Comunism Defeated 2,000 Years Before Marx.

“Is it better for a city-state that is to be well managed to share everything possible? Or is it better to share some things but not others?” (Steinberger, 2000, p. 384-385) This is the question Aristotle seeks to answer in book two of Politics. He is specifically referring to Plato’s Republic, where Socrates states, “If a city is to achieve the height of good government, wives must be in common, children and all their education must be in common, their way of life whether in peace or war, most be in common.” (Steinberger, 2000, p. 276) Socrates idea was a preventative move on his behalf, by each having everything in common, and no personal belongings, their would be no want or desire of gain, and therefore reduce injustice in the rulers. Going over a few of Aristotle's arguments against a communal based system we will first look at some possible negative effects to it’s implementation, and also aside from these sidefects, is such a city-state even possible?

This idea of sharing all in common is a extreme communist view, though Marx was roughly 2,000 years away from writing The Communist Manifesto. Yet these disadvantages are almost prophecies of latter communist attempts. The first year of James towns settlement, all food was grown by individuals and shared in a common pot, being distributed as needed. And in talking about this exact thing, a common food store, Aristotle says, “If the citizens happen to be unequal instead of equal in the work they do and the profits they enjoy, accusations will be inevitably made, against those who enjoy, or take a lot, but do little work by those who take less and do more.” (Steinberger, 2000, p. 387) So in this attempt for unity, we would be causing strife between, persons, a divide in the members of the city state, and in all reality the opposite of what we were attempting to create, disunity. Also, implementation of this ideal would lead to neglect, and laziness, “What is held in common by the largest number of people receives the least care. For people give most attention to their own property, less to what is communal, or only as much as falls to them to give. For apart from anything else, the thought that someone else is attending to it makes them neglect it the more.” (Steinberger, 2000, p. 386) And this exact thing happened in James town which almost caused the failure of the colony, until John Smith divided the land among the settlers, and restored property rights. At which point the colony began to flourish, because as Smith said, “He who does not work shall not eat.”

And lastly we will look at, disadvantages aside, whether this kind of city-state is even possible. First we will present what a city-state is. According to Aristottle this is, “A complete community, constituted out of several villages once it reaches the limit of total self-sufficiency, practically speaking is a city state.” (Steinberger, 2000, p. 378) also Socrates states, “I think a city comes together because none of us is self-sufficient, but we all need many things.” (Steinberger, 2000, p. 1870 So a city-state comes to be when, and is for the purpose of self-sufficiency. So now understanding what a city-state is, is this city-state Socrates has built even possible? “The end he says his city-state should have is, impossible..... I am talking about the assumption that it is best for a city-state to be as far as possible all one unit; for that is the assumption Socrates adopts. And yet it is evident that the more of a unity the city-state becomes, the less of a city state it will be.” (Steinberger, 2000, p. 385) Oddly enough, it appears Aristotle believes unity is the very demise of this city state. “For a city-state naturally consists of a certain multitude, and as it becomes more of a unity it will turn from a city-state into a household and from a household into a human being.” (Steinberger, 2000, p. 385) so because this unity is only possible in a household or more likely an individual, but impossible in a city state due to it’s diverse individuals. “Anyone who cannot form a community with others, or does not need to because he is self sufficient, is no part of a city-state.” (Steinberger, 2000, p. 379) So this communal city-state would digress to a household or individual, no longer being a city-state. And moreover, this digression would not prove beneficial or good since, “We regard something as Self-sufficient when all by itself it makes a life choice worthy and lacking nothing; and this is what we think happiness does. Moreover, we think happiness is most choice worthy of all goods.” (Steinberger, 2000, p. 364) So by having this communal system which at best digresses to a household, we lose happiness the most choice worthy good since in this digression we lose the self-sufficiency of the city-state.





References:

1)Peter J. Steinberger, Readings in Classical Political Thought, 2000

Where Do You Stand On The Globalization Debate?

Globalization is at best a controversial issue, and to add to the controversy are the number of facets by which this topic can be debated. From the nation state perspective, sovereignty and trans cultural feasibility, to universal individual rights, and the world economies effects on the local economies. I would like to focus on this issue from a political, andeconomic standpoint, and whether the benefits, or disadvantages outweigh the other.

“A widening gap between the richest 10 percent and the poorest 10 percent in recent years, with a significant part of the reason related to different abilities to reap gains from globalization.” (Lairson and skidmore, 2003, p. 131) this many people see as a problem because it seems the rich keep getting richer, and the poor poorer. But like any issue, the real problem is usually hidden. This inequality is designated as, bad, because it is, unequal, and unfair, but before the conclusion of this being unfair, there is the preconceived idea, that equality is a right. However, while all being created equal, we were not all created with wallets. While this may at first humor it does hold truth, a preset, equal income is not a right, but rather our income is an occurrence brought on by our circumstances. Which none can guarantee will be the same for all. Equal rights, are based on universal human attributes, but true equality can and will never occur, for the simple reason that, I will never be the same as you.

Another argument against Globalization is, that it costs jobs, but once again we must find the underlying why, why does globalization take jobs from some countries? And the answer is comparative advantage. “The country with the lowest opportunity cost has a comparative advantage and should specialize in the production of that good or service.” (Swanenberg, 2005, p. 10) By contry (x) having a comparative advantage in Corn production over country (y), country (x) should therefore switch to a concentrated corn production. And as equal and opposite, country (Y) has a comparative advantage in producing oranges over country (x) . And like wise, country (y) shifts it’s production to oranges. So that each comes out with the benfits of more of each product.

Sounds good, right? Well hear is the problem. By country (x) bringing cheaper corn to country (y)’s market than the corn growers in that country can afford to sell their corn for, , it consequently, puts the corn farmers in that country out of work. However, remember the comparative advantage, all that needs to happen is the corn farmers need to convert to Orange farms, and then recieve an advantage over there former occupation due to the new market. So the real problem is the begining change and the shock it will bring, but in the long run, globalization, can increase world productivity.

11/01/11

References:

1) Thomas D. Lairson, and David Skidmore, 2003, International Political Economy, Globalization and the World Economy

2) August Swanenberg, 2005, Macroeconomics Demystified, Introduction to Economics