Plato's theory of communism of Wives and Property as propounded in the Republic.

for two purposes, first, it separates the domains of guardian and producer classes, and second to stop the chances of
nepotism, corruption, competition, conflict in the ruling classes.

Communism of wives and property was to help such watertight separation between the domains of three classes. As
per this theory the Guardian class, that is the ruler and auxiliary(soldier) class, cannot not have any private property,
neither they can have a normal family life with wife and children. The producer class, on the other hand, can have
private property and normal family life but were barred from participation in politics. The Guardian class were supposed
to live a communal life in barracks just like soldiers. They have to live in a commune, live together, eat together, and
pursue the duties assigned to them, that is ruling and protection. Their entire material requirements are taken care of by
the producer class. But for having the able and healthy next generation, the theory proposed temporary marriages
arranged by the state for the guardian classes. After children are born from such marriages, the wives and children were
separated from the men. They even didn’t know who their children were. The children were brought up by the state.
They got free & compulsory education. On the basis of their performance in the tests and their natural abilities, they
were assigned one of three classes. This was kind of eugenics, that is improving the race by selectively mating people
with specific desirable hereditary traits. Such the regimented social order and controversial practices proposed by the
theory have been criticised by many as idealistic, un-natural, confusing, un ethical, and utopic

• Karl Popper launched most scathing criticism of such utopic ideas of Plato to have rigid regimented social order. He
declared Plato as enemy of an open society by proposing a closed and compartmentalized society. To him, Plato's theory
of communism of Wives and Property contains a totalitarian' vision.

. Plato’s idea of censorship

Plato’s supported censorship of poetry, music, and paintings. He gave many arguments in support of his views. The crux
(core, essence) of them were wrong impression on young minds by these art forms. To him, wrong poetry, music, and
paintings may wrongly influence young students. They may start hating Gods and stop believing in them if Gods are
portrayed (shown) as immoral and quarrelsome in poems and paintings. Similarly, poetry on sadness of death of loved
one may instill fear of death in citizen. Wrong notes in music may stir up their soul and make them agitated and
unsettled.

He derided (criticized) these art forms for showing emotions and facts of human life and nature wrongly, in misleading
way. In expressing their art forms, artists tell lies. They misled people with incorrect depiction of realities. Sometimes
they reveal cruel realities of life better not to be told to young minds. Hence, for all these reasons, Plato strongly
recommend censorship of poetry, music, and arts.

Karl Popper declared him the enemy of the open society. To Popper, Plato’s ideal society/state was a regimented,
closed, totalitarian society. Toynbee called Plato cynical, inhuman, and reactionary. To Crossman, Plato was wrong for
his time and ours

Aristotle view on household and State.

In Aristotle’s view households or family is basic building block of the State. Households help build society and maintain
it. Aristotle included husband, wife, children, slave and property as constitutive element of the household. It is
interesting to note that slave and property were included as integral part of the family. In the household there is a
hierarchical relation to maintain order & harmony. This hierarchy reflect natural inequality based on sex, age, ability.
Aristotle proposed duality of private vs public life. To him, family is the realm of personal or private, whereas politics
belongs to public life.
Family is primary and essential unit of the state. • There is a hierarchical relation in the family to maintain order &
harmony. • Natural inequality based on sex, age, ability justify hierarchical relation in the family.

• There are three kinds of hierarchical relation in the family: • Master-slave • Husband-Wife • Father-child • All 3 are
different kinds of hierarchical relation. There is complete subordination of slave to the master. But though wife is
subordinate to husband, she is not like slave. She is as independent as her husband is. In household matter she
supersedes her husband. Only in matters of vital and economic decisions, husband’s view prevails. Father child relation
is like king –subject relation. But once children become adult, they do not remain subordinate and become equal to their
father.

Aristotle’s justification of Slavery.

Aristotle considered inequality as natural. He had the view that some people are by nature servile (submissive) and
others dominant. The people who are servile need guidance and order by somebody else for performing their functions.
Slavery also fulfils a very important social need. Slaves free their masters to participate in public affair which required
knowledge, time, and energy. By serving his master and taking care of all the routine affairs of his household the slave
does an important duty towards the society. He also saw slavery as a division of labour between the slave and the
master. Slaves and masters have complementary attributes. Former is strong physically, latter strong in mental faculty.

• Conditions: • Enslavement justified only if slave lack virtue/reason; winning war, and paying debt shouldn’t be ground
for slavery • Master must be more virtuous than the slave. • Slave should be treated well, and should be made free for
their good service • He realized and anticipated no need for slavery with technological advancements.

Aristotle’s idea on revolution

Revolution denoted change in type of constitution or government by popular uprising. He also counted change in the
ruling power without change in constitution/ Govt as revolution.

He asserted that the constitution/ government in any state changes in a cycle. The monarchy in due course become a
perverted form of Govt in the interest of one, what he called tyranny. Tyranny, through revolution, give way to
Aristocracy, which with time degenerate into to Oligarchy, which is rule by wealthy in the interest of few. By revolution,
Oligarchy changes into Polity, which is the rule by many in the interest of whole community. With time, Polity also
becomes degenerated and turns into to Democracy, which is the rule by many but in the interest of only few. Thus, we
can see that his conception of revolution is a kind of major political change in the body politic. The change can be either
in the form of government/constitution or change in the ruling power. According to Aristotle major reasons behind
revolution are the differing conceptions of equality and justice. When people feel that political offices, honours,
rewards, etc are not distributed in just manner then they may feel that justice have been denied to them. When there is
gross inequality in the socio- political order then also chances of revolution rises. Both equality and Justice have differing
conception to different person. People perceive them differently. Hence, it becomes difficult for any ruling power to
convince all at a same time that justice is done by the political power. Equality also is almost impossible to maintain.
Some who are privileged may prefer proportional equality, whereas the masses may call for absolute equality. Hence,
differing conception of equality and Justice are the root cause of revolution or changes in the political order. Aristotle
also list out several other causes for the revolution and change of Government and constitution. Some of them are-
instigation of revolution by some resourceful citizens for their own interest, disproportionate aggregation of power in
hands of few persons, fear and contempt of the ruler, and imbalance by disproportionate increase in any one part of the
state, etc.

• Aristotle on Citizenship

To be a virtuous man is same as being a good citizen. Both the ruler and the ruled (citizen) should have virtue. Hence, his
idea of citizenship was political association and participation of virtuous people in the affairs of Polis (State). Citizen in
his view is supposed to have some prerequisite qualification; these are- they should have moderate amount of property,
ethical and moral education, capability for deliberation and participation in judicial matters. Aristotle denied citizenship
to women, slaves, alien, foreigners, and those without property. To him, a citizen should have high degree of ethical,
moral and intellectual excellence or virtue. Aristotle thought that middle class is the best suited for citizenship,

To him, women lacked deliberative and decision-making capabilities and therefore, were not suitable for performing the
duties of citizen. Slaves lacked virtue and wisdom, essential qualities for becoming citizen. Hence, slaves were not
considered as citizen.

To him, being ethical, moral and virtuous is same as being good citizen. Only those who possess property, moral, ethical
and intellectual excellence, have virtue and have proper deliberative and decision-making capabilities are suitable for
citizenship. It was citizenship based on merit or virtue.

Machiavelli’s views and recommendation on Republicanism

is contained in his book ‘The Discourses on Livy’. In this book he had shown his preference to Republic over Monarchy.
He gave many reasons for this. Some of these are:

His conception of Republicanism: He was first to give the conception of nation-state and nationalism. He was first to
explain the idea of people united under one political authority in the form of nation-state. His aim was to unify Italy and
make it a strong nation state . The idea of people joined by the feeling of nationalism and vying for a sovereign political
organization a fixed territory was new idea at that time. Machiavelli’s thought about republicanism was surprisingly
modern in its content and outlook. He himself served as a high standing diplomat in the Republican government of
Florence. His recommendations for ideal Republic having rule of law and constitutionalism, securing liberty of people,
flexible institutions, public discourse, public spiritedness, armed citizens, healthy contention between the masses and
the ruling elites, pluralism, etc are so modern that most of the contemporary republics including the Republic of United
State of America follow those ideas.

1. His idea about the State and prime duty of the King:

• State being a non-ethical, amoral entity, not bound by conventional morality. • Supreme goal of the ruler/king is
maintenance of the State, for security, order, welfare for people possible only in secured/maintained state.

• No separate bases of Authority, Legitimacy, and Political Obligation apart from the power/force. Hence, the King must
possess force and use it to maintain his state.