Aristotle on Marx
March 1st, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Aristotle on Marx :: Chinese mirrors :: property :: Chinese mirrors (who is the fairest of us all)
From Aristotle’s Politics II.5:
Next let us consider what should be our arrangements about property:
should the citizens of the perfect state have their possessions in
common or not?…
…
…indeed there is always a difficulty in men living together and having
all human relations in common, but especially in their having common
property. The partnerships of fellow-travelers are an example to the
point; for they generally fall out over everyday matters and quarrel
about any trifle which turns up….
These are only some of the disadvantages which attend the community of
property…. Property should be in a certain sense common, but, as a
general rule, private; for, when everyone has a distinct interest, men
will not complain of one another, and they will make more progress,
because every one will be attending to his own business…. Again, how
immeasurably greater is the pleasure, when a man feels a thing to be his
own; for surely the love of self is a feeling implanted by nature and
not given in vain, although selfishness is rightly censured; this,
however, is not the mere love of self, but the love of self in excess,
like the miser’s love of money; for all, or almost all, men love money
and other such objects in a measure. And further, there is the greatest
pleasure in doing a kindness or service to friends or guests or
companions, which can only be rendered when a man has private property.
These advantages are lost by excessive unification of the state. The
exhibition of two virtues, besides, is visibly annihilated in such a
state: first, temperance towards women (for it is an honorable action to
abstain from another’s wife for temperance’ sake); secondly, liberality
in the matter of property. No one, when men have all things in common,
will any longer set an example of liberality or do any liberal action;
for liberality consists in the use which is made of property.
Such legislation may have a specious appearance of benevolence; men
readily listen to it, and are easily induced to believe that in some
wonderful manner everybody will become everybody’s friend, especially
when some one is heard denouncing the evils now existing in states,
suits about contracts, convictions for perjury, flatteries of rich men
and the like, which are said to arise out of the possession of private
property. These evils, however, are due to a very different cause- the
wickedness of human nature.
