[Peace-discuss] Aristotle

[C. G. Estabrook]

It's no more the case that civic virtue involves a "golden mean" between 
authoritarianism and democracy than that personal virtue includes a mean 
between cowardice and courage.

A real democracy will have to establish its authority, of course -- 
that's close to what Marx meant by the "dictatorship of the 
proletariat," a phrase that was lated perverted for the use of 
authoritarianism (= unjustified, undemocratic authority).  Bakunin said, 
"If you make a stick to beat the people, it doesn't matter if you call 
it 'the people's stick.'"

In his Politics Aristotle points out that he's not a great fan of 
democracy but that it's the best of a bunch of bad systems. (Winston 
Churchill's oft-quoted remark to the same effect was probably a result 
of his classical education.) But Aristotle thought a democracy cannot 
function if there are extremes of wealth. Everyone has to be roughly 
equal -- everyone has to be middle class, he said.

Aristotle took it for granted that a democracy should be fully 
participatory (with some notable exceptions, like women and slaves) and 
that it should aim for the common good. In order to achieve that, it has 
to ensure relative equality, "moderate and sufficient property" and 
"lasting prosperity" for everyone.

In other words, Aristotle felt that if you have extremes of poor and 
rich, you can't talk seriously about democracy. Any true democracy has 
to be what we call today a welfare state -- actually, an extreme form of 
one, far beyond anything envisioned in the 20th century.

The idea that great wealth and democracy can't exist side by side runs 
right up through the Enlightenment and classical liberalism, including 
major figures like Adam Smith, de Tocqueville, and the founders of the 
United States.

Aristotle argued that if a democracy has a small number of very rich 
people and a large number of very poor people, the poor will use their 
democratic rights to take property away from the rich. Aristotle 
regarded that as unjust, and proposed two possible solutions: reducing 
poverty (which is what he recommended) or reducing democracy.

James Madison, who was no fool, noted the same problem, but unlike 
Aristotle, he aimed to reduce democracy rather than poverty. He feared 
that a growing part of the population, suffering from the serious 
inequities of the society, would "secretly sigh for a more equal 
distribution of [life's] blessings." If they had democratic power, 
there'd be a danger they'd do something more than sigh. He discussed 
this quite explicitly at the Constitutional Convention, expressing his 
concern that the poor majority would use its power to bring about a 
redistribution of wealth (which in 18th century America meant land).

So he designed a system that made sure democracy couldn't function. He 
placed power in the hands of the "more capable set of men," those who 
hold "the wealth of the nation." Other citizens were to be marginalized 
and factionalized in various ways, which have taken a variety of forms 
over the years -- fractured political constituencies, barriers against 
unified working-class action and cooperation, exploitation of ethnic and 
racial conflicts, etc.

(To be fair, Madison was precapitalist and his "more capable set of men" 
were supposed to be "enlightened statesmen" and "benevolent 
philosophers," not investors and corporate executives trying to maximize 
their own wealth regardless of the effect that has on other people. When 
Alexander Hamilton and his followers began to turn the US into a 
capitalist state, Madison was pretty appalled.  He would probably be an 
anticapitalist if he were alive today -- as would Jefferson and Adam Smith.)

De Tocqueville, who wrote, "History is a picture gallery where there are 
few originals and many copies," knew from his classical education that 
democracy would not survive without relative equality -- a "middle 
class."  Of course there wasn't much of a middle class in the America he 
saw in the 1830s, and he was quite censorious of the middle class 
government (without much equality) in France a decade later, the 
"dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" in which Marx came of age.

It's extremely unlikely that what are now called "inevitable results of 
the market" would ever be tolerated in a truly democratic society. You 
can take Aristotle's path and make sure that almost everyone has 
"moderate and sufficient property" -- in other words, is what he called 
"middle-class." Or you can take Madison's path and limit the functioning 
of democracy.

Throughout our history, political power has been, by and large, in the 
hands of those who own the country. There have been some limited 
variations on that theme, like the New Deal. FDR had to respond to the 
fact that the public was not going to tolerate the existing situation. 
He left power in the hands of the rich, but bound them to a kind of 
social contract. The New Deal was similar to the solutions found in 
Germany and Russia for the collapse of capitalism in the Great 
Depression. --CGE


Bob Illyes wrote:
> I don't agree with you regarding Aristotle, Carl. I was, however,
> not quoting his opinions but rather applying his principle of
> the "golden mean."
> 
> Aristotle saw right government in class terms. He viewed pure
> democracy as government by the poor, and opposed this because
> he thought the wealthy should also have a voice, even though
> they were in the minority, because they had the spare time to
> be educated and to spend on public service. Aristotle's polity is
> definitely an application of his concept of the golden mean.
> I think what I wrote is also a proper application of the golden
> mean. I differ with Aristotle on the class analysis, and agree
> with de Tocqueville that democracy is workable only if there is
> a large middle class.
>