Page 38 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Western Political Thought

Notes to stability of the state. Aristotle did not elevate the public sphere above the private, nor was he
keen to eliminate the private. On the contrary, the private and public were complementary, each
requiring the other for diversity and stability. In this formulation, his thought was a precursor of
the modern innovation of civil society which advocated a balance between the private and the
public (political) sphere.
For Aristotle, property was necessary not only to fulfil the possessive instincts of owning something,
but also to encourage goodness and philanthropy. Common ownership, as opposed to private
property, was problematic, since individuals:
... do not share equally in work and recompense, those who do more work and get less
recompense will be bound to raise complaints against those who get a large recompense
and do little work. Indeed it is generally true that it is a difficult business for men to
live together and be partners in any form of human activity, but it is specifically
difficult to do so when property is involved.
Aristotle exhibited rare wisdom, rightly pointing out, that it was easier to equalize men’s desires
than to ensure an equal distribution of property. He raised the pertinent point of how to reward
those who work harder and showed greater initiative. Some would always produce more, and
therefore would expect and demand greater rewards commensurate with their efforts. The failure
of communism with regard to property, work and reward in the modern period vindicated Aristotle.
He was the first political philosopher to realize the need for recognizing merit, and the need to
institutionalize just reward.
Aristotle contended that it would be wrong to attribute all the troubles in the world to the institution
of property. In fact, most of these stemmed from the evils of human nature, which even communism
could not correct. Instead, what was required was a moral change through education and training
under good laws. While communism might liberate individuals from the ugly consequences of
private ownership of property, it denied them the benefits that accrued from possessing something.
It strived to promote a false sense of unity which undermined the very notion of a polis as an
aggregation of different members. The other possible way of stemming the evils of private
ownership was through the principle of the Golden Mean, or moderation. This ensured a middle
path steering clear of wealth and poverty, opulence and squalor, and would help in the maintenance
of property within limits as prescribed by nature. A reasonable amount of property, along with
education, would inculcate the right attitudes of using property as instruments of public welfare.
Aristotle also mentioned the virtues of benevolence and generosity that private possessions
endowed, reducing selfishness and envy. He was convinced that a well-regulated institution of
property would be socially beneficial. Even with regard to this argument, Aristotle’s moderation
found many adherents, and triumphed over the radicalism of Plato on the grounds of feasibility.
Furthermore, Aristotle pointed out that under a system of common wives, the third social class was
ignored. If farmers were to be put under a common regime of wives and property, then how would
their position be different from that of the guardians? On the other hand if they were allowed private
property and family then it would result in the creation of two states within one, each opposing the
other. Not only was the farmer denied the education that was provided for the guardians, but:
... it ... fails to throw any light on other questions—such as the position of the farmers
in the political system, the nature of their education, and the character of the laws they
are to observe. We thus find it difficult to discover—and yet this is a matter of the
highest importance— how the farming class is to be constituted if the common life of
the guardians is to be preserved.
Aristotle was equally critical of Plato’s theory of the philosopher ruler. Permanent rule by a
philosopher would lead to discontent and dissension not only among the ordinary citizens, but
also among the high-spirited and the soldiers. This was dangerous, for it prevented circulation
among elites and denied an opportunity to the ambitious to rule.

32 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY