Plato discusses the importance of a proper distribution of wealth in the Republic, but the point that looms large to him is the fact that excessive wealth or poverty is likely to endanger the stability of the state.255 As seen above, also, some of his regulations in the Laws seem to strike a modern note. He would have a state commission fix prices,256 would permit the state to limit the freedom of inheritance,257 and perhaps even intervene in securing a just wage.258 Yet in all of this, the dominant motive is to avoid civic discord.
Before proceeding to the larger subject in distribution, Plato’s theory of private property, we will discuss briefly his attitude toward the laboring classes.259 It is commonly asserted that the Greek philosophers had little or no regard for the masses. As usually expressed, however, the statement is very unfair, and especially to Plato. Such extreme assertions as the following are frequent: “They [the masses] are of no account altogether.”260 Plato in the Republic “voue à l’ignominie, au mépris, à la misère, à la servitude éternelle la classe des ouvriers.”261 “Für die des Erwerb obliegenden Personen bedarf es keiner Erziehung.”262 “Plato, in treating of the ideal state, deems it not worth while to concern himself with the trading and artisan classes.”263 “Und im übrigen will er sie [the masses], wie es scheint, durchaus sich selbst überlassen.”264
To be sure, as above admitted, the interest of Greek thinkers was not marked by the modern sentiment of sympathy for the laborer. Their writings are characterized by a certain aristocratic feeling, and they do not emphasize the worth or importance of the masses. Yet they are far from being indifferent or hostile to them.
Aristotle himself was the first to make this false criticism of Plato.265 But the author of the Republic foresaw that he might be misinterpreted, and