A History of Greek Economic Thought. Albert Augustus Trever
inefficiency in production.
Agriculture.—Of the three factors that enter into production—land, labor, and capital—the most important in the mind of the Greek thinkers was land. The relative prominence of agriculture was partly the cause of this, but in the case of the philosophers, their ethical passion, their idea of the necessity of leisure for personal development, and their conservative attitude toward industry and commerce were the chief motives that impelled them to urge their contemporaries back to the simple life of the farm.[121] The aristocratic feeling, still strong in European countries, that landed property is the most respectable, probably also had some influence, though land was not so distinctively in the hands of the upper classes in Attica.
Though the praise of agriculture was a characteristic feature of Greek literature in all periods, it was not at first a conscious economic theory.[122] Later, toward the end of the fifth century, it became a definite ethico-economic doctrine of the philosophers, as a criticism of their times, and as an appeal to what was deemed to be the more healthful life of the earlier days.
Plato does not devote so much attention to this theme as do Xenophon and Aristotle. His standpoint, however, is practically the same, though his tendency toward the physiocratic error is not so marked. In his second state, he orders that agriculture shall be the only means of money-making,[123] and he even strikes the modern note of conservation, in his directions for the care of land, waters, springs, and forests.[124] On this point, he and the other Greek thinkers accord well with the economy of the past decade with its urgent preachment, “Back to the land,” though the modern watchword has, of course, a more economic emphasis.
Capital.—Though the function of capital, aside from natural resources, was a familiar fact in the Athenian life of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.,[125] there is scarcely any consideration of it by the theorists before Aristotle. Plato has no definition of capital, nor indeed scarcely any recognition of the fact of its existence.[126] His emphasis on the virtue of economy, however, and his criticism of those who spend the “stored wealth,” imply the idea that wealth should be used not merely for enjoyment, but also for productive purposes.[127] His strictures upon interest show that he has but slight appreciation of the productive function of money-capital.[128]
Labor and industry.—On the other hand, Plato has considerable insight into the rôle of labor in production. To be sure, he shares with the other philosophers a certain prejudice against manual labor as degrading to freemen.[129] The mechanical arts call forth reproach.[130] Free citizens should not be burdened with such ignoble occupations,[131] and any person who disobeys this rule shall lose his civic rights until he gives up his trade.[132] Agriculture alone shall be open to them, and only so much of this as will not cause them to neglect their higher welfare.[133] However, this prejudice has been read into some passages in Plato by a forced interpretation. The assertion of Socrates,[134] that craftsmen have not temperance (σωφροσύνη), since they do other people’s business, is made merely to draw Critias into the argument. The statement that all arts having for their function provision for the body are slavish,[135] does not necessarily imply prejudice against physical labor. Such arts are slavish, to Plato, because they have no definite principle of service as gymnastics has. He is merely illustrating the point that it is an inferior type of statesmanship that works without a definite principle for the highest political welfare. The idea, expressed in the Politics,[136] that the masses (πλῆθος) cannot acquire political science is a criticism against unprepared statesmanship rather than against labor. Indeed, Plato asserts the same of the wealthy.[137]
Moreover, the following facts should be observed: that the prejudice of Plato against the manual arts is chiefly limited to the Laws; that even there his prejudice is primarily against retail trade rather than against industry;[138] that in so far as a real hostility exists, its true source is not in any opposition to labor or industry per se, but rather in the political belief that only as citizens have leisure for politics can prepared statesmen take the place of superficial politicians,[139] and in the moral feeling that constant devotion merely to the physical necessities of life causes men to neglect the primary purpose of their existence.[140]
Modern scholars have usually been extreme in their interpretation of Plato on this point.[141] Such unwarranted generalizations as the following are common: “Il ne découvre dans les professions qui tendent au lucre qu’égoisme, bassesse d’esprit, dégradation des sentiments.” “Platon et Aristote voient dans le commerce et dans l’industrie deux plaies de la société; ils voudraient les extirper à’fond, si cela était possible.”[142] One of the worst misinterpretations has been perpetrated by Roscher, in inferring from the Republic (372 ff.) that Plato “das Leben der Gewerbetreibenden als ein Leben thierischen Behaglichkeit schildert, sie wohl mit Schweinen vergleicht.”[143] Such absurdities are unfortunately not rare, though they might be avoided by a careful reading, even in a translation.[144]
It should not be overlooked either that Plato’s utterances on labor are by no means all negative. Skilled labor is recognized in several of the minor dialogues as fulfilling an actual need in civilization. Laborers are represented as having their part in knowledge and virtue,[145] and are admitted to be the necessary foundation of all human well-being.[146] A positive interest is also manifested by Plato in labor and the proper development of the arts in both the Republic and the Laws. He constantly harps on the necessity of each doing his fitting work, and doing it well, and in his opinion happiness consists in this rather than in idleness.[147] Indeed, that each one perform well the task for which nature has fitted him is the definition of justice itself.[148] The indolent rich man is a parasite and a drone, a disease of the state. This is Plato’s favorite figure in both the Republic and the Laws, a figure that is suggestive of Hesiod, the pioneer champion of labor.[149] He is even ready to admit that it is, after all, not the kind of labor but the character of the workman that ennobles or degrades any work.[150] In fine, his attitude toward the mechanical arts is similar to that of Ruskin, who also thinks that manual labor is degrading.[151] But as with Plato, the chief secret of his prejudice lies in the fact that laborers usually do their work mechanically, without thought. He believes that “workmen ought often to be thinking, and thinkers ought often to be working.” He is willing to classify all work as liberal on this basis, the only distinction being the amount of skill required.[152] However, in agreement with Plato’s idea, he would set the roughest and least intellectual to the roughest work, and this he thinks to be “the best of charities” to them.[153] With Plato, he is also convinced that, under actual conditions of labor, the degradation is very difficult to avoid, and therefore he would emphasize chiefly agricultural labor, where education of head and hand are more fully realized.[154]
It is, however, in Plato’s constant insistence upon the principle of the division of labor, as a prerequisite for any success in the mechanical arts or elsewhere, that he reveals insight into, and interest in, productive labor. This is the basal idea in the Republic. It is also one of the chief regulations in the Laws, where its direct application to the artisan is a clear evidence that he appreciates the economic significance of the principle.[155] To him, it is the foundation of all human development. Society finds its source in mutual need (ἡ ἡμετέρα χρεία). Man is not self-sufficient (αὐτάρκης). Reciprocity is necessary even in the most primitive state.[156] Out of this necessary dependence arises the division of labor, a beneficent law, “since the product is larger, better, and more easily produced, whenever one man gives up all other business, and does one thing fitting to his nature, and at the opportune time.”[157]
The basis of this law Plato finds in the fact of the diversity of natures, which fits men for different tasks.[158] In this he differs from Adam Smith, who believes that the differences of natural talents in men are much less than is generally supposed. Smith makes the propensity to barter the source of specialization, which, in turn, is based on the interdependence of men. He thus considers the