In the history of Western philosophy, Plato is an inextricable mountain, and almost all the important ideas of later philosophies can find their source in him. The English philosopher Alfred Whitehead once said of Plato that "2,500 years of Western philosophy are but a series of footnotes to Plato's philosophy."
However, such a great philosopher does not seem to have a good reputation in the field of economics. Many scholars have the impression that he advocates government intervention and is not very friendly to market mechanisms. For example, Ludwig von Mises once considered Plato to be an enemy of the free market and an opponent of economics; Friedrich von Hayek called Plato "the theoretician of totalitarianism", and Murray Rothbard called Plato's famous work "The Republic" "a classic defense of totalitarianism"; Joseph Schumpeter, on the other hand, hinted at a fascist tendency in his economic policy.
So, is Plato really anti-market? In order to answer this question, we need to have a preliminary understanding of Plato's life and his economic views.
The Life of Plato
Plato's original name was Aristokles, which originally meant "the most famous". The more familiar "Plato" is a nickname, and there are two interpretations of its meaning: one view is that it means "big man", which is used to describe Plato's tall stature; Another view is that it means "flat" and is used to describe the breadth of the forehead.
According to the Philosopher Diogenes Laertius, a historian of philosophy from the ancient Roman period, Plato was born during the 88th Olympic Games, on the seventh day of the month of Salglion, which also coincided with the birthday of the legendary sun god Apollo. According to this reckoning, Plato should have been born on May 7, 427 B.C.E. Throughout Plato's childhood, Athens was at war with Sparta. This war is known in history as the Peloponnesian War.
Plato's family background was very prominent. His father, Ariston, traces his pedigree to Co-drus, the last king of Athens, while his mother, Peric-tione, was a descendant of the famous statesman Solon. His two uncles, Cridias and Charmides, were prominent figures in Athens, especially Kalmides, who was praised by Socrates as the most brilliant and wise of the young men. Later, they also became the leaders of the "Thirty Tyrants."
As a young man, Plato was a strong man, having studied gymnastics with the famous gladiator Arisdao and wrestling at athletic events. It is said that the nickname "Plato" was given by Aristus. While "barbarizing its body", Plato did not forget "civilization its spirit". As a teenager, he was fascinated by painting and poetry, especially lyric poetry and tragedy, and studied the philosophies of Pythagoras and Heraclitus. However, when he listened to Socrates outside the Theater of Dionysus, he threw his past poems into the fire and became a student and follower of Socrates. There is also a legend about Plato's apprenticeship with Socrates: it is said that Socrates once dreamed that a swan flew into his arms, coiled for a long time, and then let out a long roar and flew away. The next day, he met Plato to come to the door to apprentice.
Plato studied inseparably by Socrates' side for eight full years. Under the influence of his ears and eyes, he learned a lot of knowledge, and even learned the Socratic way of thinking about problems. Just as he was dreaming of using everything he had learned, the political situation in Athens was about to change. In 404 BC, the Peloponnesian War, which lasted for 28 years, ended in the defeat of Athens. In the city of Athens, the "Thirty Tyrants" overthrew democracy and organized a puppet government that bowed to Sparta externally and brutally suppressed its citizens internally. It is said that during the reign of the Thirty Tyrants, they killed more Athenians than the Athenians died in the latter part of the Peloponnesian War combined.
At that time, the leaders of the "Thirty Tyrants" were Plato's two uncles, Cledia and Calmid. The two uncles were well aware of Plato's talents, and as soon as they came to power, they threw an olive branch to him, hoping that he would also join the ruling group. However, Plato did not approve of the actions of the two uncles and immediately rejected the request. This choice turned out to be right, and only a few months later, the "Thirty Tyrants" were overthrown by the citizens of Athens, and both Crimea and Kalmid were killed in the chaos. It is conceivable that if Plato had accepted their invitation, then he, as a tyrant, would not have escaped the Athenians' reckoning, even if he had not died in the rebellion. After the overthrow of the "Thirty Tyrants", the democrats returned to power. Since both Crimea and Kalmides had studied with Socrates, Socrates was soon prosecuted on charges of blasphemy and poisoning youth. In the early summer of 399 BC, a jury of 500 Athenians held a public trial of Socrates. Despite Socrates' very eloquent defense of himself, in the end the jury sentenced him to death by a vote of 360 to 140. Although Socrates had every chance to escape after the verdict, he did not do so, but after a philosophical conversation with his friends, he resolutely drank the wine in his hand. As a disciple, Plato probably witnessed the trial and suicide of his mentor, which touched him greatly. Since then, he has been less trusting of democracy, and this may be the root cause.
After the death of Socrates, Plato left Athens for fear of being implicated. Since then, he has traveled to Greece, Italy, Egypt and other places. It was not until more than a decade later that Plato, who had already passed the age of confusion, ended his wandering and returned to Athens.
After returning to his homeland, Plato opened an academy in the garden of Akadcmos outside Athens and began teaching apprentices. Compared with the upheaval of a few years ago,Plato's days in the school can be described as extraordinarily peaceful。 In the school garden, Plato discussed philosophical issues with his students while creating works. Within a few years, he wrote a number of heavyweight philosophical works. His famous idea of the "philosopher king" was also formed during this period.
Just when Plato thought that the rest of his life would be spent so uneventfully, he was unexpectedly involved in a turmoil. His friend Dion wrote to invite him to the city-state of Syracusa to serve as an advisor to the tyrant Dionysius I. Plato saw this as a good opportunity to fulfill his political ambitions, so he gladly went, but was met with a cold reception and returned in a huff. After this, Plato was invited to visit Syracuse twice, but both were rarely reused. He was even nearly sold into slavery because he was involved in a power dispute between Dion and Dionysius II.
After returning from Syracuse, Plato's political philosophy changed greatly. While he still believed that the rule of the "philosopher-king" was ideal, he also recognized that such an ideal situation might be difficult to realize. Thus, in the later period, he began to emphasize more on the role of law in politics.
In 347 BC, Plato was invited to the wedding of a friend. While everyone was immersed in the revelry, the eighty-year-old man retreated to a quiet corner of the house and lay down on a couch and fell asleep peacefully. When people tried to wake him up, they found that he had died quietly in a dream.
Goodness, justice and happiness
Now let's discuss Plato's economic thought. Generally speaking, a scholar will have a logical starting point when constructing his own economic theory. For example, classical economists are accustomed to discussing problems in terms of "value", while neoclassical economists are more inclined to build their systems in terms of "utility". Once such a starting point is in place, the subsequent analysis can be transformed into an optimization problem.
What was Plato's starting point in discussing economic problems? In my opinion, it is "happiness" (Eudai-monia). In Greek, "happiness" refers to a positive feeling when the mind is in a state of harmony. How do you get this feeling? This requires that all parts of the soul be reconciled according to the standards of righteousness.
In the Republic, Plato believed that the human soul consists of three parts: desire, passion, and reason. Among them, desire is the part that "people use to feel love, hunger, thirst, and other material desires"; Passion is "the thing by which we get angry"; Rationality, on the other hand, is "the part for thinking and reasoning." If these three parts are not in harmony with each other, there can be no harmony between the souls. For example, if the desire is excessive, people will indulge in pleasure and go to the abyss; And if the passion is excessive, it is difficult for people to be calm. Therefore, it is only when these three parts are friendly and harmonious with each other that harmony of the mind can be achieved and happiness can be achieved.
How, then, can one reconcile the parts of the soul into harmony? The essence of this is to have the idea of "goodness".
We know that Plato's philosophical system is centered on the "Idea". In his view, everything in the world is a copy of his own "idea". For example, we say that an object is a table because it copies the idea of a table. The reason why a figure is a circle is because it imitates the idea of a circle. When we say that an action is good, it is also because it imcopies the idea of goodness.
In Plato's view, it is precisely because of the concept of goodness that various virtues in reality have the possibility of existence, and human reason will have the ability to restrain the disturbance of desires and passions, so that actions can be just, and then it is possible to achieve a state of happiness. In this sense, for people to achieve happiness, they must have the idea of goodness. And to do this, one must be educated so that one's soul can recall the knowledge of the idea of the good.
According to Plato, true happiness can only be achieved when the idea of the good is possessed. In Chapter 9 of The Ideal State, he elaborates on this idea. Through the words of Socrates, he divided human pleasure into three types: the first is the happiness after obtaining money and benefits and satisfying the desires of the flesh; The second is the happiness that comes after attaining superiority, victory, and fame; The third is happiness after having the idea of "goodness". He pointed out that the first two kinds of happiness are short-lived and ephemeral, and that only the third kind of happiness is real and eternal, and that it is true happiness. For a sane person, one should not pursue those short-term pleasures, but should make the pursuit of the idea of goodness his goal.
Plato's views on economic issues are developed from the perspective of the pursuit and practice of the good in order to achieve happiness. Take, for example, attitudes towards wealth. In The Ideal State, he once said through the old man Kfalos: "Possession of wealth greatly helps a man not to deceive anyone (even unintentionally) or to be unfaithful to him, not to owe God any sacrifice or to any money." From this perspective, he affirms the value of wealth as a tool for the pursuit of happiness. However, tools are only tools after all, and if they are mistakenly regarded as the goal of pursuit, they will lead people to fall into disorientation, so Plato believed that the desire for wealth should be restrained. On this point, he expounded more clearly in the Laws. "The pursuit of money must be confined to the realm of virtue," he noted. "Exactly, it needs to be placed after the pursuit of the soul and the body.
Division of labor and markets
In Plato's economic views, the discussion of the division of labor is the most important. In the second volume of the Republic, Plato uses the dialogue between Socrates and Admantos to point out that in order to establish a city-state, it is first necessary to have the guarantee of material materials such as food, housing, and clothing. To prepare for all this, there are two options: one is to divide the labor, with the peasants specializing in the production of grain, the craftsmen specializing in the construction of houses, and the textile workers specializing in the production of clothes; The other is for all the citizens of the city-state to produce these items themselves, spending part of their time growing food, part of building houses, and part of making clothes. Plato chose the first option. He pointed out: "As long as each man does the work that suits his personality at the right time, and gives up everything else and concentrates on one line, then everything will be produced more and better." If he uses the terminology of modern economics to express his view: that is, the division of labor can promote the increase of production efficiency.
Here we can make some comparisons between Plato's view of the division of labor and Adam Smith's view of the division of labor. In Plato's view, the cause of the division of labor lies in the natural differences in people's abilities and preferences, and the efficiency of the division of labor also comes from having everyone do what is suitable for him. It is easy to see that this view is actually a corollary of his philosophical view. In Plato's view, the polis as an entity that helps people in their pursuit of justice and happiness is itself a "man with a capital letter." Since the justice and happiness of the individual requires the peace of all parts of the soul, the justice and happiness of the polis certainly require the peace of all its members. Smith's discussion of the division of labor was different. In his view, the origin of the division of labor is the tendency of people to exchange. And with the division of labor, people's skills in a certain job will be improved endogenously. In this sense, Plato's view of the division of labor is actually a static view, while Smith's rule of division of labor is dynamic.
Since there is a division of labor, how to exchange and distribute products within the city-state becomes a problem. Obviously, this can be marketed, or planned. Plato gave a succinct answer to this question in the Republic through the words of Admantos: "Exchange is obviously a method of buying and selling. In other words, he chose the marketing scheme. From this point of view, Plato was not an anti-market person, as many scholars believe.
After affirming the value of the market, Plato followed up with a discussion of many factors that underpinned the development of the market. For example, he pointed out the need to have currency, to have a dedicated merchant, and to have someone dedicated to the merchant. A few words need to be inserted here: Plato's views on money were very advanced. In his view, the essence of money is a "tokenforpurposes of exchange", which does not have to be composed of gold and silver, but only needs to be used as a medium recognized within the city-state. In the later "Laws", he even suggested that gold and silver should be stopped for trading within the city-state, and that gold and silver should only be used for transactions between city-states. Obviously, this view is very close to the understanding of fiat money in modern economics.
In addition, Plato also deduced the division of labor and the expansion of the market. He pointed out that at first, the city-state consisted of only a small number of members, and that such a level of production and exchange could only allow the members of the city-state to meet a basic standard of living. Such a city-state can only be called a "pig-state". After that, as people's needs continue to expand, more and more producers with different divisions of labor will enter the city-state, and they will all exchange their output in the market, so that people can enjoy more luxuries and more desires, and the city-state will develop into a "city-state with a high fever". Although it is not difficult to see in terms of terminology that Plato had a derogatory connotation of both of these types of city-states, his description of the mutually reinforcing relationship between the size of the market and the depth of the division of labor is very similar to Smith's later account in The Wealth of Nations.
The structure of the city-state
From the above analysis, it can be seen that the form of the city-state, which has only an economic function, can be realized through the spontaneous force of a market. But this is clearly not enough. Plato went a step further: as human desires expanded, the city-states had to compete for resources from their neighboring states while fending off the invasions of their neighbors. In this way, the city-state needed to introduce a dedicated "guardian" class.
Guardians need to have special qualities compared to producers. They need to have a dual personality of gentleness and fierceness - he needs to be gentle with the inhabitants of the city-state he guards; And for the enemy, they need to be strong. In addition, they also need to have a higher set of moral qualities, not to pursue luxury and enjoyment, but to be willing to be simple and simple. Obviously, to get to all this, they need to go through a complete set of education. This set of education will include initial military training and training in basic skills, and later the study of dialectics and philosophy, etc., with the aim of not only training the abilities of the defenders, but more importantly, stimulating their moral character.
Among the Guardian class, there will be a part of those with the highest intellect and virtue who will stand out. In Plato's view, they should be the rulers of the city-state, the so-called "Philoso-pher King". As the holders of the power of the city-state, they will set the rules of the city-state and plan the development of the city-state, so as to ensure the justice of the city-state and make all the members of the city-state achieve the greatest happiness.
It is easy to see that Plato's derivation of the structure of the state is actually the application of his theory of division of labor to the non-economic sector. Marx once pointed out that "in Plato's ideal state, the division of labor is said to be the constitutive principle of the state", and this observation can be said to be to the point.
As with the division of labor in the economic sphere, Plato believed that the role that people should play in the polis was determined by their own characteristics. In this regard, he used a well-known analogy: when God created man, he added gold to some people, who were good at using reason and were fit to become rulers; Silver was added to some of them, who were brave and good at war, and were fit to be protectors; Others are infused with iron, and such people are full of feelings and desires, and are fit to become producers.
For a long time, Plato's view has been criticized as advocating descent or genetic determinism against the normal flow of society. But in fact, this view seems to be debatable. On the one hand, Plato did not equate human qualities with blood. He clearly pointed out that "although father and son inherit the same talent, sometimes it is inevitable that a golden father will give birth to a silver son, and a silver father will give birth to a golden son." Once that happens, it's time to put the person back in the right place for him. It can be seen that Plato actually supported social mobility, but advocated that mobility should be based on idiosyncrasies. On the other hand, in reality, each person's innate traits are different, but this information cannot be directly recognized by people in society. To identify differences in individual traits, certain screening mechanisms must be relied upon. It is easy to see that the long education and experience advocated by Plato not only helped people acquire skills, but also played a role in the screening mechanism to a considerable extent. In fact, in his eyes, the "philosopher-king" must fully prove himself through this mechanism in order to become a true ruler.
Property regime
In many of his works, Plato is described as advocating the abolition of private property and the implementation of public ownership of property. But this is actually a misunderstanding. In fact, in the Republic, Plato only made these demands on the ruling class (including the Guardians and the "philosopher-kings"), who were only a small fraction of the population of the entire city-state. As for the larger part of the producers, he did not ask them to give up their private property.
Plato pointed out that if they had private property, the rulers would be keen to pursue their own interests rather than the interests of the city-state, and even degenerate from allies who defended the interests of the people to "enemies and tyrants" of the people. In addition, he pointed out that the rulers of the city-states had actually received gold and silver from the gods in their hearts, so there was no need to have earthly gold and silver. This may seem superstitious and absurd, but in spirit, it is similar to the modern view that public officials are not allowed to operate industries in which they have an interest. Essentially, the renunciation of private property can be seen as a "costlysignal" through which those who wish to rise to the ruling class can show people that they do have "gold and silver" qualities in their souls, and that they are not selfish.
In the Laws, Plato revised his thoughts. He began to realize that it was difficult to demand that the ruling class should be free from selfishness, so he began to agree that they could hold private property. In order to prevent the resulting disparity between the rich and the poor, and the problem of the ruling class abusing power for personal gain, he proposed three restrictions: first, to limit the wealth gap between the richest and poorest to five times, and if anyone is found to be in possession of anything above the total registered amount, the entire excess will be confiscated; secondly, to incorporate the views of the common people into the political process through a mixed polity, "180 people are elected from each property class, half of whom are finally selected by lot"; Third, the law should be used to compensate for the lack of virtue and curb people's greed.
In fact, Plato not only recognized the existence of private property, but also devised a number of institutions to protect it. For example, in Chapter 11 of the Laws, he discusses many of the systems for the protection, disposition, and inheritance of property. Many of the ideas in the civil law can be found here.
It should be pointed out that although Plato recognized the existence of private property and advocated the protection of private property, he did not advocate that there was too much unequal distribution of private property among the members of the city-state. In his view, extreme poverty and extreme wealth both produce evil, which affects the realization of justice in the city-state. Based on this understanding, he argued that "the legislator should determine the property boundary between rich and poor".
The intervention of the polis in market activities
Scholars who argue that Plato is anti-market point out that Plato advocated planned intervention by the rulers of the city-states without regard for the order of the market itself. For example, when Mises talks about Plato's theory, he summarizes his theory as follows: the "superman" who feels the call of "providence" plans the direction of the city-state like an architect constructs a building, and the cooperation of "subjects" is insignificant to his plan. This statement resonates with readers, but in fact, it is more of a pretext for Mises to criticize Plato to oppose the planned economy of the time, and his evaluation of Plato's theory is not objective.
Actually, Plato was not a planner. Although he advocated the intervention of the city-state in the market, in the process, Chengbang played more of a role as a servant and supporter. Take the discussion of "The Ideal State" as an example: the reason why he wanted to introduce guardians in the city-state with only economic functions was to expand the city-state's land and protect the city-state's tranquility. From the introduction of this function, it can be seen that the task of the guardian is mainly to expand the market (through war) and at the same time ensure the operation of the market, rather than to control and intervene in the market.
In order to maintain the more efficient functioning of the market, Plato advocated the regulation of key areas such as market transactions, contracts of craftsmen, and taxation of seaports. In the "Law Chapter", he further suggested that market management and related official selection and management responsibilities should be specifically regulated. From a modern point of view, his ideas are actually very much in line with the idea of using the rule of law to regulate the business environment.
It should be pointed out that he also does not support the elaboration of the operation of the market. "It's stupid to make rules into law," he said. Laws that merely write terms on paper are not respected. Rather than acting in accordance with the law, he argues that there is room for the spontaneous operation of the market. In the fourth volume of the Ideal Republic, he uses the words of Admantos to say: "It is not appropriate for good people to impose so many legal provisions on them. What rules are needed, most of them themselves will be easy to find. ”
Of course, in Plato's writings, we do see some arguments that seem to be against the market. For example, in the Laws, he expressed discrimination against merchants and advocated for city-states to restrict commercial activity. But if you look through the text, you will see that this does not mean that he is opposed to the business activity itself. "When we consider the basic functions of retail, domestic retail is not a bad thing, but beneficial," he made clear. Isn't it a great benefactor if someone could balance and distribute all kinds of things that were originally naturally unbalanced and disproportionate to all parts for the use of people? "And the reason why businessmen have such a function, people also discriminate against businessmen, mainly because they have engaged in some illegal acts in business activities. In this sense, the restriction on commercial activities advocated by him is more of a norm for business, which is fundamentally different from direct intervention or planning.
In addition, Plato advocated the restriction of some market behavior, such as the prohibition of the sale and purchase of land and usury. From the perspective of modern economics, some of these measures do undermine the efficiency of the market, which does reflect their cognitive limitations. However, these claims are partial. On the whole, it seems difficult to find strong evidence of Plato's opposition to the market.
Is Plato the enemy of the market?
Now, let's go back to the question at the beginning of this article: Is Plato really the enemy of the market? In my opinion, the answer is no.
Although compared with modern economics, Plato chose a completely different starting point for his analysis—he looked at economic problems from the perspective of "happiness" rather than "utility", and from the outset used the city-state as the main background for analyzing economic problems. But as can be seen from the previous analysis, he does not deny the power of the market. On the contrary, when he considered the origin of the state (city-state), he proceeded from the perspective of the division of labor and the market, and he also used a very economic way of thinking when discussing the structure of the city-state. When discussing the relationship between the polis and market behavior, he also advocated that the polis play a role as a service and coordinator. If we look at all of this, then his views are closer to classical economists such as Smith than to those who advocate intervention. It is true that there are many ideas in his writings that are easy to be misunderstood, such as advocating public ownership of property and discriminating against merchants, but once the causes and consequences of these arguments are clearly understood, these views seem to find reasonableness. In this sense, I agree more with Brennan McDavid, a philosopher at Chapman University, who calls him a "moderate market optimist" – who does not agree with everything about the market like the market fundamentalists represented by Mises, but who is definitely not the enemy of the market.
Some scholars have argued that much of Plato's economic views are too naïve in modern terms, especially in the earlier Republics. We must admit that. After all, Plato was an ancient man who lived more than 2,000 years ago, and at that time, the production of Greek society was mainly done by slaves, who accounted for 2/3 of the population, and the top aristocracy like him did not have to produce it himself, so there must be many deviations in the observation of economic problems. With this in mind, we don't have to criticize the ancients. In fact, even in these circumstances, many of his ideas are still instructive today. Especially in the current materialistic situation, he advocates the pursuit of justice and the idea of achieving happiness from justice, which may be a good medicine to cure many market ills.