Politics

In Book 2, Aristotle examines and reviews various political constitutions or philosophies of government that are, or have been, in existence. He first discusses whether citizens must share commonalities and the degree of those commonalities. In Republic, Plato asserts that all property, including women and children, should be held in common. In this structure, children are shared and relinquished to the state to be raised and taught. Aristotle rejects this view. By the extreme sharing of properties, a city becomes entirely unified. Aristotle claims that it is the nature of cities to be diverse. When all things are held in common, a city becomes more like a household. The philosopher advocates for a unity which promotes diversity, although it should be noted that this diversity excludes certain groups of people.

The philosopher outlines specific requirements for a political body. A city must provide its citizens with an exchange, giving as much as it receives. This aligns with Aristotle’s proposal in Nicomachean Ethics. Each free citizen takes a turn ruling for no longer than a year. However, Aristotle shuts out anyone who cannot leave their trade long enough to serve in a position of power. Therefore, this system divides citizens between rulers and ruled, which accounts for the diversity Aristotle references in this section. He also argues that a city must reach the highest degree of self-sufficiency possible.

Aristotle argues further against Plato’s political theories of commonality, explaining that the idea that possessions could belong to all is an impractical one. Individuals take greater care with possessions that are theirs alone rather than shared. Children naturally resemble their parents, and a commonality of children is impossible when familial association is apparent. Furthermore, Aristotle claims that many problems—including homicide and assault—are perpetuated when children do not know their parents. The philosopher views friendship as the aim of good that belongs to all political organizations. Friendship is diminished in cities where women and children are shared communally. In these structures, people lack devotion to one another. Children who are taken from their families to be raised by the state are vulnerable to abuse, and the realities of this type of structure are impossible to implement.

Aristotle then moves beyond women and children, who are considered by the philosopher to be possessions belonging to an individual, to examine other forms of properties. He cites villages and communities in which property or crops are shared, for example. Problems arise when the work is not shared equally. Aristotle argues that communal systems function better when property is owned privately but shared publicly. Ownership brings pleasure and a sense of responsibility. Ownership also promotes virtue, which leads to the aim of happiness. If everything is shared, then people cannot develop the virtue of generosity. Furthermore, by setting forward all citizens as equal, no individuals are granted the authority required to maintain peace and order.

Aristotle then moves on from Plato’s Republic to critique Plato’s Laws. Aristotle criticizes Plato’s lack of attention to the theories behind his assertions and argues that Plato’s work does not present a comprehensive plan that considers all the nuances of his recommendations. Plato focused on the city and its inhabitants, but Aristotle argues that there is a third factor that requires attention: neighboring countries, or foreign relations. Aristotle also claims that Plato does not recognize how a communal government would rely upon a consistent and steady population, one that could only be maintained by laws. Aristotle then critiques other approaches to communal governments, arguing that these systems will promote crime, require too much regulation, and fail to distinguish between classes.

In the concluding section of Book 2, Aristotle devotes attention to communal constitutions that appear successful. Sparta provides a worthwhile example, yet Aristotle condemns it for its inability to contain its lower classes and “indulgence permitted to women” (68). Crete is another example of communal political systems, but Aristotle claims it is like Sparta but even less sophisticated. In Carthage, the constitution places so much emphasis on wealth that the system is unbalanced. Many of Aristotle’s arguments in the last section of Book 2 emphasize the theme Political Hierarchies as Natural Forms of Subjugation. Aristotle condemns Sparta for giving too much power and attention to women, and he hails those systems which promote the sharing of enslaved peoples.

In this book, Aristotle emphasizes where his philosophies diverge from his predecessor’s. Before Plato, people believed that right and wrong operated as a social contract, with people giving up freedom in return for laws that guaranteed a sense of security. Plato introduced the idea of law as an enactment of divine reason. He proposed that only philosophers could present an equitable and comprehensive governing body that would benefit all. Aristotle viewed law as an extension of man’s nature, aligning with the theme The Political Nature of Man. For Plato, commonality was the chief principle for developing a unified city-state. Aristotle proposed that too much commonality divided rather than unified, making the city more like a household than a community.

Aristotle also proposes in this book that communal governments limit the ability of people to pursue virtuous lives, correlating with the theme Politics as a Pathway for Good and Happiness. Aristotle sees it as the chief concern of the government to promote happiness for all through virtue. Communal governments limit the ability of their citizens to choose virtue. Aristotle gives the example of generosity: If all property belongs to all people, then no opportunities for generosity of spirit arise.