land is public, but it is certainly not socialistic in spirit and purpose. The prime interest of Hippodamas was very probably not in a system to supplant private property, but rather in a plan of assured support for the priestly and military classes.296
Phaleas of Chalcedon, according to Aristotle’s description, approaches much nearer to the modern socialistic idea.297 Aristotle makes him a type of those thinkers who lay chief stress on the right system of property as the necessary basis of civic peace.298
His central tenet is equality of possessions and of education for all the citizens,299 but he seems to have specified only landed property.300
This demand, though only landed property is included, seems to strike a truly modern socialistic note. But nowhere better than here may we see the gulf that separates ancient and modern socialism. The avowed interest of Phaleas is not in the masses. The artisans are all to be public slaves.301 His interest is rather in the classes, and not even in these primarily, but rather in the state itself. His entire system has for its fundamental motive the avoiding of civic discord in the state.302
The ideal state of Plato’s Republic has often been presented by socialists and other modern writers as the great prototype of all socialistic doctrine. We must consider to what extent such a view is justified. In his famous myth of the three metals, Plato divides his citizens into three classes—rulers, auxiliaries, and farmers and artisans.303 His avowed purpose here, as indeed throughout his Republic, is to secure the highest degree of happiness for all the citizens.304 In order to gain this end, he provides for a most thoroughgoing system of communism, including all property, both for production and for consumption, except such as is necessary for the immediate need.305 He