (Vol. XVII, 74); Modern Painters, III, Pt. IV, chap. x, 22 (Vol. III, 189); Seven Lamps of Architecture, IV, 28 (Vol. VIII, 167); Fors Clav., II, Letter 14, 4 and note (Vol. XXVII, 248); Stones of Venice, III, 4 (Vol. XI, 260), all of which emphasize its impossibility. He strongly opposes socialism, cf. above, and Mun. Pul., 21 (Vol. XVII, 144), though his economic ideas contained essentially the germ of modern socialistic doctrine.
[317]. Cf. his ironical criticism of democratic equality in Athens, 558C: ἰσότητά τινα ὁμοίως ἴσοις τε καὶ ἀνίσοις διανέμουσα; Laws 757B-D, 744B-C; cf. infra for Aristotle’s idea. Cf. p. [61], n. 1 for further notice of these passages.
[318]. Poehlmann (op. cit., I, 553, n. 3) is extreme in asserting that Plato’s account of the growth of the proletariat, and the rise of class struggles (Book VIII) contains “alle wesentlichen Züge des Bildes, welches die moderne Plutokratie gewährt,” and (560), “Das vierte Jahrhundert v. Chr. hat uns den Kampf vorgekämpft in welchem wir selbst mittenhineinstehen.”
[319]. Pohlenz (op. cit., p. 240) makes his socialism a reaction against the individualism of Pericles, but makes the extreme assertion: “Die Grundlage auf der Plato seinen Idealstaat aufbaut, ist der strengste Socialismus.”
[320]. Cf. p. [43], n. 10. He evidently recognizes his ideas on the family and on the philosopher-king as utopian; cf. also 425D-E; but Poehlmann (op. cit., II, 144-52) opposes this view. Cf. Shorey, Class. Phil., October, 1914, pp. 357 f., on the idea of law in the Laws and Politics.
[321]. When advocated, it has not been with the lofty motive of Plato.
[322]. Poehlmann ((op. cit., I, 579, 598) admits this. Guiraud (La Prop. fonc., p. 594) points out that the analogy with modern socialism is difficult, owing to the modern abolition of slavery, great extent of states, and large increase in personal property.
[323]. So Souchon, (op. cit., pp. 145 ff.); Guiraud (La Prop. fonc., p. 638) well says: “Si ces derniers [modern socialists] reussissaient à appliquer leurs projects, les sociétés qui sortiraient de leurs mains n’auraient pas la moindre ressemblance avec la société hellenique.” Cf. also ibid., p. 594, where he distinguishes between Plato and modern socialists. Francotte (L’Industrie, II, 250, n. 1) makes the Republic essentially socialistic, though he admits that it has not the modern aim (p. 255). Poehlmann (op. cit., II, 123-43) makes it a “Koinzidenz der beiden Prinzipien” (p. 143). Wolf (Gesch. d. Ant. Kommun. u. Individ., p. 96) distinguishes Plato’s two aims as a strong community spirit, and a strong central authority, devoid of selfish interest. Cf. S. Cognetti de Martiis, (op. cit., pp. 524-89), on the Socialismo filosofico of the Republic.
[324]. Vierteljahrschrift f. Staats u. Volkswirtschaft, I, 375 ff. Of course Aristophanes may have caricatured Plato as he did Socrates in the Clouds. However, since both were opposed to extreme individualism, and since the comedy was written before the Republic, it is improbable. But cf. Drumann, Arbeiter u. Communisten in Griechenland u. Rom (1860), pp. 133 f., who thinks the poet was satirizing the oral discussions of Plato. Pohlenz (op. cit., pp. 223-28) argues for an earlier edition of the Republic, and states that, though the comedy is not a direct satire on the Republic, yet its numerous specific ideas and expressions that are similar to Plato’s warrant the conclusion that the poet followed Plato. Cf. also S. Cognetti de Martiis, (op. cit., pp. 541-61), on the relation of the two.