In fine, the Republic contains some socialistic elements. Plato’s restriction of the freedom of the individual so as to subserve the interest of the whole,319 his tendency to magnify the power of law in the face of economic principles and of human nature,320 his interest in the welfare of the common people, his declaration against inequality of fortune, his denial of the right of private property for the upper classes, and his proposed community of wives and children, a measure too radical for the better type of modern socialism,321 all seem socialistic in trend.
The tendency to magnify the power of law, and the submission of individual to state interest, however, were characteristics of Greek civilization, and not distinctly Platonic or socialistic. His interest in the welfare of the masses, as we have seen, was not primarily economic, but had for its ulterior motive the preservation of the peace of the state.
His denial of private property and family interests to the guards, and his opposition to extreme wealth or poverty were, as seen above, devoid of socialistic motive. Moreover, in his hostility to retail trade, he was not moved by the modern socialistic demand for immediate contact between producer and consumer.
The conditions that called forth such a demand were not then in existence,322 as is also true of the modern agitation for a proper distribution of the profits of industry. Above all, Plato made no pretense to any economic basis for his communism, but presented it as a moral and political ideal.
The Republic cannot therefore be classified as truly socialistic either in motive or in general plan.323
In any event, there is nothing in common between the high moral idealism of Plato’s so-called communism and the crass materialistic