Our author is also strong in his denial of either the wisdom or feasibility of the communism in the _Republic_.[820] He argues that Plato’s proposed family communism is based upon the false principle that a state must be composed of like elements,[821] and shows that it must fail to accomplish its end of harmony, for Plato’s “all” must mean all collectively.[822] But this must result, if realized, in a decrease of devotion,[823] and thus in a lack of the very harmony sought,[824] since one of the chief sources of attachment in the world is exclusive ownership.[825] He would deem such a measure, therefore, more fitting for the third class, since a weakening of their ties of affection might result in greater submission to the rulers,[826] another striking evidence of the gulf that separates the ideal of Greek political thought from the spirit of modern democracy.
Moreover, he considers Plato’s assumption that a state, to be a unity, must be devoid of all private interests, to be gratuitous,[827] and argues that the common possession of anything is more likely to cause strife than harmony.[828] In his opinion, the present system of private property, if accompanied by a right moral tone and proper laws, combines the advantages of both common and individual ownership.[829] The tenure of property should therefore be private, but there should be a certain friendly community in its actual use.[830] Thus will be avoided the double evil of strife and neglect, which must result from dissatisfaction and lack of personal interest under communism.[831] He offers as a substitute for the Platonic doctrine, then, his own ideal of reciprocal equality (τὸ ἴσον τὸ ἀντιπεπονθός) as the real cement of society.[832] In any event, he asserts, the present evils do not result from private property, but from the depravity of human nature (μοχθηρίαν),[833] and the aim should be to improve this by moral and intellectual culture, rather than to attempt amelioration by the establishment of an entirely new system.[834] The latter method would result, even if successful, not only in escape from some of the present evils, but also in the loss of the present advantages of private tenure.[835]
The foregoing arguments all show remarkable practical insight, and have been common in the modern criticism of socialism. The objection that individual effort and industry would be paralyzed if bereft of the stimulus of personal interest and ownership, while a general fact of human nature, need not be valid against a system where each has opportunity to develop up to his capacity. There is certainly little to impel the great mass of people to industry under an individualistic system, except the proverbial wolf at the door. But Aristotle is not thinking of the masses. The objection that the evils result from human nature, not from the economic system, may well be pondered by modern socialists and doctrinaire reformers, yet this very fact is an additional reason why the system should be reformed so as to curb such wrong tendencies. The emphasis upon education as a cure for the existing ills is wise, and it might well be more fully recognized by modern socialists, though both Aristotle and later critics of proposed social reforms are wrong in implying that the two methods are mutually exclusive. The warning that, by giving up the régime of private properly, we should not only be rid of its evils, but also lose its advantages, should be pondered by agitators against the existing economic system. Modern socialists might also learn much from Aristotle and the other Greek thinkers in regard to the true social ideal, as not primarily materialistic and selfish, but moral and social. On the whole, it may be observed that Aristotle’s criticism of Plato’s alleged communism in the _Republic_ would be far more applicable against modern socialism.