Aristotle’s Politics, Summary Automatic translate

This treatise, written by the greatest ancient Greek thinker around 350 BC, lays the foundations of political philosophy and views the state as the natural form of human community. The most important detail of the work is the concept of man as a "political animal," capable of a good life only within an organized community, as well as the defense of private property and the natural inequality of people.

The nature of the state and power

The state represents the highest form of sociality, embracing all others and striving for the highest good. Aristotle refutes the notion that the power of a king, a statesman, a householder, and a lord differs only in the number of people under their control. The qualitative difference lies in the very nature of these unions. The state grows naturally: first, a family arises to procreate and meet everyday needs, then a village — a colony of families, and finally, the state — a complete, self-sufficient community.

A person who lives outside the state, not by chance but by nature, is either morally underdeveloped or superhuman. Only humans possess speech capable of expressing concepts of good and evil, justice and injustice. The primacy of the state over the individual is explained by the fact that the whole always precedes the part: the individual is not self-sufficient, just as a hand cannot exist separately from the body.

Slavery and hierarchy

The family, as the primary unit, consists of relationships: mastership, marriage, and paternalism. Aristotle advances the theory of natural slavery. Dominance and submission are a universal law of nature, observable in the relationship between soul and body, reason and emotions, man and beast. A slave by nature is one who is capable of understanding reason but lacks it, perceiving the world through bodily sensations.

Barbarians do not distinguish between women and slaves, since they lack the element destined for dominion. The Greeks, however, rightly rule over barbarians. A slave is animate property and an instrument for the master’s active pursuits. Mutual benefit between master and slave is possible only when this relationship is determined by nature, not by force or law (as in the case of military captivity).

Housekeeping versus Chrematistics

The philosopher distinguishes between "oikonomika" (the art of housekeeping) and "chrematistics" (the art of accumulating wealth). Housekeeping uses the available goods for subsistence and is limited by the needs of the family. Chrematistics, on the other hand, strives for the endless accumulation of money.

There are two ways to use an object: for its intended purpose (shoes for wearing) and for exchange (shoes for selling). Exchange, driven by the need to replenish a deficiency, is natural. However, with the advent of coins, trade emerged, the purpose of which was not to satisfy needs, but to generate profit.

Usury is the most condemned practice. It involves money created for exchange, which itself becomes a source of growth. Interest is "money from money," which is absolutely unnatural. Aristotle cites the example of Thales of Miletus, who, foreseeing a good olive harvest, bought up the oil mills, proving that a wise man can become rich if he so chooses, but that is not his goal.

Critique of Plato’s Project: Unity and Community

In his second book, Aristotle critically examines ideal state projects, beginning with Plato’s dialogue "The Republic." His main criticism concerns Socrates’ (Plato’s character) desire for excessive unity within the polis. If unity were taken to its absolute limits, the state would become a family, and the family would become a single individual, which would mean the destruction of the state as a plurality.

Plato’s idea of community of wives and children is harmful. People care least about what they hold in common. If everyone had children together, no father would show true concern. Love in such a state would become "watery," like a drop of sweet wine dissolved in a large amount of water. Kinship ties would disappear, leading to an increase in crime and incest, as people would no longer fear defiling their family ties.

The question of ownership

Aristotle insists that property should be private, and its use should be shared (through friendly assistance and virtue). Private property brings natural pleasure from ownership and allows for generosity. Current ills (lawsuits, poverty) stem not from the lack of community of property, but from the depravity of human nature. Society should be healed not by equalizing possessions, but by educating morals and laws.

Plato’s Laws also contain contradictions. The author allows wealth to increase fivefold, but does not limit the birth rate, which would inevitably lead to impoverished citizens and riots. The system described in the Laws is declared to be mixed, but in reality leans toward oligarchy due to the method of electing officials, which favors the wealthy.

Projects of Falea and Hippodamus

Phalaeus of Chalcedon proposed complete equality of land ownership. Aristotle countered: it’s not just land that needs to be equalized, but also people’s desires. Even with equal property, people will commit crimes for the sake of excess and honor. The main remedy is not equalization, but philosophy for the worthy and work for the common people.

Hippodamus of Miletus, the eccentric architect of Piraeus, proposed dividing citizens into artisans, farmers, and warriors. Aristotle’s critique pointed out that farmers, lacking weapons, and artisans, lacking land, would become slaves to the warriors. Hippodamus also proposed rewarding the authors of useful laws. Aristotle considered this dangerous: frequent changes to laws weaken their force, since law is based on habit.

The Spartan state system

The Lacedaemonian system, considered exemplary, has serious flaws. The first is the extreme licentiousness of women. The legislator Lycurgus disciplined men but failed to subdue women, who lived in luxury and self-will. This led to women owning two-fifths of the land (including through generous dowries), leading to severe underpopulation (oliganthropy). Sparta succumbed to the attack at Leuctra precisely because of a shortage of men.

The second vice is the institution of ephors. This college is filled with poor men who are easily bribed. The ephors wield excessive, almost tyrannical power, forcing even kings to curry favor with them.

The council of elders (gerousia) is also imperfect: lifelong tenure is dangerous, as the mind ages along with the body. The election procedure, "by shout," has been called childish. The Spartan educational system is one-sided: it develops only military prowess, so Spartans lack the ability to live in peacetime and enjoy leisure.

Crete and Carthage

The Cretan system is older than the Spartan one and in many ways served as its prototype. Public meals (syssitia) are better organized there: they are financed by the state, not by private contributions from citizens, as in Sparta, where the poor lose their citizenship rights for non-payment. However, the rule of the cosmoi (ephors) is even worse: they are elected from certain clans and are often forcibly expelled during civil strife, which turns law into violence. Only its island location saves Crete from collapse.

The Carthaginian system is characterized by stability and popular support. It combines features of aristocracy and wealth. Its drawback is the venality of office: this teaches people to value money over virtue. The Carthaginians also allow one person to hold multiple offices, which undermines the quality of governance. Stability is maintained by sending some citizens to colonies to enrich themselves, but this is a matter of chance, not wise legislation.

Athenian legislation

Solon deserves credit for abolishing extreme oligarchy and debt slavery. He mixed elements of the system: the Areopagus (oligarchy), elected magistrates (aristocracy), and popular courts (democracy). However, by granting the courts extensive powers, he unwittingly paved the way for a radical democracy led by demagogues, even though he himself granted the people only the bare minimum of rights.

Aristotle briefly mentions other legislators as well. For example, Charondas, the first to introduce a penalty for perjury, and Pittacus, who passed a law requiring drunken people to bear double punishment for their offenses, as they were more prone to violence, contrary to the usual leniency towards the intoxicated.

In conclusion of the review of political systems, the philosopher summarizes the analysis of theoretical projects and actually existing states.