_Ibid._, the fundamental idea of the _Republic_. L. Stein (_Sociale Frage_, p. 164) rightly says: “Denn der Kommunismus Platons ist seinem Schoepfer nicht Zweck, sondern blosses paedagogisches Mittel.”

415E-416A, 417B, 420D, 421A, 421C. He would also avoid vulgarization of the rulers through trade (416E-417A).

A History of Greek Economic Thought — Part 50

Ruskin thinks that inequality of possessions, in itself, does not necessarily mean either evil or good for a nation (_Unto This Last_, II, 31 [Vol. XVII, 46 f.]); he argues that each is born with an absolutely limited capacity, and calls the idea of natural equality of men “radical blockheadism” (_Fors Clav._, VIII, Letter 95, 6 [Vol. XXIX, 496]); cf. _Unto This Last_, III, 54 (Vol. XVII, 74); _Modern Painters_, III, Pt. IV, chap. x, 22 (Vol. III, 189); _Seven Lamps of Architecture_, IV, 28 (Vol. VIII, 167); _Fors Clav._, II, Letter 14, 4 and note (Vol. XXVII, 248); _Stones of Venice_, III, 4 (Vol. XI, 260), all of which emphasize its impossibility. He strongly opposes socialism, cf. above, and _Mun. Pul._, 21 (Vol. XVII, 144), though his economic ideas contained essentially the germ of modern socialistic doctrine.

A History of Greek Economic Thought — Part 50

Cf. his ironical criticism of democratic equality in Athens, 558C: ἰσότητά τινα ὁμοίως ἴσοις τε καὶ ἀνίσοις διανέμουσα; _Laws_ 757B-D, 744B-C; cf. _infra_ for Aristotle’s idea. Cf. p. 61, n. 1 for further notice of these passages.

A History of Greek Economic Thought — Part 50

Poehlmann (_op. cit._, I, 553, n. 3) is extreme in asserting that Plato’s account of the growth of the proletariat, and the rise of class struggles (Book VIII) contains “alle wesentlichen Züge des Bildes, welches die moderne Plutokratie gewährt,” and (560), “Das vierte Jahrhundert v. Chr. hat uns den Kampf vorgekämpft in welchem wir selbst mittenhineinstehen.”

Pohlenz (_op. cit._, p. 240) makes his socialism a reaction against the individualism of Pericles, but makes the extreme assertion: “Die Grundlage auf der Plato seinen Idealstaat aufbaut, ist der strengste Socialismus.”

Cf. p. 43, n. 10. He evidently recognizes his ideas on the family and on the philosopher-king as utopian; cf. also 425D-E; but Poehlmann (_op. cit._, II, 144-52) opposes this view. Cf. Shorey, _Class. Phil._, October, 1914, pp. 357 f., on the idea of law in the _Laws_ and _Politics_.