Chapter 24 Chapter 21 Aristotle's Politics

The politics of Aristotle is both interesting and important;—interesting because it expresses the common prejudices of the educated Greeks of the time, and important because it became the The source of many principles of important influence.I don't think much of it is of any practical use to today's politicians, but there is a lot that can help make sense of partisan conflict in various parts of the Hellenistic world.Aristotle was indifferent to the methods of government in non-Hellenistic countries.He does mention Egypt, Babylon, Persia, and Carthage, but all but Carthage are mentioned in general terms.He did not mention Alexander, and he was not even aware of the revolution he had brought about in the world.The whole discussion was about the city-state, and he hadn't foreseen that the city-state was going to be a thing of the past.Greece, broken up into many independent city-states, became a political laboratory.But what these experiments could be applied to has not existed since the time of Aristotle, not until the rise of the cities of medieval Italy.The experience Aristotle cites is in many ways more applicable to the more recent world than to any world that has existed in the fifteen hundred years since his book was written.

He says a lot of very interesting things in passing, some of which we can say before we get to political theory.He tells us that Euripides was scolded by a man named Decanicus at the court of Archelaus, king of Macedon, for his bad breath.To appease him, the king allowed him to flog Decanicus.He did just that.Decanicus waited many years before he took part in a successful conspiracy and killed the king; but Euripides was dead by this time.He also told us that we should conceive in winter when the north wind blows;He also said that obscenity is not allowed anywhere except in the temple, where the law even allows obscenity.People should not marry too early, because if they marry too early, weak girls will be born, wives will become lewd, and husbands will be stunted.The proper age for marriage is thirty-seven for men and eighteen for women.

We know from this that Thales was ridiculed for his poverty, so he bought all the oil extractors by means of different payments, so he was able to control the monopoly price of the oil extractors.He did it to show that philosophers can make money.If philosophers are poor all their lives, it is because they have far greater things to think about than riches.All this, however, is mentioned in passing; now we come to more serious matters.The book begins by pointing out the importance of the state; the state is the highest collective, with the ultimate good in mind.According to the order of time, there is the family first; the family is built on the two great relationships of husband and wife and master and slave, both of which are natural.Several families unite into a township; several townships unite into a country, provided the union is nearly large enough to be self-sufficient.The state, though later in time than the family, is prior in nature to the family, and also to the individual; for "everything, when it is fully developed, we call this its nature," human society fully When it develops it is the state, and the whole is prior to the part.The concept involved here is that of the organism: he tells us that when the body is destroyed, a hand ceases to be a hand.The implication is that a hand is defined by its purpose—to take—and can fulfill its purpose only when united with a living body.Likewise, a man cannot accomplish his purpose unless he is part of the state.Aristotle says that he who founded the state is the greatest benefactor; for man is the worst animal without laws, and the law depends on the state for its existence.The state is not merely a society for exchange and the prevention of evil: "The end of the state is the good life. . . life" (1280b). "Political society exists for noble deeds, not for mere mere getting along" (1281a).

A country is made up of several families, each of which includes a family, so discussing politics should start with the family.A major part of this discussion is about slavery - because in ancient times slaves were always counted as part of the family.Slavery is beneficial and justified, and slaves should naturally be inferior to masters.Some are born to obey, others are born to rule.A man who by nature belongs not to himself but to another is born a slave; slaves should not be Greeks, but other mentally inferior races (1255a and 1330a).As tame animals are much better when they are ruled by men, so are those born inferior when they are ruled by superiors.It may be asked whether the practice of keeping prisoners of war as slaves is justified at all; power, such as that which brings victory in war, seems to imply a superior virtue, but the case is More often than not this is not the case.But in any case, it is always just (1256b) to wage war against those who, though by nature supposed to be governed, refuse to submit; Slaves are justified.This would seem to be enough to justify any conqueror, ever; and since no nation would admit that it was by nature to be governed, the only evidence of nature's intentions must be inferred from the results of war.So in every war the victor is right and the vanquished is wrong.This is pretty self-explanatory.

The second is the discussion about trade, which deeply influenced the theory of good and evil among the scholastics.Everything has two uses, one right and the other wrong; for example a pair of shoes can be worn, which is its right use, or can be exchanged, which is its wrong. legitimate use.So the status of a shoemaker who has to sell shoes for a living is a bit degrading.Aristotle tells us that retailing is not a natural part of the art of getting rich (1257a).The natural way to get rich is to be smart with your house and land.There is a limit to the wealth that can be obtained in this way, but there is no limit to what can be obtained by trade.Trade must deal with money, but wealth does not consist in acquiring money.Wealth acquired by trade is justly to be hated because it is unnatural. "The most detestable kind, and the most justifiably hated, is usury; usury profits from money itself and not from its natural object. For money is meant for exchange, and It is not to be multiplied by interest. . . . Of all the ways of getting rich, usury is the most unnatural" (1258).You may wish to read Taunay's book "Religion and the Rise of Capitalism" for what results this teaching has produced.But while his history is credible, his narrative has a pre-capitalist bias.

"Usury" refers to all loans with interest, not just loans at exorbitant interest rates as it is now.From the time of ancient Greece to the present day, mankind—or at least the more economically developed part of mankind—has been divided into creditors and debtors; debtors have always disapproved of interest, and creditors have always been in favor of it.Landlords are in most cases debtors, and commercial persons are creditors.The views of philosophers, with few exceptions, correspond to the pecuniary interests of their classes.The Greek philosophers, who belonged to or were employed by the landed class, disapproved of interest.The philosophers of the Middle Ages were priests, and the property of the church was mainly land, so they saw no reason to modify Aristotle's opinion.Their opposition to usury was reinforced by anti-Semitism, since most of the liquidity was Jewish.The monks and the nobles were at odds, and sometimes very sharply, but they could unite against the wicked Jew, who had helped them through bad times with loans, and thought he deserved Some kind of reward for your own frugality.

With the Reformation, the situation changed.Many ardent Protestants run businesses.Loans for profit are the most important thing to them.Thus first Calvin, and later other Protestant clergy, recognized interest.In the end the Catholic Church had to follow suit, for the ancient prohibitions no longer fit the modern world.Philosophers, whose income is now drawn from the funds of the universities, have all been in favor of interest since they ceased to be priests, and thus were no longer connected with landed possessions.At each stage there has been a wealth of theoretical arguments in support of economically favorable views.

Plato's Utopia was criticized by Aristotle for various reasons.The first is a very interesting statement that it gives too much unity to the state, making the state an individual.Then there is the argument against Plato's proposed abolition of the family, which every reader will naturally think of.Plato thought that by simply adding the title "Son" to all persons of the same age who might constitute parentage, a man would acquire for the whole people the affection which men now have for their own real sons.The same is true for the title "Father".Aristotle, on the other hand, says that what is common to the greatest number is the least of concern, and that if "sons" were common to many "fathers," they would be commonly loved. Neglect; it's better to be a de facto cousin than a Platonic "son";Then there is the curious argument that since abstinence from the passions is a virtue, it would be a pity to require a social institution which abolishes this virtue and the vices associated with it (1263b).Then he asked, if women are public, who is to be in charge?I once wrote an article entitled "Architecture and Social Institutions," in which I pointed out that anyone who wants to combine communism with the abolition of the family must also advocate a large number of people with a common sense. Commune home with kitchen, dining room and nursery.This system can be described as a kind of monastery, except that celibacy is not required.This is fundamental to the realization of Plato's plan, and is by no means less improbable than many other things Plato recommends.

Plato's communism troubled Aristotle.That, he said, would lead to resentment against idlers, and the kind of quarrels that often arise among fellow travelers.It would be much better if everyone minded their own business.Property should be private; but the people should be so taught with benevolence that the use of property will be largely public.Charity and generosity are virtues, but they are impossible without private property.Finally he tells us that if Plato's plan was a good one, someone else would have thought of it long ago.I don't agree with Plato, but if there is anything that makes me agree with Plato, it is Aristotle's argument against Plato.

We have already seen that Aristotle was not a man of equality when he spoke of slavery.Even if the submissive status of slaves and women is recognized, it is still a question of whether all citizens should be equal politically.He says that some people think this is desirable, on the grounds that the key to all revolutions lies in the regulation of property.He objected to this argument, saying that the greatest crime is from excess, not from want; no one becomes a tyrant by avoiding starvation. A government is good when its aim is the good of the whole community; it is bad when it is only concerned with itself.There are three kinds of government that are good: namely, monarchy, aristocracy, and constitutional government (or republic); and three kinds of government that are bad: namely, tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy.There are also many mixed intermediate forms.And it must also be pointed out that good government and bad government are determined by the moral character of those in power, not by the form of the constitution.However, this is only partially true.Aristocracy is the rule of the virtuous, oligarchy the rule of the rich, and Aristotle does not consider virtue and wealth strictly synonymous.What Aristotle advocated according to the doctrine of the golden mean is that moderate assets can best be combined with virtue: "Humans do not acquire or maintain virtue by means of external goods, but external Good fortune depends on virtue; and happiness, whether in pleasure, in virtue, or in both, is often found in those who have the most highly cultivated mind and character, but only a modest body. It is found in those who have extravagances, not in those who have useless extravagances but lack noble qualities” (1323a and b).There is thus a difference between the rule of the best (aristocracy) and the rule of the richest (oligarchy), since the best often have modest wealth.There is also a difference between democracies and republics - apart from the ethical difference in government - since what Aristotle calls "republics" retains a certain oligarchic element (1293b ).But the only difference between monarchy and tyranny is ethical.

He emphasized the distinction between oligarchy and democracy by the economic status of the ruling party: an oligarchy is when the rich rule with complete disregard for the poor, and an oligarchy is when power is in the hands of the poor without regard for the rich. When there is interest, it is democracy. A monarchy is better than an aristocracy, and an aristocracy is better than a republic.But the best corrupts the worst; therefore tyranny is worse than oligarchy, and oligarchy is worse than democracy.In this way Aristotle arrives at a limited justification of democracy; and since most actual governments are bad, democracy is perhaps the best of actual governments. . The Greek conception of democracy was in many respects far more extreme than ours; Aristotle said, for instance, that the method of electing magistrates was oligarchy, but that the appointment of magistrates by lot was democratic.In extreme democracies the assembly of citizens is above the law and decides every issue independently.The courts of Athens consisted of a large number of citizens chosen by lot, without the aid of any jurists; and these were, of course, liable to be swayed by eloquence or party sentiment.So when he criticizes democracy, we have to understand this is what he means. Aristotle had a long discussion of the causes of revolutions.Revolutions were as frequent in Greece as they had been in Latin America, so Aristotle had a wealth of experience to cite.The main cause of the revolution was the conflict between oligarchs and democrats.Aristotle said that democracy arises from the belief that equally free people should be equal in all respects; while oligarchy arises from the fact that people who are superior in some respects demand too much .Both have a kind of justice, but neither is the best kind. "Therefore, whenever the positions of the two parties in the government do not correspond to their preconceived ideas, they will set off a revolution" (1301a).A democratic government is less prone to revolution than an oligarchy, because the oligarchs can dispute among themselves.The oligarchs seem to be some high-spirited fellows.He tells us that in some cities the oligarchs took an oath: "I will be an enemy of the people, and I will use all my strength to do them all harm."Today's reactionaries are less frank. The three things necessary to prevent revolution are: governmental education, respect for the law even in the smallest matters, and legal and administrative justice, that is, "proportionate equality and making everyone Enjoy what you have" (1307a, 1307b, 1310a).Aristotle never seems to have experienced the difficulty of "proportional equality."If this is true justice, then the proportion must be the proportion of virtue.But virtue is difficult to measure, and is a matter of party controversy.In political practice, therefore, virtue always tends to be measured by income; the distinction Aristotle tries to make between aristocracy and oligarchy works only where there is a deeply entrenched hereditary aristocracy. It is possible.Even so, as soon as there is a large class of the rich and not of the nobility, they must be given power lest they cause a revolution.But hereditary aristocracy could never have long maintained their power except where the land was almost the only source of wealth.All social inequality is, in the long run, inequality in income.Part of the argument in favor of democracy is that any attempt to establish "proportional justice" on any merit other than wealth is bound to fail.Defenders of oligarchy claim that income is in proportion to virtue; the prophet says he never saw a righteous man beggar; Not too much and not too little.But these views are absurd.Except for absolute equality, any other kind of "justice" actually rewards some quality quite different from virtue, and is therefore reprehensible. There is a very interesting section on tyranny.A tyrant desires riches, a prince desires honor.The tyrant's guards are mercenaries, but the prince's guards are citizens.Tyrants were for the most part demagogues, who gained power by promising to protect the people against the nobility.In a sarcastic, Machiavellian tone, Aristotle lays out what a tyrant must do if he wants to stay in power.A tyrant must prevent anyone of exceptional ability from emerging, by capital punishment and assassination if necessary.He must forbid public meals, gatherings, and any education which might produce hostile feelings.There are absolutely no literary meetings or discussions.He must prevent the people from getting to know each other well, and must compel them to live a communal life before his gates.He should have hired spies like the Syracuse spies.He must sow dissension and impoverish his subjects.He should keep the people engaged in great works, as the kings of Egypt did in building the pyramids.He should also empower women and slaves to be informers too.He should make wars so that his subjects will always have something to do and will always need a leader (1313a and b). In the whole book, this passage is the only passage that is most applicable to today, and it is depressing to think about it.Aristotle concludes that no evil is too great for a tyrant.He said, however, that there was another way of preserving tyranny, and that was temperance and a pretense of religion.But he did not decide which approach would prove to be more effective. There is a long argument to prove that foreign conquest is not the purpose of the state, revealing that many take an imperialist view.There is, indeed, one exception: it is right and right to conquer the "natural slaves."In Aristotle's view, this would justify war against barbarians, but not against Greeks; for no Greek is a natural slave.Generally speaking, war is only a means, not an end; and therefore a city-state may be happy in isolation and incapable of conquest.Nor do nations have to be inactive to survive in isolation.God and the whole universe are actively active, although it is impossible for them to conquer the outside world.Therefore, the happiness that a country should pursue should not be war, but peaceful activities, although war may sometimes be a necessary means to achieve happiness. This begs the question: how big should a country be?He tells us that great cities are always badly governed, because there can be no order in excess of numbers.A country should be large enough to be somewhat self-sufficient, but not too large to be constitutional.A nation should be small enough that the citizens can know each other's characters, otherwise elections and lawsuits cannot be done fairly.The territory should be so small that it can be seen in its entirety from a hilltop.Since he tells us that the state should be self-sufficient (1326b), but also that the state should have import and export trade (1327a), this seems to be inconsistent. People who work for a living should not be allowed citizenship. "A citizen should not live the life of a craftsman or a merchant, because such a life is disgraceful and contrary to virtue."Nor should citizens be farmers, since they must have leisure.Citizens were supposed to have property, but peasants were supposed to be slaves from other races (1330a).He tells us that the races of the North are vigorous, while the races of the South are intelligent.So slaves should be of the southern race, because if they were energetic, they would not be easy.The Greeks alone were both vigorous and wise; they governed far better than the barbarians, and if united they could rule the world (1327b).One might expect Alexander to be mentioned at some point at this point, but not a word is mentioned. Concerning the size of states, Aristotle made, to varying degrees, the same error that many modern liberals make.A nation must be able to defend itself in war, and must even be able to defend itself without great difficulty, if any free culture is to survive, and this requires that a nation have How big it is depends on the technology and industry of war.In Aristotle's time the city-state was obsolete because it could no longer defend itself against Macedonia.In our day the whole of Greece, including Macedonia, is obsolete in this sense, as has recently been proved.It is as useless today to claim the complete independence of Greece, or any other small country, as it is to claim the complete independence of a city whose domains can be seen from a height.No real independence is possible unless a nation or confederacy becomes, by its own efforts, strong enough to repel all foreign attempts at conquest.And to satisfy this requirement it must be no smaller than the United States and the British Empire put together; and even this, perhaps, would be too small a unit. Incomplete in the form in which it has come to us, Politics ends with a discussion of education.Education, of course, was only for the children who were to become citizens; slaves could also be taught useful skills, such as cooking, but this was not part of education.The citizen should be made for the form of government under which he himself lives, and should therefore vary according to whether the city-state is an oligarchy or a democracy.In this discussion, however, Aristotle assumes that all citizens enjoy political power.Children should learn what is useful to them, but not vulgar; for example, they should not be taught any technique that distorts the image of the body, or that will enable them to earn money.They should engage in moderate physical exercise, but not to the point of acquiring professional skill; the health of children trained for the Olympiads is impaired, and those who were victorious in childhood are rarely grown into manhood. The fact that Zai can be the winner speaks for itself.Children should be taught to draw pictures in order that they may appreciate the beauty of the human body; they should also be taught to appreciate paintings and sculptures which express moral values.They can learn to sing and play instruments, so that they can enjoy music with taste, but not enough to become skilled players; for a free man cannot play or sing unless he is drunk.Of course they had to learn to read and write, although these are useful skills, too.But the purpose of education is "virtue", not usefulness.What Aristotle refers to as "virtue", he has already told us in his book "Ethics", and he quotes it repeatedly in this book. Aristotle's basic assumptions in his "Politics" are very different from those of any modern writer.The purpose of the state, in his view, was to produce the cultured gentleman—that is, a man who combined aristocratic spirit with a love of learning.This union existed in its highest perfection in Athens in the age of Pericles, but not among the people but only among those who lived well.By the last age of Pericles it began to disintegrate.The uneducated masses attacked the friends of Pericles, and they were obliged to defend the privileges of the rich by intrigue, assassination, illegal despotism, and other less gentlemanly means.After Socrates' death, the tenacity of Athenian democracy weakened; Athens remained the center of ancient culture, but political power moved elsewhere.Throughout the end of antiquity, power and culture were usually separated: power was in the hands of rough soldiers, culture was in the hands of impotent Greeks, and often slaves.This was only partly true in the glorious days of Rome, but especially before Cicero and after Marcus Aurelius.After the barbarians invaded, the "gentlemen" were the barbarians in the north, while the cultured people were the refined priests in the south.This continued, more or less, until the Renaissance, when the laity again began to master culture.After the Renaissance, the Greek political concept of a cultured gentleman governing power gradually became more and more popular, reaching its apex in the eighteenth century. But various forces finally ended the situation.The first is democracy embodied in the extreme aftermath of the French Revolution.Since the time of Pericles, cultured gentlemen have had to defend their privileges against the masses; and in the process they have ceased to be gentlemen and cultured.The second reason is that the rise of industrial civilization has brought a science and technology that is quite different from traditional culture.The third reason is that the education of the masses has given people the ability to read and write, but not culture; this has enabled new types of demagogues to conduct new types of propaganda, as we see in dictatorships. as it arrived. So, for better or for worse, the days of the cultured gentleman are gone forever.