Aristotle's Anticommunism.pdf

8/11/2019 Aristotle's Anticommunism.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aristotles-anticommunismpdf 1/19

Aristotle's AnticommunismAuthor(s): Darrell DobbsSource: American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Feb., 1985), pp. 29-46Published by: Midwest Political Science AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111210 .

Accessed: 09/10/2014 23:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Midwest Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Journal of Political Science.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Thu, 9 Oct 2014 23:59:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mpsa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111210?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111210?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mpsa



Aristotle's

nticommunism

Darrell obbs,

Universityf Houston

This essay xamines

Aristotle's ritical

eview f Plato's Republic, hefocus f which

eview

is restricted,urprisingly,

o Socrates' ommunistic

olitical nstitutions; ristotle ardly

men-

tions ny

f the

other mportant

hemes

eveloped

n

the

dialogue.

Forthis

eason ommentators

have hargedAristotle

ithmisrepresenting

lato's ntention. gainst hisview, he uthor

inds

inAristotle'snticommunismhemost ncisive

ormulationf hispolitical

isagreementith lato's

Socrates.

ommunism

will

not

promote

he

harmonious

rticulation

f

city

nd

man,

s

Socrates

suggests; ather,

t undermineshe ntegrity

f

thepolitical ommunity

nd precludes he

proper

developmentf thebesthumannature. ristotle oldsthat ommunismhusdisrupts he ntele-

chies

of both

city nd man.

Modern

ritiques,

ycontrast,merely

ndicate he dverse ffects

f

communism

n economic

productivity

r efficiency.

hus

Aristotle's

nticommunism

s

seento

offer or ur consideration dimension f

this mportantssuethat s typically eglected

n

con-

temporary olitical

rgument.

Preliminaryonsiderations

In

Plato's

Republic

ocratesrgues

nbehalf fthe

most adical ormf

communismver roposed.' otonlywouldheprohibitheprivate osses-

sion

fmaterial

oods mong

is

guardians,2

e

would

liminatell

privacy

and ommunizeven

he

amily.

n

the

olitics

Aristotlendertakeslengthy

critical

xamination

f

Socrates'

olitical

roposals

s

a

primarytep

oward

l Manystudents ow consider

ocrates' ndorsement

f communismo be ironic,

.e.,not

to represent

is

true iew,

much ess Plato's. The

evidence or his nterpretations

mpressive ut

not onclusive. mong

ther onsiderations,twill

uffice ere o note hatAristotlereats ocrates'

proposals s indicating isgenuine

ntention. e

goes so far, n fact, s to dentifyocrates'

om-

munistic roposals

s belonging

o Plato 1274b9-11). ristotleven

oints oward

motive nder-

lying ocrates'ntention1264bl5-17; ote hemiddle oice, phairoumenos).he textual oundation

forAristotle'snterpretation

ies, suggest,

n

Socrates'

xpress eliance n a communistic

egime

to makemanifest

hedivine

uality

f

thephilosophical ature

nd

to

aid

in

tsproper

evelop-

ment 497a3-5,

497bl-c7).

Aristotle'shief bjection

o

Socratic ommunism

eets his

ssuehead-

on:

according

o

Aristotle,

ommunism

recludes xactly

his ducation r development f

the

philosophical

ature. ow Plato

might espond o Aristotle's riticism

s

one of the

most ntrigu-

ing questions

n politicalphilosophy.

he significance f the dialogue

that

would emerge

rom

such

response

epends,however,

n whether

ristotle's

bjections

o

Socrates' ity

re ndica-

tive

f

a

genuine

isagreement

r merely vidence

f

misunderstanding.

he commentators,

s

far ack

as

Proclus, ypicallyharge hat

Aristotle's olitical riticism

tems rommisrepresenta-

tion,misconception,r merely careless eading f theRepublic.Against his endency, y nten-

tion

here s to show hatAristotle's

bjections

re coherentlyrganized

nd that he

focus f his

presentations strategicallyentered

n what s,

indeed, central oncern f Plato's

Republic.

Thus

this

ssayprovides

first ut

essential tep

oward

he ventual econstructionf

a

truly ig-

nificant ialogue

between

wo

greatpolitical

hinkers.

2

Since Aristotle

ontends

hatSocrates

fails o determine

he

political

nstitutions

n

force

among

the

rest

f

his

citizenry1264al3-17),perhaps

one should

say

"at least

among

his

guar-

dians."

n

return

or is rouble

n

pointing

utthis ifficulty,

ristotle as been

reproached

irtu-

ally

nanimouslyy

lassical

cholars s careless

nd

captious.

ut

careful

eading

fthe

Republic

will

ndeedreveal dilemma

n the cope of communism

nSocrates' ity. ocrates

does

suggest

that fhisguardians ver cquireprivate roperty,hey houldrather e calledhouseholders nd








30

DarrellDobbs

presenting is own account of thebest regime, hich,he

argues,necessarily

embraces

eparate

amilies nd

private roperty.

aim

in

this

essayto bring

tolight omethingf thepoliticaldisagreementetweenAristotle nd Plato

that his ontroversyndicates.

One

would

hardly

describe

Aristotle's

reak withPlato as an

under-

researched r arcane topic ofscholarly nalysis.But the

availablecommen-

taries

ail o

preserve,

o

saynothing

f

explaining,heparticular

henomenon

of

their oliticaldisagreement. ost

commentatorsllege

that

n

the

Politics

Aristotle

misrepresentsor simplymisunderstands)ocrates'

rgumentsnd

impertinentlyirects is ojections

t his own misconceptions; hatwe have,

they

uggest,

s

not

genuine isagreement

utrather

case of mistakenden-

tity.3thers onstructmerelyclectic econciliationshich,

moreover,

end o

belittle ristotle's wn

declaration f

opposition.4

hose commentators ho

farmers417a6-7); but he also says hat bove all his

guardians

must

nsure hat heyouths

est

suited o rule

n

the

futurereproperlyelected, urtured,nd preservedrom orruption

415b3-c6).

Now

some of those

elected o oin

the

guardians

will

havebeen bornofartisan arents. f

com-

munism rovides

heproper

urture or

hegolden hildrenf the ity's ulers,he ame

arrange-

mentswould eem, n this asis, o benecessary or hefarmersnd artisans,whose hildrenmay

well nclude ome goldennatures oo young o have

ufficientlyhown heir metal"but

not too

young

o be

corrupted y an

unfit

earing.

n the

otherhand, private roperty ouldseemto

be necessary or he

farmersnd artisans,whosebronze nd ironnatures resumably

equire he

incentives

ssociatedwith rivate wnership o perform roperly heir ivicfunction.

ence, he

textual vidence s

ambiguous; heres difficulty,s

Aristotleuggests,ither ffirming

r

denying

the

proposition hatcommunism

s

limited o

Socrates'

guardians.

3Consider,

for

xample,

hese

epresentativendictments

f

Aristotle's

olitical riticism

f

The Republic:

Franz Susemihl Susemihl nd Hicks,

1894), It is not easy to imagine stronger

case

of nabilityo

transport

neself o

an

opponent's

phere fthought.

n

fact

Aristotle]

annot

be acquitted f very ulpable arelessnessntheuse oftheworkhe scriticizing"p. 241). Benja-

minJowett1885),

"Nor is it possible o set any imits

o the misinterpretationf Plato passing

under

hename ofAristotle"II, p. 56). R. D. Hicks, n

Susemihl nd Hicks 1894),

"Hence the

argumentsdvanced

byAristotle ave ittle irect

pplication o the

cheme

which e s ostensibly

criticizing"p. 221). E. Bornemann

1923),

"I

cannot ee anything

n

it other

han a

sophistical

amusement

sophistische

pielerei/"

p. 128).

W. D. Ross

1930),

"Here Aristotle eems

o

forget

Plato's actual

rrangements"p. 244).

R.

G.

Hoerber 1944), In this onnection nother

nstance

of

carelessness

n

the

part

of

Aristotles of

interest..

.

[It]

s a

clear ndication f

insufficient

study f, and care

n

quoting,

is

sources"

p. 106).

ErnestBarker 1959),

He

was not

criticizing

what Plato had

meant" p. 391).

4

ConsiderWerner

aeger1948,pp. 187-96,

393-99),

who

suggests

hat

despite

he vidence

of a

growingift

articularlyetween ristotlend the

peusippean cademy, isproject emained

throughll

the

tages

f his

areer

he

laboration f

essentially

latonic

nsights.

hus John

Wild

(1948) maintains hatwe should understand he

differencesetween lato and Aristotle ot as

evidence

f

opposition ut s manifesting

wo

phases f

"one and

the

amephilosophy"pp.

12-22).

Eric

Voegelin 1957) maintains hat there

s

a

continuity

f

evolution rom lato,

the

founder

of

thegood polis,

through he

Athenian

tranger, ho transmitss much

of his

mystical

nowl-

edge

s is bearable o thefounders f a

colony,

o

Aristotle,

ho

formulates

tandards

nd devises








ARISTOTLE'S ANTICOMMUNISM

31

do address he

disagreementetween ristotle

nd Plato as such lect strictly

metaphysicalocus

nd disregard

he

political

dimension f thecontroversy.

There s good reasontobe skeptical f any reductionistccountof the

political ontroversy

etween lato and Aristotle,

ut

specially

fa metaphysi-

cal reduction.

or

it

was Socrates'

renunciation f the

study

f physics nd

metaphysicso

concentrate n

human ffairs hat

first

brought hilosophy

downfrom heheavens" nd

thusprovided he

occasion forAristotle's oliti-

cal disagreement

ith lato. Socrates hose thispoliticalfocus,

which istin-

guished

him

from revious hilosophers,

ot because he had grown

weary f

cosmological

nquiry

ut

precisely

ecause

he calculated hat

olitics

rovided

the best access to

the kosmosor whole Phaedo, 99c6-100a3;

Metaphysics,

987bl-3).6As Leo Strauss 1953)notes, Socrates' urn o the tudy f human

things asbased,

not

upon

disregard

f thedivine r natural

hings,

ut

upon

a new

pproach

o the

understanding

f

all

things...

of

thewhole" p. 122).

If our access

to

understanding

he

whole ndeed ies

n

human

ffairs r

politics,

nd

Aristotle's

eaching egarding

hekosmos

r

whole pposesPlato's,

wemaywell xpect

olitics o

be a primary ather hanmerely

derivativeac-

tor

n

their

verall isagreement.

n

support

f

this

uggestion,

t

s

worth ot-

ing hatnowhere lse

does Aristotle

evote

o elaborate

nd textually etailed

a discussion fhisopposition o the eachingsf a Platonicdialogue s inthe

passagesof the

Politics

n which hope here o shed ome ight.

n this ense,

Aristotle

imself mphasizes

bove all

the

political

imension f hisdisagree-

mentwithPlato.

means or heirmaximum elatizationnder arying aterial onditions"p. 283). For n approach

to thereconciliation f Plato and Aristotle hatdoes not depend

upon speculation oncerning

the order

f

composition

f

either

Aristotle's

reatises r Plato's dialogues, ee Harry

V.

Jaffa

(1963, p. 80-85). Jaffa ases hisreconciliationn whathe sees as the ompatibilityf Aristotle's

pragmatic bjections o Socrates' chemewith lato's ironic ntention. or a furtherlaboration

of this heme, ee ArleneSaxonhouse 1982).

5

Consider,for example,

Erich

Frank 1940),

Harold Cherniss 1944), and Hans-Georg

Gadamer 1980).For suggestivexceptionee Helmut lashar 1977).

Although rimarilyevoted

to a criticism f Jaeger's eading f theEudemian nd

Nicomachean thics,Flasharpresents

n

theconcluding aragraphs f his essaya brief hint" oncerning hetruerelationship etween

thePlatonic nd Aristotelian

eachings.

What s

remarkable

s that

n

so

doing

he

adopts

for nce

apolitical tandpoint:

e turns

o

the

differences

etween heir

mages

f man's

tatus n

the

cave."

6

References

o

Plato are

to JohnBurnet's

dition

f

thedialogues Oxford, 900-1907) nd,

unless ndicated therwise,re to theRepublic; eferencesoAristotle re ikewise o the ditions

included n the OxfordClassical Text eries nd, unless ndicated

therwise,re to thePolitics.

The translationsn thispaper are myown.








32

DarrellDobbs

A

moremmediatempetushan he rospectf osmologicalnsightor

this tudy

f

Aristotle'snticommunismxists, owever,

n

ourown ontem-

porary oliticalircumstance.or he reat ontroversyhat urrentlyivides

Left ndRight,o aynothingfEast ndWest,oncernsreciselyhe

ropri-

ety

f

privateropertynd

the

cope

f

politicaluthority

ver

rivate

en

andwomen.t sfitting,hen,hat he isagreementetweenlato nd

Aristo-

tle

omes

o

ight irst

or

s

n

ts spect s

a

dispute

ver

he tatus fprivate

propertyndfamilyife. ybeginningccordingly,ithwhat s first

for s"

(N.E.,1095b2-4),t s possible ot nly o move oward deeper

nderstand-

ing f he oliticaleachingsfPlato ndAristotleut lso orecoverhat un-

damentalerplexityhichs tself rerequisiteo ourown olitical

earning.

For ne annot omparehe rgumentsfPlato ndAristotleoncerningri-

vate ropertynd he amily ithoutccountingor he ole hese

rguments

play

n

heir

isagreementoncerning

he

est oliticalommunity.or,

n

urn,

can one

ttend arefully

o their

rofoundisagreementoncerning

he

best

politeia

ndnot

cknowledgehe adical nd ruly erplexingharacterf he

question:

n

what

manners thebestpolitical ommunityonstituted?

It hould eobserved,urthermore,hat ontemporaryoliticalrgument

against ommunismresumes

hatman

s essentially

n

apolitical

ndividual.

Yet ocratesbolishesrivateropertynd ommunizesamilyife,otnpur-

suit f

ndividual

quality

r

welfare,

ut

o ensure he ohesion r

ntegrity

of he

oliticalommunitys a

whole

462clO-d7

ith

64a4-c4).

n

response,

Aristotle

bjects

o

Socrates' roposals,

ot

fundamentally

ecause f their

consequences

or hemaximizationf conomic

roductivity

r ven

ecause

of

heirpparentmpracticability;ristotleontestsocraticommunismather

because f ts

orrosiveffectn politicalohesion

r

community.ristotle's

anticommunisn,hen,xpresslyddressesneglectedimensionf he rimor-

dial

politicalssue proton, 260b36-37). ence, recount ristotle's

ritique

ofSocratic ommunismot o ndulge n antiquarianuriosity,ut ogain

a

deepernsight

han

s otherwisevailable

nto ne of the

most rgentnd

fundamental

olitical uestions.

Beforelungingnto he epthsfAristotle'specificbjections

oSocratic

communism,

t

s well o

recognize

nd ddress

difficulty

vident

n

he

ery

surface

fhis ccount.

t

hasbeenwell aid hat the

roblem

nherent

n

the

surfacef

hings,

nd

nly

n

he urface

f

hings,

s

the eart f

hings."

hus

one

mmediately

ncountershe

urprising

act hat

Aristotle,

n

his ritical

reviewftheRepublic,ends ll his ffortsoward efutingocrates'laims

in

behalff ommunismndhardly entionsny f he thermportanthemes

that

lay part

n

the

ialogue.

ow

Plato'sRepublicndeed ontains

thor-

ough

xaminationf

the

grounds

or

ntroducing

ommunism

nto

olitical

life.

ut

hat,

s

every

eader f he

Republic nows,

s not

ll

that

t

ontains.

It

sevident,urthermore,hat ocommentator,ot ven ristotle,an xtract








ARISTOTLE'S

ANTICOMMUNISM

33

a

particulariscussion

romts

ialogical

ontext

ithout

isturbing

ts

lace,

andhence

ltimate

ignificance,

n

the

Republic

s

a whole.

uch

neglect

f

the ogographicnddramaticntegrityfPlato'swork anresultnlynthe

misrepresentationfhis ntention.

onsideringspecially

hat

ristotle's

uid-

ing nterest

ies expressly

n

the constitutionf the

best

political rder

(1260b22-30),

owever,

t

s ncredible

hat

e

disregards

articularly

he

most

sensationalf Socrates'

olitical

rescriptions:

hat

hilosophers

hould

e

kings. till,

ristotleoesnot o much s

mentionhe

hilosophering. is

remarkable

mission

f

reference

othe

hilosophering

eserveshe losest

scrutiny,

o

say

he

east.

One

might

ven

azard o

pronounce

t

the ouch-

stone

f

competing

ccounts

f

Aristotle's

ritique

f the

Republic.

An ttractivexplanationfAristotle'smissions uggestedy eoStrauss

(1964:122).7

ne

might

ell

onsider ristotle's

isregard

fthe

hilosopher

king o be

egitimate,

otwithstanding

ts

pparent iolationf he

omposi-

tional ntegrityf

the

Republic,

trauss

maintains,ince ocrates

ntroduces

the

hilosopher

erelys

instrumentalo

the ealizationf

his

best

ity,

ot

as an

integral

art

f

t.

Now

his

nterpretation,

nlike

ny

which

receded

it, as he

ignificanterit

f

xplaininghe

estrictedocus

f

Artistotle's

riti-

cism

n

the

asis

f

his nsightnto,

ather

han

misrepresentation

f,

Plato's

dialogue.ut t ooprovesntenable,nmy iew,n ightf ocrates'rgument

in

theRepublic.

orwhateverhe nitial

auseon account f which

ocrates

introduces

hilosophers,e eaves

ittle

oubt

inally

hat he

hilosophering

is

essential o

the ntrinsicerfection

f

the

city

502d8-503b5;06a9-b2;

520e4-521a9).his efinement

n

Socrates'

rgument

mmediately

enders

ues-

tionable,.e.,

xaminable,

xactly

he

legitimacy"

fAristotle's

pparent

is-

regard

f

thephilosopher

ing.

Wemust

ramehe

difficulty

s

squarelys

possible: gainst

Aristotle's

udgment

hat

philosophy

s

extraneouso or

"brought

n

from

utside"ocrates'ity

1263b39-40),ocrates

ffirmshe on-

tinuitynd oherencef he est ityhroughtswarlikendphilosophicaltages

(497c3-d2;

03bl-5; 40c5-9; 41a3-4).

7

Professor trauss,whoseworks lways

warranthe losest tudy,

rites ere nly bliquely

on

the isagreementetween lato and Aristotle. is

orientationoward

his

ontroversy

s

governed

to

someextent, e may nfer, yhisbroader oncern

with hepresentation

f

the ancients" nd

"moderns"

s the

fundamentallternatives

n

politicalphilosophy.

his

presentation

nvolves

mitigation f differences,

closing f ranks,within

ach camp

for he

purpose

of

highlighting

thedifferenceetween

hem.Certainly, o one who

has read Strauss's ccountwould maintain

that

he

gulf eparating ristotlend Plato s greater

han hat eparating,ay,

Aristotle

nd Hobbs.

Nevertheless, e shouldremember,s Strausswasundoubtedlyware, hat narrow issuremay

be deeper han wide ne.

The relativemportance

f

disagreementsetween arious hilosophers

neednotbe determined

resently,owever,oagreewith

trauss hat n understandingf he ncients

must

e guided y heir

nderstanding

f

themselves. ristotlen particular nderstood

is

earch

for

hebestregime o require

n aggressive ritical xamination f Plato's

Republic

s a

primary

step.

Aristotle's

elf-understanding,hen, s

in

an important aybound up withhis

opposition

to

Plato.








34

DarrellDobbs

I suggest

hatAristotle's

xclusive ocus n the ity fwarrior

ings hould

be understoodnstead s an implicit

enialof the

ontinuityocrates ffirms.

I shall rgue hatAristotle isregardshephilosopher ingpreciselyecause,

inhis estimation,

he

communistic olitical rrangementsocrates

ndorses

preclude heeducation f a

philosopher. t stake

n Aristotle'sontentions

nothingess than he

very

ntegritynd sufficiencyocrateshopes

to achieve

for

is ity

423c2-4).

For

city

o be

self-sufficient,t

must

e

capable

ofgener-

ating tsownrulers.

ut, ccording

o

Aristotle,ocrates' hoice f

nstitutions

undermineshe ducation f the

very hilosophers estined o

becomerulers

in

hisbest ity.

hus Aristotle's

crutinyf Socratic ommunism, e

shall ee,

does notbetray

nattention

o the

rest f theRepublic r violate ts

ogographic

integrity.n the contrary,ristotle hooses hisfocus trategically,argeting

whathe seesas a

weakbut ssential

ink n the onstructionf

Socrates' oliti-

cal

philosophy s a whole.

Communism,

n

Aristotle's

udgment,

s the

key-

stone,

f

not he

pex,

f

Socrates' ialectical difice. onsideration

f

Aristotle's

specific bjections

o Socratic

ommunism

ill

ubstantiatehis

nterpretation.

Aristotle's

bjections

Just

s an

adequate omprehension

f

Aristotle'sritique equiresn

expla-

nationofhispeculiarfocuson communismwithin heRepublic s a whole,

it s

necessary

imilarly o account for he roleth

critique lays

n

theplan

of

the work f

which t s a part.

Now the

principal hesis, uite iterally,f

Aristotle's olitics

s

that

he

rule

ofa statesmansdifferent

n kind

and

not

simply

n

quantity

of

subjects fromthe

rule

a

household

manager

(1252a7-16).

Aristotle resents is eaching

egarding ousehold

management

(oikonomia)

n

Book One. This

ncludes iscourses

n what

we

today

narrowly

term

conomics, s

well

s

on the

proper earing

f

master

o

slave,

ather o

child,

nd husband o wife.

he

latter iscussions urn

aturally

o a

consider-

ationofthe pecificxcellence ppropriateo each ofthese elations. ut since

the

household

s

only part

of a more

omprehensive

artnership,

he

polis,

the

pecific

xcellence f

tscomponent

elationships

an

be

properly

nder-

stood

only

with view o

the

part

the

household

plays

n

the whole

political

community

1260b8-24).

or

his

urpose

t s

necessary,

ristotle

ays,

o

make

a

fresh tart alln

archen).

We

must

onsiderpoliticalregimes, ecause

the

regimepoliteia) overnshe

rderingf

the

political

whole nd

tsparts.Aristo-

tle

ntends

o

present

is

own

understanding

f thebest uch

political egime.

But first emust how henecessityfhis search or omething eyond hose

regimes, hether

lready

n

existence r merely ut

forward

n

speech,

which

are

thought

o be wellordered

1260b28-36).

This

he does

by

devoting

ook

Two

to

thecriticismf a

number ftheoreticalnd

actual regimes,

eginning

with

hat escribed

n

Plato'sRepublic.

ow Socrates'

ity

warrantshis

mmedi-

ate

attention

ecause its

regime

urns

he order

between he

polis

and its








ARISTOTLE'S

ANTICOMMUNISM 35

constitutent

arts opsy-turvy.

lthought,

ike

he ther

egimes

ristotleon-

siders

n

Book

Two, ppears

o be

finely ontrived,

ocrates'

egime,

more

ven

than hese thers, oses an obstaclehinderinghe stablishmentfAristotle's

principal

hesis. or Socrates' egime, ccording o Aristotle,

tterlyonfuses

whole nd

part;Socrates,Aristotle ontends, makes

household ut of the

polis."

According o Aristotle,

t

s

aboveall Socrates' eliance pon

communism,

ostensibly

rescribed o promote oliticalunity,hatreduces

he

polis

to the

status f

household,

nd

destroys

he

olitical ommunity

s such

1261a21-22).

Now it s not

mmediatelyvident

n

what ense hepolis would be destroyed

bybeing

nified

n

themanner

f

a household.

urely ertaindvantages

would

accrue o a political ommunityhat ouldrelyn thebondsofkinshiporecon-

cile

the

onflicts

f

nterest

hat

egularly

hreateno break t

up

intorival ac-

tions.For this eason

Socrates

proposed hat

ll

citizens

n

his

city egard ne

another s

brothers,

nd took the

necessary teps

o

support

he

redibility

f

this

upposed kinship y

communizing amily

ife

nd

property464a4-c4).

Aristotle ecalls, owever,hat he olis initially volves ut of

a commu-

nity f

manyhouseholds.

The

householdoutside polis is

incomplete

even

as a

household.

Only

as a

part

of a

political ommunity, ristotle laims, s

thehousehold erfectedtelestheises),nd ts apacity oachieve tspropernd

(telos)

energized1252b9-39,1253al8).

If

one

tries o make a householdout

of

a

city,

eversing

he

development,

he

political ommunity

illbe

incapaci-

tated

with

espect

o ts

roper

nd.Such n

ncapacitated

ssociation

s,

ccord-

ingto Aristotle, o longer ruly

political ommunity.or

"it s evident hat

thecultivation f virtuemust

belong

o

thepolis that

s

truly,nd

not

merely

for

he akeofa

word, o called"

1280b6-8, 253a23-25).

hus

Aristotle inally

objects

to

Socratic

ommunism,

ot

because

t

s

impracticable

r economi-

cally

nefficient,

ut

rather ecause

it

"destroys

he

city"

s a fithabitatfor

human xcellence. ristotle'severalbjectionso the egimeescribednPlato's

Republic an

be seen, hen, o

culminate

n

a single omprehensiveontention:

Socratic

ommunism isrupts he ntelechies f man andpolis,

disabling ven

the

best

humannature

rom

ts

proper

ulfillment.ristotle riticizes ocrates'

politeia

because he

finds

t feeble nd

impotent,

hile he

regime

or

which

he

is searchings the "mightiest f all"

(1260b27-29).

As wehave

een,Aristotle

uggests hat ocrates' hiefmistake s hiscon-

fusion

f

political nity

nd familial

inship,

f whole

nd part, nd

that his

is responsible or ll hissubsequentpolitical rrors1263b29-31).We infer,

accordingly,

hat t

s notthe

destructionf thefamily s much s its levation

into

paradigm or olitical nity o

whichAristotle bjects.Although ocrates

hopes o

makehiscitizens arefor ne another s for rothers,

ristotlemain-

tains hat

Socrates' levation f

the household nto he

dominating rinciple

of

political

ife

rodesthe truebond of

politicalunity,

amely riendly

ove








36

Darrell

obbs

(philia),

nd

imultaneouslyndermines

he

roperducationf he

hilosophi-

cal

nature.t

s

to he

ffects

f

ommunism

n

friendlyove,

hatwe

hall

urn

firstodiscoverhefoundationfAristotle'sriticismftheRepublic.

Communism

nd

Friendship

Communism,

hen s

now,

eems o

promise

"wondrous

riendship"

among veryone1263bl5-18).ut,

Aristotlergues,he ppeal

f ommunism

is specious;nfact ommunism

nderminesriendship.

ristotle'snalysisf

the

Republicevealshree ays

n

which

hilia

r

friendly

ove

uffers

rom

he

measures

ocrates roposes. irst, ocrates'ttemptoexpand

he omain f

such erms

ffamilial

ndearments

"son," brother,"

nd father"

esults

n

less atherhanmore oncord r ikemindednesshomonoia), hich,t eems

to

Aristotle,s a specificallyoliticalorm

f

philia. econd, ocrates'

xpan-

sion

of

thehousehold

o

comprise

he ntire

olis

means hat

he ealms f

familialnderoticove

will

o

ongere

separate;hilia

an

scarcely

lourish

in theminglinghatresults.

hird, ocrates'

ommunizationf property

obstructshe evelopmentf

generosity

r

iberality,he pecialwork

fwhich

is to iberate

hilia romtsbondage o one's elf nd

possessions.etus con-

sider hese ach

n

turn.

The polis is literally eldtogether y concord r likemindedness

(homonoia),hich,

t

eemso

Aristotle,

s

politicalriendship"NE., 1167b2-3,

1155a22-28).ccordingly,

t

swith view

o

homonoiahat ristotleirstriti-

cizes

ocrates' oliticalnstitutions:

Nevertheless,

ven

f

this s the

best

for

he

community

o be one as much s

possible

it

is not

manifestlyndicated

n

accordance

with

he aying:

if

all at the ame time

ay

mine'

and notmine' ". . .

because all

s two-fold...

on

account

f

which ll

saying

he ame

thing

is

n

one

way ine utnotpossible, nd

n

notherwaynotfit t allfor

omonoia. 1261bl6-32)

Homonoia,we earn,rises or ellowitizens hen,concerninghat

is

advantageoushey hare likeudgment,hoose he

ame hings,nd act

ontheirommon

esolutions"

NE.,

1167a26-28).

ristotle aintainshat all

saying

he

ame

hing"

s not t

all

ndicativef

homonoia,.e.,

f

truly

om-

mon

esolvend

disposition

o act.For

lthough

ll

say

he ame

hing,hey

may

not

peak

from

ersonal onviction. ith his onsideration

n

mind,

Aristotle

imself

plits

n

two he

property

feachofthe

itizensf hisbest

polis

1330a14-20).

ne

part

he would

ocate afely

n

the entral istrictsf

the ity,he

ther artmore

emotelynd precariouslyear hefrontier.

n

thisway ach itizen as personaltakenboth laces. his eads,Aristotle

says,

omore

ikemindedness.or itizenshen an

tand

ogether

ehind for-

eign

olicy

hichsbased n heirommon

ersonal

nterests

ather

han

plin-

tering

nto

actionsavoringither

ingoism

r

appeasement.ence

twould

indeed e a fine

hing

f

ach poke

or

imselfhds

hekastos),aying

mine."

But

n

Socrates'egime,ll,when

hey ay mine,"peak

nly ollectively,

n









37

behalf

f

the olis 462d8-e3).

ristotleontends

hat or hemospeak

or

themselves

s

impossible.

hy?

Hisreasoningurnsn he ebulousonnectionmong itizensstablished

byfamilialommunism.

e says:

A

thousand

youths ecome

ons to each

of the itizens, ut they

re not his personally

hMs

hekastoul;

ather

o thechance man likewise he chance youth

s son.... Thus,

each says

"mine"

. inwhatever

elationonumber e happens

obe,namely

mine r omeone lse's". .

and

doubting

his oo,

for t s

unclear

o whom childhappens

o be born and forwhom

saved once born. 1261b38-1262a6)

Thusthe larity

f

personalnterest

nd convictions

doubly bscured

y

Socrates'

ommunizationf family

ife. ach

saysnot mine," ut

mine r

someone lse's"; ndhedoubts venhis lreadyilutedonnection.his ir-

cumstancerecludes

ikemindednessecause

ach s

not

himself

ermitted

o

have

clear mind"

obe ikeminded

ith.

ence

heir

ll

aying

mine"s

hol-

low; uch peech,

ristotle

ays,

s

a

paralogism,

n

abuse

of

ogos.

Merelyaying

he ame

hing,hen,

s not ufficient

or

homonoia.

ut

neithers t ven ecessary.

or f ll citizensay

he ame

hing for xample,

"I'llrule" the esults

civilwar ather

hanikemindedness.ikemindedness

exists,

or

xample,

hen he

whole

olitical

ommunityntends

hat

partic-

ular ersonhould ule, rovidede swillingN.E.,1167a30-34).ut hen he

ruled ay

you ule,"

hile he rospectiveuler

ays

I'll ule."We eehomonoia

in hisnstance

recisely

ecause

ellow

itizens

re

not ll

ayinghe

ame

hing.

They ay

ifferentut oncordant

hings. ristotle

nfers,hen,

hat

y

tretching

the

pplication

f such

ermss

"son,"

father,"

nd "brother"

eyond

heir

natural

omain,

ocrates oesnot

t all

contribute

o

homonoia

r

political

philia

mong iscitizens.

In

fact,

nAristotle'sstimate,

he

resent

ode

f

peaking

s

morendica-

tive

f

homonoia

han hatwhich

ocrates

roposes.

ristotle

mphasizes

hat

philia temsspeciallyromhe ensef wnership1262b22-23);ut n ocrates'

city

he

isjunction

mine r omeone lse's" ulls

nddiluteshis ense.

he

present

ode f ayingmine,"herefore,

s

mightierndbetterkreitton).

or

presently

anypeak

withersonalonviction

f he ame

youthstheir

wn.

Some

all the ame ad son,others

all

himbrothernd still thers

ephew

or

cousin.

All

ofthem

mploy

hese ifferent

erms,owever,s

expressions

of

heir ersonal elationship

othe ad.Each peaks

for imself"

henall-

ing

he adhis wn. heir ersonal

ttachments

rovidebasis or

trulyom-

mon esolveotend o hiswelfare. ristotleoncludes,hen, hatt s better

to

be a

privateephew

han

ven son

n

themanner

rescribed

y

ocrates.

For

Socrateso dilutes he pecial

are hat ccompanies

amilialhilia,

hat

its

pecific

are

nspiring

uality

s

renderedneffectual.








38 Darrell obbs

In any vent, ristotlebserves,ome fSocrates'itizens ill nevitably

detectheir wnkin, espite

is laborate

recautions.

hildren

end

o

resem-

bletheir aturalarents. ristotlendicates, oreover,hat he xistencef

such esemblances

s

betray

atural

inship

s

ust 1262a23-24).

is

objec-

tion o

Socratic

ommunism

enetrateseeper

han he

racticalbservation

of familyesemblancesnitiallyuggests. nce gain

t

s

not

fundamentally

considerations

f

mpracticability,

ut

ratheroncern

or

ommunism's

on-

sequences

n he

romotion

fhuman xcellencehatmoves ristotleo

oppo-

sition. articularlynteresting

s

Aristotle's

uxtaposition

f

the

doubting

(distazdn,262a5)

owhich

ocrates'

rescribedesignationsive

ise nd he

trustworthyvidencetaspisteis,262al8) eized pon yhis itizens

n

ccord-

ancewith atural amilyesemblances.or veryreateronfidenceocrates'

citizens

lace

n natural

imilarities,

ristotlehus

uggests,

he

uthority

f

conventionalesignations,nd he oliticalommunityhichosits hem,s

furtheriminished.

n

a

goodpolis,by ontrast,

awor

convention

nomos)

supplements

ndfortifies

father's

ule;

n

turn,

he

ather'sndorsement

f

law dds he orce ffilial

ove

ndrespecto

ts

uthorityNE., 1180a18-24,

1180b3-7). ccordingly,hemightiestndbest kratiston)rogramor uper-

visinghe are nd ducationf heyoungmust ombineommunityndpri-

vate articipationNE., 1180a29-bI3).ocrates'liminationfprivateamily

connections,owever,recludes

he

possibility

f

this ombination.

Againstocrates' opes f nstillingriendly

ove n

his itizensy xtend-

ingfamilial inship, ristotle

aintains

hat t

will

be all themore ifficult

for uch

community

o

guard gainst ssaults,ncest,

ndother

utrages

s

a

result

f

Socrates' eforms1262a25-27). resumably,his ollows ecause

fear nd

hame,

he

afeguards

n

which

ocrates epends

o

discouragehese

outrages465alO-11),

ill e

weakened y he

dilution f

thefamilialhilia

onwhich

hey

rebased.

ignificantly,owever,

ristotle

hooses

ot o

dwell

onthe ncreasedifficultyfpreventingheserimes.nstead, e tressesheir

impiety

nd

mpropriety.

Aristotlebjects

n

particularoSocrates'andlingf rds. ocratesllows

eros

between

itizens,

n

part

ecause

f

ts

rresistibility,

ut

lso as a lever

for

nification.hisbecomespparent hen e accedes

o

Glaucon's addi-

tion"

o the aw

governing

he

behavior

f

guards

n

militaryampaigns

(468bl1-c5):

o one

father, other,rother,

r sister

may

then

efuse

he

overtures

f

lover. ocrates

resumablyopes hat

iswarriors

ill

e tirred

by he resencef he eloved operformeeds fheroicalor. ertainlyhe

city

enefits

romhe

ntensifiedxertionsf tswarriors.

ut

Aristotlensists

that

uch n ncestuous

rrangement,llowingros

etween

in,

nvolves

he

greatestmproprietyaprepestaton).

Once

gain,

he

fault an

be traced o the ocratic cheme

or

olitical

unification.

aving

radicated

he rivate amily,

ocrates as

no choice ut

to

ntroducencest

nto is

ity.

s a

consequence,rdsmay ervade

he

whole








ARISTOTLE'S

ANTICOMMUNISM

39

city; here o

onger

xists shielded

nvironment

n

whichphilia

an

risend

develop

ncontaminated

y

he nfluence

f

rds. ocrates

may

ave

ntended

the pposite,uthis ity oesnotbecomehaste;hehousehold erelyoses

its nnocence.

ros,we

nfer, as

no

business

n

the

household,

hich

s

the

cradle

f

hilia.

n

this

asis

Aristotleriticizesrds

mong

in

s out f

place

(atopon).8

or

hilia equires

shelterednvironmentobe

nurtured

o

matu-

rity.ut

Socrates

estroys

his

nvironment,

ccording

o

Aristotle,y om-

munizinghe amily. s a

result ocrates auses diminution

atherhan n

increase fphilia.Forthis

eason

ncest, rdsbetween

in, s

superlatively

improper;he

most ittinghing

mong in,

ot

omentionellow

itizens,s

philia.

Up to his oint ristotleasdiscussednlyhe hortcomingsfSocrates'

proposed

ommunization

f he amily.o

xamineis

roposal

or

ommunal

property

nvolvesseparatechoris)

nquiry,

ristotleays, ecause

ven

f

he

current

eparation

f

familiesere

maintained,ne ould

till

skwhether

rop-

erty

hould ecommon.

ocrates,

e

recall,

ecommends

legislative

eclara-

tion

bolishing

ll private roperty

orhis

guards 416c5-417b9). ristotle

maintainshat

egislators

hould ttend

o he haractersf

heir

itizenry

ather

than

o heir

roperty.roperty

ill

eused

n

ommon,

e

ays,

f

men ecome

friends; en o notbecome riendss a resultf he ommunizationftheir

property.hus he

ntegrity

f

Aristotle'spparently

ndependent

nquiries

emerges

n

his

recurrentoncern or he

ffect

f

Socratic

ommunism

n

friendlyove,

.e., hilia. n

accordance ith

his oncern,ristotle

irstndi-

cates hat

iberality,

virtuehat

mplicates

rivate

roperty,

s

tself

prereq-

uisite

or

haring

n

hilia,nd hus or

articipating

n

he olitical

ommunity.

Thenheargues

hat

ocrates'oliticizationf

property

ndother

ousehold

mattersesults

nstead

n

he evelopmentf

habits hich

ndermineiberality.

Aristotleegins is

xamination

ymaking

distinctionhat

roves o

be mportantor eterminingow ropertyightemade ommon.naccord-

ancewith he

distinctionetween

olding,

r

possession,

nd

use there re

three

ossible

chemes

ccording

o

which ne

might

ake

roperty

ommon.

Use

couldbe

common, hile ossession

s

private;ossessionouldbe

com-

mon,

nd

use

private;r,both

possession

nd

use could

be made ommon

(1262b37-1263a3).

ristotlendicates is

dissatisfactionith

oth ommon

possession

nd

ommon se.Common

ossession,

r

holding,eads o

neglect,

and

ommon

se eads

o

buse r

overconsumption.

evertheless,edoesnot

mentionfourthossibility,hat ossessionnduseremainrivate.ristotle,

8

Whether ristotle

cknowledges

ros

as

appropriate

venbetween

usband

nd wife s an

interesting

uestion.Certainly e

authorizes ome

suspicion o the

ontrary y

omittingo

men-

tion

ros

in

connection

speciallywith

his description

f

humanbeings s

"coupling" venmore

thanpolitical

nimals

NE.,

1162al6ff.).More

ikely,his ilence s

tself

ndicative f the

delicate

treatment

ittingor hat

ros

whichnecessarily

lays

role n the

household.








40

Darrell obbs

in

ther ords,tops hortfrecommendinghat ropertyekept rivate.

rop-

ertymust omehowe made ommon,hough y aw

t

s thoroughlyrivate

(1263a26-27, 263a37-39).Why?

Ifpropertyere ept rivate,

here

ould eno

sharing.he orrespond-

ing characters called byAristotlelliberal, r evenmoney-lovingNE.,

1121b12-16).ristotleays hat

ndividualsike he elf-loverndthemoney-

lover

re ustlyondemned,

ut

hastens

o

dd hat heirervertedoves hould

not be confused ith hephiliawe all quitenaturally avefor urselves

(1263a41-b5).aking ristotle

uite iterally,hedecisive ifferenceetween

the self-lover"

philauton)

nd

onewho feels friendlyove or imself"to

philein eauton)ppears

obe

the

nseparability

f he elf-lover's

hilia

rom

his elf. obe a self-loverrmoney-lovereans ssentiallyohave ne's hilia

"stuck n"

one's elf

r

possessions.

he

ttachment

othese

hingss,

n

this

case, reater

han hat o

which e renaturallyound.

n

this tuck ondition

philia

annot edrawnut f he

adicallyrivate.

he

elf-lover,ccordingly,

is ncapable

f

partaking

n

he ommon ond hat olds

ogether

he

olitical

communityNE., 1155a22-28).9

ut

man,

who

uniquelyossessesogos,

s

by

nature

politicalnimal;

t

follows,hen, hat

t s

unnatural

or

hilia

o be

stuck n

anything

hat

revents

ne's

partnership

na

polis.

t

s the

unction

of iberality,suggest,o iberatehilia romhis ondage,nd huso upport

the

possibility

f a

political

ommunity.10

In

contrast

o the elf-lover,

ne who

feels riendly

ove oward

imself

evidentlyossesses

nunfettered

apacity

or

riendship

hat

may

eextended

to

others. e alone

an rulyecome

citizen,

member

f

politicalommu-

nity,

s

distinguished

romn "individual."ut

precisely

ow

his iberation

of

hilia,

ith

ts olitically

dvantageousonsequences,

s

o

bebrought

bout

9

The money-lover,ikethe

elf-lover,acks

the iberal

haracter

ecessary

or

political

ife.

The money-loverecomes ddicted ohoarding wing, resumably,otheundeniablepleasure

of

ownership. ut thegreatest leasure f

ownership, ristotlensists,

riseswhen ne makeshis

private ossessions ommon n use. The

liberalman's pleasure s greater

han hemoney-lover's,

then, ecause t s genuinely pleasure f

ownership. aradoxically,

nly

f one shares

his prop-

ertywith

nother an it be said thathe

has truly cquired

t. This s the

nsight

hat ies

beneath

Aristotle's

therwise uzzling se of the

verbal nd substantive orms

f

"possession." n other

words t s

n a liberal ction hat tfirst omes o ight hat possession

ktema) an be one's own

apartfrom

he ctive ossessing

ktesis)

r

hoarding f t.Thus only he iberalman

will

feel enu-

ine,natural leasure n ownership.

10

n

this espect ocrates' roposals,which imto promote he ohesion

fthepolitical om-

munity,re

properlyudgedby he est f their onsequences or

iberality.

hus W. L. Newman's

(1887, , p. 168)objection, hat ne might easonably onsiderwhetherhe oss of opportunities

for

iberality

ntailed

y

he

ommunizationf

property ight

otbe

outweighed ygains

n

other

constituents

f happiness, isses hepoint.Newman upposes hat

Aristotlereatsiberalityndiffer-

ently

s

one amongmany lements f thegood lifewhichmight e

sacrificedn order o obtain

certain

thers. he

key

o Aristotle's

rgument,verlooked

n

Newman's

nalysis,

s that

iberality

occupies

specialposition

n

that t s

prerequisiteo community,ncluding hepolitical ommu-

nity, nd thus

o the promotion f the "other onstituentsf

happiness".








ARISTOTLE'S

ANTICOMMUNISM

41

is notmmediatelylear.Aristotle

ffers

wo

emarks,owever,hat uggest,

in outline,

feasibletrategy.

irst, e observeshat

n

whatever

annerhe

liberationfphilia s to beaccomplished,t sthe privateob" (ergondion)

of he

awgiver,urprisingly

escribing

he ask f

ommunityuilding

s

some-

thing rivate

1263a39-40).ommunitypirit

may

e

promoted,

t

eems, y

assigningersonal

esponsibility

ndhonors

speciallyherehe ruitsf ne's

effortsre ommon.

n

ine

with

his

bservation,

ristotleurther

otes

hat,

notwithstandinghe unspeakable"

leasurehat rises rom

onsideringome-

things one's wn rivate

roperty,

he

reatestleasure

omes

rom

raciously

aiding riends,uests,

nd

omrades

1263b5-6).

ncontrasto

he

unspeaka-

ble"

pleasure

f

hoarding,

ristotle ould

ppear

obe

offeringeeds

f

good

legislationndhospitalitys thevery hingsf whichnstructivetoriesr

"myths"re

made.

The customsnculcatedy uchmusic

resuppose,

ow-

ever,

he

xistence

f

privateamilies

nd

property.

ocratic

ommunisman-

not romote

iberality.ommunizedropertynly

urturesoarding

lliberality

and

ggravates

onflict

1263a4,

263al0-15).

rivate

roperty

s

necessaryor

thenurturend

perfectionf

iberality.

Property,hen,s not n

ngredientfpolitical

omonoia;t s emphati-

cally

o

part

fthe

olis

1328a34-35,

f.

1253b23).

or

Aristotle

t

s toward

thedevelopmentf iberalharacters,atherhan owardhedesignationf

specificroperty

rrangements,

hat

egislation

s

properly

irected.he

politi-

cization

f

property

nd

ther ousehold

ffairs,

uthorized

y

ocrates'

ecu-

liar

notion fpolitical

nity,

ill

merelynderminehilia.

fthe

olis

s

made

into

large

ousehold,hese ontentious

rivialities

ill

e

elevatednto he

political ealm,

oisoning

he

communityetween ellow

itizens. or the

extended

ousehold

ontains

nly

n

adulterated,ateryhilia,which

s

too

weak

o

facilitateharmonious

haringf he

ll-too-hu nthings.venwithin

the

ousehold, ristotlebserves,

we ollide

specially

ith

hose

four

er-

vants homweusemostnconnection ithoutinehores"1263al9-21). o

potent

amilial

hilia ubricateshis rictionith

ervants.ristotle

uggests,

significantly,

hat he est

necan do is to hire

omeone lse

o

supervise

is

servants,reeing

imself

or

politics

r

philosophy"1255b35-37).

Communism

nd

Philosophy

Aristotle's

oncludingbjectionsre irected

owardhe mpactf

ocrates'

politicalroposals

n

education.

ocratesommunizesropertynd bolishes

the rivateamilyopromoteoliticalnity,oensurehat isguardsemain

the

riendly

llies f

heir

ellow

itizens. uthe

mplies

hat uch

recautions

wouldnot

be

necessary

f

the

guardswere

truly

ducated

n

a

fine

way"

(416b5-c5).

resumablyecause

hey

avenot

yet eceivedhis

ducation,

Socrates

upplementsheir

arly

raining

n

music nd

gymnastics

ith

is om-

munisticnstitutions.

s Aristotle

otes, owever,

he vils ocrates ishes o

removerom is

ity rise s a consequencef

viciousness,

ot

s

a

result

f








42

Darrell obbs

the ack fcommunism

1263b22-23).

hushe

picks pSocrates'

uggestion

that ommunisms an

institutional

rop

orhis

regime,

hich ervesn

the

absence f he ntrinsicupporthat nly properducationanprovide.he

difficultyith his

trategy,

ccordingoAristotle,onsists

n

the

mmediate

effects

f communization:

ommunismannot erve s an effective

topgap

because ts wn

onsequences

recludehe ffectiveness

f Socrates'

igher,

philosophical

ducation.

Because f his

reclusionf

furtherducation,ocrates'

uards

ill

all

out

among

hemselves:

Themanner

n

which

ocrates

stablishes

ven herulerssprecarious

n

thathe has

the ame

ruling lways.Butthis s a cause of faction ven mong thosewho possess no noteworthy

qualities,

nd

certainly

ill be with

pirited

thymoeidesil

nd warlikemen.

1264b6-10)

To

ppreciatehe ointf

Aristotle'semarksere nemust ecall

hat

ocrates

originallylaced

hilosophy

n

man o

emper

he

erocity

ssentialo he

ature

of

a

good

guard

375e9-376c5,25b8-9).

Aristotle,

owever,

escribeshe

guards, ho

ocratesays

must

e

philosophicals well s

spirited, erelys

spiritednd

warlike.e

deliberatelymits

heguards' hilosophical

uality,

whichs

preciselyhe

actorn

which

he

ity epends

f t s tobe saved

rom

the

guards'

avagery.

InAristotle'sstimateocrates as failed odevelophephilosophical

capacityharacteristicftheguard's

ature.ocrates' eliancen the

house-

hold

oikia) s an

appropriateattern or

olitical

ntegrationommits is

philosophicaluards othe

uthorityf hekindred

tooikeion). yvirtuef

the

monopolye stablishesor he

kindred,ocratesmakes

t

mpossible

or

any

laim

igherhan he laim

f

what

s

nearestnddearest

o

arise n his

city.

he

guards' evotiono he

ity

s

their

wn

bstructs

heir

ranscendence

of

the olitical orizon.

uch

potential

hilosophers,

e

an

nfer,

ill

never

escape he ave.

This

discoveryevealsn added

dimensionoAristotle'sarlier

riticism

of

ocrates'

egime

s

mpious1262a28). ietys

ordinarily

nderstood

equires

that

pecial are e

takenn

regard

o

kinship.

his, owever,

s

he

iety

ristotle

notoriously

xcludes rom isown

atalogue

f

virtues

n

theNicomachean

Ethics.n

this

espect

t

sperplexingo see

Aristotle

riticizingocrates

or

impiety.

utpietyssumes

special

meaning,articularlyhen

Aristotles

faced

with he

ask f

criticizinglato,

r hisfellow

cademicians.or hen

he

tresseshat

t s

preciselyiety

hat

equireshat

pecial

are

nd

llegiance

tokin, urnearestnddearest,e overthrown:

It

would seemto

be a

better hing, nd

necessary s a

condition

f

preserving

he

truth,

o

overthrowur

nearest

nd dearest

ta oikeiaJ,

specially

nsofar s we are overs f

wisdom

[philosophous

ntas];

for

lthough

othof

them

re

dear,

t s

pious

to honor he

ruth ore-

most.

N.E.,

1096al4-17)









43

Aristotleerhapsschewshe reatmentfpietys a

separate

irtue

n

he

thics

because

rue

ietys,for im, component

f

philosophical

irtue.

hilia

n

its spect sphilosophia,he ove fwisdom,owever,annot e toleratedn

Socrates' egime,

reciselyecause

t s n

tsnature

o

challenge

he

kindred.

Aristotlehus uggestshat ocrates' egimen

fact recludeshilosophy.

Aristotle

nderscoreshis oint

n

omparingocrates'ity oSparta. e

maintainshat

f

regimeuch s Socrates' ere bservedoming o be

not

merely

n

peech

ut

n

deed, twould ifferittle rom hat he partans

ave

undertaken

1264alO-11).he omparison

o

Sparta

s

apt,

n

onnection

ith

Plato's riticismf

t

for ultivatingnly he

polemical irtues

1271bl-10,

1334all-41;

.E.,1180a24-26),ut specially

n

ight f he otoriousenopho-

bic endencyf he partan egime.nSpartahe foreigneed"Rep.,97b3-4)

of

philosophy

ouldnot

be tolerated.

Aristotle's

stonishingbjectionhat ocratestakes appinessway rom

his uards"

1264bl5-16) ust

eunderstoodn

his ight.

ommentatorsave

ridiculedhis ontention

s themost

reposterousfAristotle'slaims gainst

Socrates,

uggesting

hat

t

s

essentially

othing

ore han resurrectionf

Adeimantus' aterialisticbjection ithin

heRepublic419al-420bl).

But

Aristotle'sarefulormulationf his

articularbjection urnishesfurther

clue ohisnterpretationfSocrates'reatmentfphilosophyn heRepublic.

Aristotle'sseof

hemiddle articipleaphairoumenos)uggestshat ocrates

acts

n

hisown

nterest

n

"takingway" appiness rom heguards;

urther,

the

osition

f

his

articiple,tandingetween

he

uards

nd

happinessten

eudaimonianphairoumenos

dn

hylakdn)

einforceshis

ontention.

hat

then s Socrates'

nterest,

nd how

does

t

iterally

tand

etweenhe

guards

and

their

appiness?

The learestndicationfSocrates'nterest

n

he

Republic

urfaces

n

his

responseo he revalenteproacheveled

gainst hilosophy.nly

n

his on-

nectionn hewhole f heRepublic oes he emarkableobrietyfSocrates

falter.he

mudslinginggainst hilosophy,ocrates

ays,

rouses

is

pirited-

ness r nger

536c2-7).

he

genuinely

hilosophicalature,

ocrates

nsists,

isneither icked orworthlesss many elieve.

nthe ontrary,

t

s ruly

ag-

nificentnddivine.

ut

his annot

e

perceived,

ocrates

otes,

nder

resent

political

ircumstances,

11

Consider usemihl

Susemihl ndHicks, 1894): Here

Aristotles guilty f a

further

iece

of

carelessness.

.

[He] has not attended o

another assage

V

465d-466b,where his hread s

taken p... whence t ppears hat heformertatements onlyprovisionally ade.... Thus this

objection reaks own

ntirely.

ehavehad nstances f

similar

egligencelready"p. 244).

Jowett

(1885): "This passage ike

many

thers n

thePolitics nvolves

misconception

f Plato's mean-

ing" pp. 57-58).

Bornemann1923): Has Aristotle

eally

eadPlato's

Republic?... This

astmaneu-

ver f Aristotles

completelymeaningless"p. 150). Both Susemihl

Susemihl nd

Hicks, 1894,

p. 243) and

Wilhelm

Oncken 1875,pp. 190-91)further iss he

point

f

Aristotle's

bjectionby

reading uards

phylakes, 264b22) s philosophers. ut t s

Aristotle's rincipal

oncern, s I

suggest, o show that hese

guards annotbe philosophers.








44

Darrell obbs

but

this s the

charge

am

bringing

that

none

of the

presentlyxisting ities s worthy f

thephilosophical ature....

if

t

should,however,

eceive he

bestpoliteia, ust as

it

too is

best, hen t

will

be manifest hat hephilosophicalnature s really ivinewhile heothers

are

merely

uman.

497bl-c2)

Byfoundingn

speech his est oliteia, ocrates opes, n theway oward

illuminatinghe aturendprofitabilityf ustice,odebunkhe opular on-

ception

f the

philosopher

nd reveal is ife s best.

This, implytated,

s

Socrates'nterest. enote hat is

trategy

ill

ucceed,

n his wn

ccount,

however,nly

f

he

egime

e

founds enuinely

sbest.With his

onsideration

in

mind, owever,

ristotlehargeshat ocrates' olitical rescriptionor

regime orthyf

he hilosophicalatureonflicts

ith

hehappinessfhis

foremostitizens, ho re hemselvesotentialhilosophers

Accordingo

Aristotle,ocrates stablishes

is

guardsike garrisonn

a

foreign

and

ather

han s citizens

1264a26-27).

he

guards'

ull-time

ccu-

pation

with

he

ity's

usiness

s

necessary,

ocrates

ndicates,

f

he

ity

s to

be

ntegrated

nd

made

whole nd

o

achieve

ts

greatestood.

Thisdemands

too

much,

ccordingo Aristotle,

or

reciselyhose itizens

ho

have he

greatestptitudeor

hilosophyremade ocare bove ll for he ity their

own

ity. ut, s

we

have

oted,

he

pecial

mark f

philosopher

sto

be

free

to honor he ruthheadof hisown.ThusAristotle aintainshat ocrates

deprives

is

uards

f

happiness,

bove ll

by tuntingheirevelopment

n

hi-

losophy.

his sAristotle'sost

evastating

ndictmentf

ocrates'

est

egime,

andwiththis

ritique

f he

Republic

eaches

ts

ulmination.hemeans

y

which ocrates

ttempts

o

satisfy

he

olitical ecessity

fdevotedulersre

irreconcilableith

heprerequisitesf philosophicalducation.

Summarynd

Conclusion

Aristotle's

riticaleview

f

Plato'sRepublic,ich

n

detail ndparticular

considerations,everthelessulminatesn comprehensivendformidableon-

tention.

ocratic

ommunism,

ristotle

harges,isrupts

he ntelechiesfman

and

olis.

Both

olitical

ntegrity

nd

philosophy

uffernder communistic

regime.his ontentionf

Aristotleoints oward genuinend mportant

disagreement

ith lato's ocrates

egarding

he onditionsf

philosophical

educationnd heir

ompatibility

ith

olitical

oncerns.lato

s fully

ware

of

thedifficulties

laguing ny

fforto reconcile

ivic nd

philosophical

interests.

n

fact, emay e said o harewith ristotlehe iew hat hese wo

interestsake hemost ightfulemands f llegiancen human eings nd

yet

renot

bviously

n

harmony

ith

ne nother. ut

ocrates,nyway,

vi-

dentlyupposes

hat e has achieved successful

econciliation,

or

he con-

cludes isdiscussionf his

philosopherings aying,

Each

in

turn, lthough or

he

mostpart pending ime diatribontas] t philosophy, hen

his urn s

come,

drudges

n

politics

nd rules or he ake of the

ity...

and

n

this

wayhaving

always

ducatedother

ike men...

they epart

o

the

Blessed sles to dwell.

540bl-7)








ARISTOTLE'S ANTICOMMUNISM 45

Aristotle,he arefultudent

ndcritic ftheRepublic,s aware f

Socrates'

aims

nd trategy.

uthe

deliberatelyisagreeshat ocrates as chievedhe

reconciliationetweenhilosophynd he olisforwhich hey oth ope.He

doesnot o much s mentionhe

hilosopherings,

nd

by mplication

umps

themogetherith he ther xtraneous aterial ith

hich, e ays, ocrates

hasfilled ptheRepublic

1264b39-40).aradoxically,his missionsthe

most

telling

ndicationfAristotle's

ritical

iew fthe

Republic. ocrates as no

righto speak fphilosophers

s rulersnhis ity,

n

Aristotle'siew,ecause

hispoliticalnstitutions

reclude hilosophy.ristotle'snswer o

Socrates'

introductionf philosophers

s the ctual

ulers

f

his

best ity seloquent

in

ts implicity:ou an't et here rom ere Thus, he oliteia

oncerning

which ocrates as spokennvolveshese ead-endsaporias]nd others o

less han hese"1264a24-25).

By aking appinessway rom is

premieritizens,hat s,by

recluding

the

possibility

f

their

hilosophicalevelopment,

ocrates ndermineshe

putative ontinuity

f

his warrior

ity

nd

kallipolis,

he

city

ruled

by

philosophers.ocratic

ommunism,ristotleontends,reates fracturer

discontinuity

ithinhe

olitical

ommunity.

s

against

he

household

nity

elevated o

political

tatus

n

Socrates'

egime,

ristotle

ndicateshat

he

integrityf he olisproperlyonsistsn ts bilityo achievets elos, amely

the ultivationf

xcellence

nd

he ood

ife.

Wemay ay, hen,hat or ristotle

the

ontinuityfthepolitical

ntelechyonstitutes

he

ntegrity

fthe

olis.

But

ocratic ommunism,e

charges,endersothman ndcommonwealth

powerless

o chieveheir

oals.Communism,

n

Aristotle's

iew, recludes

he

integrationfthe oliticalommunityndthus lso precludesny

ontribu-

tion t

might

make o the

ntegration

fthehuman

oul.The precise imen-

sions f his

rospective

ontribution

n

noncommunistic

egime

emain or

Aristotle,nd for s,to exploren thebalance f hisPolitics.

Manuscript

ubmitted

3

September

983

Finalmanuscript

eceived

June

984

REFERENCES

Barker, rnest. 959.The olitical houghtfPlato andAristotle.d ed. NewYork:Russell Russell.

Bornemann, . 1923.Aristoteles' rteil berPlatons politische heorie.Philologus, 9:70-111,

113-58.

Cherniss,

arold. 1944.Aristotle'sriticism

f

Plato and

theAcademy.

ewYork:Russell Russell.

Flashar,Helmut.1977.The critique f Plato's theory f deas nAristotle's thics. n Johnathan

Barneset al., eds., Articles n Aristotle. ondon: Duckworth: p. 1-16.

Frank, rich. 1940.The fundamental pposition f Plato and Aristotle. he AmericanJournal

of Philology,

1

(1):34-43,

166-85.

Gadamer,Hans-Georg.

1980.AmicusPlato

magis

mica veritas. n

Hans-GeorgGadamer,

ia-

logue

and dialectic.Translated

y

P.

Christopher

mith.New Haven: Yale

University

ress:

pp. 194-218.

Hoerber,R. G. 1944. The theme f Plato's Republic. St. Louis: Eden.

Jaffa, arry

V. 1963.

Aristotle.

n

Leo Strauss nd Joseph ropsey, ds.,History fpoliticalphi-

losophy.Chicago: Rand McNally: pp. 64-129.








46

DarrellDobbs

Jaeger,Werner. 948.Aristotle: undamentals

f

the

history f

his

development.

ranslated

y

RichardRobinson.2d ed. Oxford:

Clarendon.

Jowett,enjamin,d. 1885.ThePolitics fAristotle, ith n ntroductionndnotes. vols.Oxford:

Clarendon.

Newman,W. L., ed. 1887-1902. he

Politics fAristotle, ith ntroductoryssays nd notes riti-

cal

and explanatory.

vols. Oxford:Clarendon.

Oncken,Wilhem. 875.

ie StaatlehreesAristoteles.

eprint

d. Darmstadt:

cientia erlag alen,

1964.

Ross,

W. D.

1930.Aristotle. ondon: Methuen.

Saxonhouse,

Arlene.

1982.

Family,

olity,

nd

unity:

Aristotle

n

Socrates'

ommunityf

wives.

Polity, 5 2):202-19.

Strauss,

eo. 1953.Natural

right

nd

history. hicago: University

f

Chicago Press.

. 1964. The city nd man.

Chicago: Universityf Chicago Press.

Susemihl, ranz,

nd

R.

D.

Hicks,

ds. 1894.

ThePolitics fAristotle:

revised

ext, ith n ntroduc-

tion, nalysis, nd commentary.

ondon: Macmillan.

Voegelin,

ric.

1957. Plato and

Aristotle.

aton Rouge: Louisiana State University ress.

Wild, John. 1948.Plato's theory f

man. Cambridge:HarvardUniversityress.

Documents

Aristotle's Anticommunism.pdf