In antithesis to Plato and Aristotle, the problem of population has no difficulties for Xenophon. He does not deem it advisable to set a limit on the population of the state. On the contrary, he conceives it as one of the advantages of his plan in the _Revenues_, that thereby the city would become very populous, and thus land about the mines would soon be as valuable as that in the city itself.[469]
Xenophon is far less concerned about the problem of distribution than Plato. He has no suggestions as to wages, profits, or prices, no ideal state where an equitable distribution shall be realized, no yearnings after equality, or complaints against the evils of extreme wealth or poverty. Like Plato, he would avoid civic discord in the state,[470] but by the increase of production and exchange rather than by their limitation. In Socrates’ parable of the dog and the sheep, he presents a suggestion of a theory of profits, but his plea is for the employer instead of the laborer. The right of the former to share in the profits of the business is based on his service as overseer of the work, and as protector of the workmen.[471]
Our author does not definitely reveal his attitude toward the poorer masses, but it seems probable that he had little interest in them, except in so far as their condition might affect the fortunes of the state. He was, of course, opposed to giving them full political rights,[472] and would probably have preferred a system such as that in Plato’s _Laws_, where all free citizens have sufficient income so that they can give their time largely to the state, and where all laborers are slaves. He did not think of suggesting that the poorer citizens work in the mines, or even that aliens do so, but suggested rather that each citizen have the income from three state slaves.[473]
While Xenophon is not usually considered among the socialists of Greece, he approaches perhaps even nearer than Plato to one phase of modern socialism. Like Plato, he opposes the extreme individualism of the political and private life of his day.[474] He also reveals the Greek feeling of the social obligation of private property.[475] Again, as do Plato and modern socialists, he magnifies the power of law to transform economic or social conditions.[476] But in advocating the modern doctrine of the socialization of industry, with an economic, and not a moral or political, motive, he has advanced beyond either Plato or Aristotle, and approaches modern socialism.[477] As seen above, however, his economic motive is not interest in the welfare of the masses, for by his scheme they would all be slaves. He desires only to abolish poverty among the citizens.[478] He would have the state become entrepreneur, not merely in one, but in many branches of industry. State merchant shipping,[479] public ownership of slaves,[480] public exploitation of the mines,[481] public buildings near the mines, for rental to strangers,[482] are all in his plan. The rich must finance the scheme, but their profit will be 18, 36, or even 200 per cent.[483] Companies are to be organized so as to obviate individual risk.[484] Thus will poverty be no more, plenty for all will reign, and there will be an era of prosperity and security for the state.[485]