AWA: Academic Writing at Auckland

Aristotle’s ideas have been extremely influential throughout history, with many societies adopting his ideas in regard to government. One of the ideas he put forward was the importance of property for good government. Aristotle in his work Politics argued that to ensure good government, men should have a moderate level of property, aligning with his idea of the ‘Golden Mean’, the middle between two extremes, being the best principle. He also suggested that a good government would not redistribute property in order to achieve equality. Finally, he claimed that slaves were necessary property to ensure good government. Aristotle fundamentally clashes with his former teacher Plato over this issue, who advocated for the abolishment of private property for the ruling class in his work, The Republic.

Aristotle advocated for his concept of the ‘Golden Mean’ to ensure good government and this included ownership of property. He argued for the desirable middle between two extremes because he believed that it brought balance to life, leading him to claim that “the best life must be the middle life”.^[1] This allowed the negative excesses of both extremes to be avoided. Aristotle, in line with his ideology, advocated for men to have a medium level of property, between the extremes of wealth and poverty to ensure good government.

Aristotle argued firstly that if men had a moderate level of property, it would give them a feeling that they had a stake in the future of their city and would therefore work for the good of it.^[2] Without this feeling of attachment, Aristotle believed that it would lead to the idea of the tragedy of the commons, where the city’s resources were doomed to overuse and degradation due to lack of care. Aristotle observed that “the greater number of owners, the less respect for common property”.^[3] Secondly, he argued that having sufficient wealth allowed men to engage with politics, rather than being focused on hand-to mouth survival. Thirdly, having people of medium wealth rule was beneficial as they knew how to rule and be ruled as they were not too subservient or too dominating.^[4] Fourth and finally, Aristotle argued that virtues such as liberality are only feasible when men have private property.^[5] Hence, according to scholars such as Curtis N. Johnson, Aristotle believed that having private property would allow men to develop virtues that cause them to rule for the good of the city.^[6] Having too little wealth was deemed problematic by Aristotle as he believed that men would have no feeling of responsibility for their city, and would not have enough time to engage in politics due to being focused on survival through “wicked ways and petty crime”.^[7] They would also lose virtues such as generosity, and thereby lose values that cause them to rule for the benefit of the people.[8] Not only that, but they would be too subservient as rulers, overall leading to lack of engagement with politics and poor government.^[9] Having too much wealth was also seen as undesirable as men might be prone to “arrogance and crime on a larger level”, leading them to rule for their own gain rather than for the people.^[10] They also would not know how to rule because they had never been ruled, with Aristotle commenting that “even at school they are so full of la dolce vita that they have never grown used to being ruled”.^[11] For Aristotle, all of these factors would combine to produce poor government. Hence overall, Aristotle firmly argues for men to have a medium level of property to ensure good government. As he put it, “It is a most happy state of affairs when those who take part in the constitution have a middling, adequate level of property”.^[12]

However, while Aristotle argues for the importance of having moderate wealth to achieve good governance, he does not indicate that he believes that a good government will furnish men with that wealth. Aristotle argues that the role of the government is to promote the happiness of its citizens and to rule for the benefit of them.^[13] But he does not indicate that to achieve this good governance, the government should redistribute wealth to achieve total equality. On the contrary, Aristotle condemns the rule of the many that could authorise an extraction of wealth from the rich.^[14] Also, Aristotle’s idea of distributive justice does not extend to a redistribution of wealth, but rather, he acknowledges differences between people on criteria such as merit and birth, hence wealth should be distributed unequally. ^[15] This unequal distribution to Aristotle is necessary for virtuous activity, and not the cause of injustice.^[16] So while Aristotle promotes the idea that men should have a medium level of property for good government, he argues that a good government should not redistribute property to equality to achieve this.

Not only was having a level of property essential for good government, but the nature of that property for Aristotle could also ensure good governance. Notoriously in Politics, Aristotle advocates and defends slavery as an institution. In accordance to his wider ideology of telos (purpose), he argued that slaves were born slaves by nature, hence they could be used as their masters pleased as private property.^[17] This, for Aristotle, ensured good government because it allowed the people in society who were born to engage in politics not to be distracted by work. As he put it “neither life itself or the good life is possible without a certain minimum supply of the necessities”.^[18] These necessities, according to Aristotle, would be provided by slaves. Slaves would be the ones to cook, clean etc., with Aristotle describing slaves as a “tool” for use.^[19] Therefore, a master’s time was freed for leisure and engagement with politics, leading to good government as the people who are born to govern, are able to do so.

Aristotle’s belief that private property is needed for good government, fundamentally clashes with his former teacher Plato’s ideas. Plato advocated for the abolishment of private property for his “Guardian Class”, the people in society who did the ruling. They would have no private property, and would be provided with all the provisions they required, such as housing and allowances.^[20] Plato also advocated for propaganda convincing these guardians that they should not try and gain gold and silver as they have already had these enshrined in their souls by the gods.^[21] If they were to seek these, they would be polluting their soul with the wickedness of common coinage.^[22] Plato advocated for non-ownership of property for the ruling class because he believed that by removing the distraction of it, it would allow the guardians to be more focused on ruling for the benefit of society. Private property and wealth, according to Plato, are a corrupting force and produces division in society. Wealthy guardians would become idle and careless due to a feeling of complacency, and would divide into factions over jealously of each other’s wealth.^[23] Poverty, on the other hand, creates meanness and inferior work as the impoverished feel a lack of fulfilment and, like the wealthy, would also form factions as they develop jealously against the rich.^[24] The guardians would no longer rule for the benefit of the citizens, but for their own gain, leading to an abuse of power. When Plato is challenged on his idea with the proposition that by depriving guardians of all their property, they will become discontented, he argues that the point is not to make one group happy at the expense of another, but to make the whole city happy.^[25] Hence according to Plato, it would be better to abolish private property for the ruling class to ensure the happiness of the city through the guardians becoming better rulers.

Aristotle does not adopt Plato’s ideas, but instead launches into a searing, often misguided critique of this former teacher. Scholars such as R. F. Stalley speculate that Aristotle objected to Plato’s idea on the basis of his own experience, as Aristotle had always deemed sharing and living together with one another difficult.^[26] Characterising Plato’s vision as extreme, Aristotle attacks the idea of depriving the guardian class of property, believing that it would lead to poor government. He argued that self-love and joy of possession are part of human nature.^[27] Hence without property, there is no scope given for these tendencies, leading to misery and a feeling among the guardians that they have no stake in the future of the city.^[28] This misery of the guardian class for Aristotle, leads to government being poorly run, which leads to widespread suffering. Aristotle comments “if the Guardians are not happy, who will be? Certainly not the skilled workers and the general run of mechanics”.^[29] Aristotle argues that fundamentally Plato is mistaken in believing that problems such as “broken contracts, trials for false witnesses and sucking up to wealthy people” are caused by private property, but rather they originate from the “depravity of the human character”.^[30] Common ownership, rather than private, gives rise to more disputes. Aristotle also argues that the abolishment of private property would lead to loss of virtues such as liberality as people need property as a means of “helping and doing favours to friends and strangers and associates”.^[31] Therefore, the guardian class will lose values that make them rule for the benefit of the people.

Not only does Aristotle find issue with Plato’s arrangements for his guardian class, but he also criticises his ambiguity about the citizen body. He argues that if the citizenry had the same arrangements as the guardians this will lead to problems of distinguishing between the two sections of the population, and also the problem of obedience of the citizenry.^[32] If both sides are the same, why does one group get to rule? This conflict in society would inevitably lead to bad government. Aristotle claims that overall, Plato’s system of property for the guardians cannot come into fruition without “keeping its (society) parts separate, dividing it either into messing-groups, or into brotherhoods and tribes”.^[33] He suggests that Plato’s system of government would lead to division and conflict in society, not good government. However, this claim has been deemed problematic by many contemporary scholars such as Peter Garnsey, who claim that Aristotle misunderstood the property sharing regime itself.^[34] If the farmers were to be ‘like the Guards’, essentially they would not be farmers and there would be no division.^[35] Aristotle has forgotten about the particularity of Plato’s arrangements for the guardians.^[36]

Aristotle’s criticism of Plato in general has been called into question, with many contemporary scholars believing that Aristotle misunderstood Plato entirely. Scholars like Stalley charge Aristotle with making general discussions of property without much relevance to Plato’s text, while others such as Johnson charge Aristotle with misrepresenting Plato in order to promote his own ideology.^[37]-[38] Many contemporary scholars speculate that misunderstanding of Plato by later theorists was entirely the work of Aristotle. Garnsey commented that “one has to note that a serious misreading of Plato’s Republic had been launched, with all the authority of Aristotle behind it”.[39]

Aristotle’s belief that a moderate level of property is essential for good government has been passed down from generation to generation of thinkers, as Aristotelian ideas in Politics, influenced by the central ideology of the ‘Golden Mean’ were accepted without question. Throughout his work, he clashes with his former teacher on multiple fronts, and ideas about property proved to be no different. Aristotelian ideas have fundamentally influenced western political thought, from the development of scholasticism with St Thomas Aquinas to slavery in America during the 19th century; remnants of his ideas have continued to shape western society.

Bibliography

Aristotle. Politics. Translated by T.A. Sinclair. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1962.

Flanagan, Thomas and Anthony Parel, eds. Theories of Property: Aristotle to the Present. Waterloo, Canada: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1979.

Garnsey, Peter. Thinking about Property: From Antiquity to the Age of Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Keyt, David and Fred D. Miller Jr, eds. A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell, 1991.

Johnson, Curtis N. Aristotle’s Theory of the State. Portland: Macmillan, 1990.

Mulgan, R.G. Aristotle’s Political Theory: An introduction for students of Political Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.

Plato. Great Dialogues of Plato. Translated by W.H.D. Rouse. New York: Mentor, 1956.

[1] Aristotle, Politics, trans. T.A. Sinclair (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1962), 266.

[2] Ibid., 108.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 266-7.

[5] Ibid., 115.

[6] Curtis N. Johnson, Aristotle’s Theory of the State (London: Macmillan, 1990), 161.

[7] Aristotle, Politics, 266.

[8] Ibid., 115.

[9] Ibid., 267.

[10] Ibid., 266.

[11] Ibid., 267.

[12] Ibid., 268.

[13] Anthony Parel and Thomas Flanagan, eds., Theories of Property: Aristotle to the Present (Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1979), 28.

[14] Ibid., 29.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] R.G. Mulgan, Aristotle’s Political Theory: An introduction for students of Political Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 40.

[18] Aristotle, Politics, 64.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Plato, Great Dialogues of Plato, trans. W.H.D. Rouse (New York: Mentor, 1956), 216.

[21] Ibid., 217.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid., 219.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid., 218.

[26] David Keyt and Fred D.Miller, Jr, eds., A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics (Cambridge: Blackwell, 1991), 195.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Aristotle, Politics, 119.

[30] Ibid., 116.

[31] Ibid., 115.

[32] Ibid., 117.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Peter Garnsey, Thinking about Property: From Antiquity to the Age of Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 26.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Keyt and Miller Jr, A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, 194.

[38] Garnsey, Thinking about Property, 26-7.

[39] Ibid., 27.