Chapter 5

We proceed next to consider in what manner property should be regulated in a state which is formed after the most perfect mode of government, whether it should be common or not; for this may be considered as a separate question from what had been determined concerning [1263a] wives and children; I mean, whether it is better that these should be held separate, as they now everywhere are, or that not only possessions but also the usufruct of them should be in common; or that the soil should have a particular owner, but that the produce should be brought together and used as one common stock, as some nations at present do; or on the contrary, should the soil be common, and should it also be cultivated in common, while the produce is divided amongst the individuals for their particular use, which is said to be practised by some barbarians; or shall both the soil and the fruit be common? When the business of the husbandman devolves not on the citizen, the matter is much easier settled; but when those labour together who have a common right of possession, this may occasion several difficulties; for there may not be an equal proportion between their labour and what they consume; and those who labour hard and have but a small proportion of the produce, will certainly complain of those who take a large share of it and do but little for that. Upon the whole, as a community between man and man so entire as to include everything possible, and thus to have all things that man can possess in common, is very difficult, so is it particularly so with respect to property; and this is evident from that community which takes place between those who go out to settle a colony; for they frequently have disputes with each other upon the most common occasions, and come to blows upon trifles: we find, too, that we oftenest correct those slaves who are generally employed in the common offices of the family: a community of property then has these and other inconveniences attending it.

We next consider how property should be regulated in a state with the best form of government. Should property be held in common or not? This question can be considered separately from what was decided about [1263a] wives and children. Should property be privately owned, as it now is everywhere? Or should both property and the right to use and benefit from it be shared? Another option is private ownership of land, with its produce pooled for everyone’s use, as some nations now do. Or should the land be owned and farmed in common, but its produce divided among individuals for their private use? Some barbarian peoples are said to follow this practice. Or should both the land and its produce be held in common? When citizens do not do the farming themselves, the question is much easier to settle. But when people with shared ownership work together, several difficulties may arise. Their shares of the work and of what they consume may not be equal. Those who work hard but receive only a small share of the produce will certainly complain. Their complaints will concern those who take a large share while doing little work. In general, living together in a community where absolutely everything people can possess is shared is very difficult. Shared property is particularly difficult. We can see this among people who go out together to establish a colony. They frequently quarrel over the most ordinary matters and come to blows over trifles. We also find that the slaves we punish most often are those generally employed in shared household duties. Common ownership of property, then, brings these and other difficulties.

But the manner of life which is now established, more particularly when embellished with good morals and a system of equal laws, is far superior to it, for it will have the advantage of both; by both I mean properties being common, and divided also; for in some respects it ought to be in a manner common, but upon the whole private: for every man's attention being employed on his own particular concerns, will prevent mutual complaints against each other; nay, by this means industry will be increased, as each person will labour to improve his own private property; and it will then be, that from a principle of virtue they will mutually perform good offices to each other, according to the proverb, "All things are common amongst friends;" and in some cities there are traces of this custom to be seen, so that it is not impracticable, and particularly in those which are best governed; some things are by this means in a manner common, and others might be so; for there, every person enjoying his own private property, some things he assists his friend with, others are considered as in common; as in Lacedaemon, where they use each other's slaves, as if they were, so to speak, their own, as they do their horses and dogs, or even any provision they may want in a journey.

But the way of life now established is far better than the alternative, especially with good morals and equal laws. It combines the advantages of both common and private ownership. Property should, in some respects, be shared, but should generally remain private. When each person attends to his own affairs, people will not complain about one another. This arrangement will also encourage hard work, as each person works to improve his own property. Then, out of virtue, people will help one another, as the proverb says, "All things are common amongst friends;" Traces of this practice can be seen in some cities, so it is not impractical. This is especially true in the best-governed cities. Through this practice, some things are shared in a sense, and others could be shared. Each person owns his own property, but uses some things to help his friends and treats others as shared. In Lacedaemon, for example, people use one another's slaves as if they were, so to speak, their own. They do the same with horses and dogs, and even with any supplies they may need on a journey.

It is evident then that it is best to have property private, but to make the use of it common; but how the citizens are to be brought to it is the particular [1263b] business of the legislator. And also with respect to pleasure, it is unspeakable how advantageous it is, that a man should think he has something which he may call his own; for it is by no means to no purpose, that each person should have an affection for himself, for that is natural, and yet to be a self-lover is justly censured; for we mean by that, not one that simply loves himself, but one that loves himself more than he ought; in like manner we blame a money-lover, and yet both money and self is what all men love. Besides, it is very pleasing to us to oblige and assist our friends and companions, as well as those whom we are connected with by the rights of hospitality; and this cannot be done without the establishment of private property, which cannot take place with those who make a city too much one; besides, they prevent every opportunity of exercising two principal virtues, modesty and liberality. Modesty with respect to the female sex, for this virtue requires you to abstain from her who is another's; liberality, which depends upon private property, for without that no one can appear liberal, or do any generous action; for liberality consists in imparting to others what is our own.

Clearly, then, it is best for property to be privately owned but shared in use. But bringing citizens to share its use is the specific [1263b] task of the lawmaker. Owning property also brings pleasure. The benefit of feeling that something belongs to you is beyond description. A person’s affection for himself is certainly not pointless, because that affection is natural. Yet we rightly criticize selfishness. By selfishness, we mean not simply loving yourself, but loving yourself more than you should. Similarly, we criticize the love of money, even though everyone loves both money and themselves. Besides, helping our friends and companions gives us great pleasure, as does helping those bound to us by hospitality. But such help requires private property. Private property cannot exist among people who make a city too completely unified. Those people also eliminate every opportunity to practice two major virtues: sexual restraint and generosity. Sexual restraint requires a man to abstain from a woman who belongs to another man. Generosity depends on private property. Without private property, no one can show generosity or perform a generous act. For generosity consists in sharing what is our own with others.

This system of polity does indeed recommend itself by its good appearance and specious pretences to humanity; and when first proposed to any one, must give him great pleasure, as he will conclude it to be a wonderful bond of friendship, connecting all to all; particularly when any one censures the evils which are now to be found in society, as arising from properties not being common, I mean the disputes which happen between man and man, upon their different contracts with each other; those judgments which are passed in court in consequence of fraud, and perjury, and flattering the rich, none of which arise from properties being private, but from the vices of mankind. Besides, those who live in one general community, and have all things in common, oftener dispute with each other than those who have their property separate; from the very small number indeed of those who have their property in common, compared with those where it is appropriated, the instances of their quarrels are but few. It is also but right to mention, not only the inconveniences they are preserved from who live in a communion of goods, but also the advantages they are deprived of; for when the whole comes to be considered, this manner of life will be found impracticable.

This political system does have an attractive appearance and makes appealing but misleading claims to promote human welfare. Anyone hearing the proposal for the first time must find it very pleasing. They will see it as a wonderful bond of friendship, connecting everyone to everyone else. This is especially true when someone blames society’s present evils on the fact that property is not shared. I mean disputes between people over their various contracts with one another. I also mean court judgments involving fraud, perjury, and flattery of the rich. None of these evils arise from private ownership, but from human vices. Besides, people who live together and share everything quarrel more often than people who own their property separately. There are indeed few examples of quarrels among people who share property. But this is because so few people share property compared with those who own it separately. We should also consider not only the troubles that people avoid by sharing goods, but also the benefits they lose. For when everything is considered, this way of life will prove impractical.

We must suppose, then, that Socrates's mistake arose from the principle he set out with being false; we admit, indeed, that both a family and a city ought to be one in some particulars, but not entirely; for there is a point beyond which if a city proceeds in reducing itself to one, it will be no longer a city.

We must suppose, then, that Socrates's mistake arose because his starting principle was false. We do admit that both a family and a city should be united in some ways, but not completely. For if a city pursues unity beyond a certain point, the city will no longer be a city.

There is also another point at which it will still continue to be a city, but it will approach so near to not being one, that it will be worse than none; as if any one should reduce the voices of those who sing in concert to one, or a verse to a foot. But the people ought to be made one, and a community, as I have already said, by education; as property at Lacedaemon, and their public tables at Crete, were made common by their legislators. But yet, whosoever shall introduce any education, and think thereby to make his city excellent and respectable, will be absurd, while he expects to form it by such regulations, and not by manners, philosophy, and laws. And whoever [1264a] would establish a government upon a community of goods, ought to know that he should consult the experience of many years, which would plainly enough inform him whether such a scheme is useful; for almost all things have already been found out, but some have been neglected, and others which have been known have not been put in practice. But this would be most evident, if any one could see such a government really established: for it would be impossible to frame such a city without dividing and separating it into its distinct parts, as public tables, wards, and tribes; so that here the laws will do nothing more than forbid the military to engage in agriculture, which is what the Lacedaemonians are at present endeavouring to do.

There is another point at which a city will still exist, but will come close to ceasing to be one. Such a city will be worse than no city at all. It would be like reducing the voices of a choir to one voice, or a verse to one metrical foot. But the people should be united into a community through education, as I have already said. Similarly, lawmakers made property common at Lacedaemon and established shared public meals at Crete. Yet anyone who introduces education and thinks it will make his city excellent and respected is being absurd if he relies on such regulations. He should rely instead on customs, philosophy, and laws. And anyone [1264a] who wants to establish a government based on shared property should consult the experience of many years. That experience would show clearly enough whether such a plan is useful. For almost everything has already been discovered. But some discoveries have been neglected, while others, though known, have never been put into practice. The matter would be clearest if anyone could see such a government actually established. For it would be impossible to organize such a city without dividing it into distinct parts. These would include groups sharing public meals, wards, and tribes. So the laws here would do no more than forbid soldiers to farm. That is what the Lacedaemonians are now trying to do.

Nor has Socrates told us (nor is it easy to say) what plan of government should be pursued with respect to the individuals in the state where there is a community of goods established; for though the majority of his citizens will in general consist of a multitude of persons of different occupations, of those he has determined nothing; whether the property of the husbandman ought to be in common, or whether each person should have his share to himself; and also, whether their wives and children ought to be in common: for if all things are to be alike common to all, where will be the difference between them and the military, or what would they get by submitting to their government? and upon what principles would they do it, unless they should establish the wise practice of the Cretans? for they, allowing everything else to their slaves, forbid them only gymnastic exercises and the use of arms. And if they are not, but these should be in the same situation with respect to their property which they are in other cities, what sort of a community will there be? in one city there must of necessity be two, and those contrary to each other; for he makes the military the guardians of the state, and the husbandman, artisans, and others, citizens; and all those quarrels, accusations, and things of the like sort, which he says are the bane of other cities, will be found in his also: notwithstanding Socrates says they will not want many laws in consequence of their education, but such only as may be necessary for regulating the streets, the markets, and the like, while at the same time it is the education of the military only that he has taken any care of. Besides, he makes the husbandmen masters of property upon paying a tribute; but this would be likely to make them far more troublesome and high-spirited than the Helots, the Penestise, or the slaves which others employ; nor has he ever determined whether it is necessary to give any attention to them in these particulars, nor thought of what is connected therewith, their polity, their education, their laws; besides, it is of no little consequence, nor is it easy to determine, how these should be framed so as to preserve the community of the military.

Nor has Socrates explained how individuals should be governed in a state where goods are held in common. Nor is this easy to explain. Although most of his citizens will work in various occupations, he has settled nothing about them. Should farmers hold their property in common, or should each have a private share? And should their wives and children also be shared? For if everything is shared equally by everyone, what difference will there be between these citizens and the military? What would these citizens gain by submitting to military rule? And on what principles would they submit, unless the state adopted the wise practice of the Cretans? The Cretans allow their slaves everything else, forbidding them only athletic exercises and the use of weapons. But suppose these citizens do not share everything. Suppose instead that their property arrangements are the same as in other cities. What sort of community would this be? One city would necessarily contain two opposing cities. For Socrates makes the military the guardians of the state, while farmers, artisans, and others are citizens. All the quarrels, accusations, and similar troubles that he calls the ruin of other cities will exist in his too. Yet Socrates says their education will mean they need few laws. They will need only laws regulating streets, markets, and similar matters. At the same time, he has taken care only over the military’s education. Besides, he gives farmers control of property on condition that they pay tribute. But this arrangement would likely make the farmers far more troublesome and defiant than the Helots, the Penestise, or others’ slaves. Nor has he ever decided whether these matters require any attention in the farmers’ case. Nor has he considered the related questions of their government, education, and laws. These questions are far from unimportant. Nor is it easy to decide how these arrangements should be designed to preserve the military’s communal way of life.

Besides, if he makes the wives common, while the property [1264b] continues separate, who shall manage the domestic concerns with the same care which the man bestows upon his fields? nor will the inconvenience be remedied by making property as well as wives common; and it is absurd to draw a comparison from the brute creation, and say, that the same principle should regulate the connection of a man and a woman which regulates theirs amongst whom there is no family association.

Besides, if he makes wives common while property [1264b] remains separate, who will manage the household? Who will give it the same care a man gives his fields? Nor will making both property and wives common solve the problem. And it is absurd to compare humans with animals and say the same principle should govern male and female relationships. Animals have no family association.

It is also very hazardous to settle the magistracy as Socrates has done; for he would have persons of the same rank always in office, which becomes the cause of sedition even amongst those who are of no account, but more particularly amongst those who are of a courageous and warlike disposition; it is indeed evidently necessary that he should frame his community in this manner; for that golden particle which God has mixed up in the soul of man flies not from one to the other, but always continues with the same; for he says, that some of our species have gold, and others silver, blended in their composition from the moment of their birth: but those who are to be husbandmen and artists, brass and iron; besides, though he deprives the military of happiness, he says, that the legislator ought to make all the citizens happy; but it is impossible that the whole city can be happy, without all, or the greater, or some part of it be happy. For happiness is not like that numerical equality which arises from certain numbers when added together, although neither of them may separately contain it; for happiness cannot be thus added together, but must exist in every individual, as some properties belong to every integral; and if the military are not happy, who else are so? for the artisans are not, nor the multitude of those who are employed in inferior offices. The state which Socrates has described has all these defects, and others which are not of less consequence.

It is also very dangerous to organize public office as Socrates has done. He would keep people of the same rank in office permanently. Such an arrangement causes rebellion even among people of little importance, but especially among those with courageous, warlike temperaments. Yet Socrates clearly has to organize his community this way. For the gold that God has mixed into a person's soul does not move from one person to another. The gold always remains with the same person. Socrates says that some people have gold mixed into their nature from birth, while others have silver. But those who are to be farmers and craftsmen have brass and iron. Besides, although Socrates deprives the soldiers of happiness, he says that the lawgiver ought to make all citizens happy. But the whole city cannot be happy unless all, most, or some of its people are happy. Happiness is not like the evenness produced by adding certain numbers together, although none of those numbers is itself even. Happiness cannot be added together in that way. Instead, happiness must exist in each individual, just as some properties must belong to each whole. And if the soldiers are not happy, who else is? The craftsmen are not happy, nor are the many people employed in lower positions. The state Socrates has described has all these defects, and others no less serious.