Scott
Verified User
Just finished reading the article from which the name of this thread was copied, and thought it was quite good. I notice that another thread was started here recently by Highlight that talks of the problems of wealth disparity and I agree. It can be seen here:
This thread comes from the other side of the debate, talking of the dangers of communism. By now, I think many already know quite a few, having seen the rise and fall of the U.S.S.R., but the communist regimes that are still with us today have adapted to some extent- China, for example, does now have property rights, as evidence in its 2021 civil code:
en.wikipedia.org
I think Dresse's article makes a powerful case for why private property shouldn't be abolished, for reasons he explains. I also think his recommendation is that people be encouraged to share at least some their property without making it an obligation. I fully acknowledgte that he doesn't offer a concrete path on how to do this- I think his main contribution is on why making laws to share all property is a bad idea.
**
The greatest temptation for a political thinker is to imagine a society purged of all dissension — a society in which every conflict has been resolved ex abrupto by the regime of his dreams. Such a temptation is, of course, understandable: a society can only endure insofar as it constitutes a political unity and is not corroded from within by chaos. “Civil war is the greatest of evils,” Pascal acknowledged.
Nevertheless, any philosopher or theorist must begin by questioning the nature of this political unity if they wish to avoid offering their country a dangerous dream — bearing in mind, of course, that dreams primarily affect those who are not dreaming, and that they risk being engulfed by the dream’s arbitrary grasp.
Now, if there is one philosopher we should read to set ourselves on the right path, it is Aristotle, particularly for his well-known critique of Plato’s “communism.” Whether Plato was truly a forerunner of “socialist systems,” as Vilfredo Pareto believed, is not the concern of these pages. What matters is that Aristotle took seriously Socrates’ proposal in the Republic — that the just City would establish a community of women and property — and that he offered a thorough response in the opening chapters of Book II of the Politics. This response deserves to be read attentively today, to avoid slipping into the delusions of egalitarian socialism.
[snip]
The ideal is thus not to be found in the complete sharing of all possessions, but rather in a measured and virtuous use of property. The best solution, writes Aristotle, “is for the ownership of property to be private, while its use is made common.” As for how to bring people to act accordingly, “this is the task of the legislator.” Indeed, through good laws, the legislator can become the artisan of ethical dispositions in citizens. He cannot change the order of things — still less the nature of man — but he can enact good laws, encourage good habits, which are the foundation of virtue, and of a good and happy life.
**
Full article:
www.arktosjournal.com
This thread comes from the other side of the debate, talking of the dangers of communism. By now, I think many already know quite a few, having seen the rise and fall of the U.S.S.R., but the communist regimes that are still with us today have adapted to some extent- China, for example, does now have property rights, as evidence in its 2021 civil code:
Civil Code of the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia
I think Dresse's article makes a powerful case for why private property shouldn't be abolished, for reasons he explains. I also think his recommendation is that people be encouraged to share at least some their property without making it an obligation. I fully acknowledgte that he doesn't offer a concrete path on how to do this- I think his main contribution is on why making laws to share all property is a bad idea.
**
The greatest temptation for a political thinker is to imagine a society purged of all dissension — a society in which every conflict has been resolved ex abrupto by the regime of his dreams. Such a temptation is, of course, understandable: a society can only endure insofar as it constitutes a political unity and is not corroded from within by chaos. “Civil war is the greatest of evils,” Pascal acknowledged.
Nevertheless, any philosopher or theorist must begin by questioning the nature of this political unity if they wish to avoid offering their country a dangerous dream — bearing in mind, of course, that dreams primarily affect those who are not dreaming, and that they risk being engulfed by the dream’s arbitrary grasp.
Now, if there is one philosopher we should read to set ourselves on the right path, it is Aristotle, particularly for his well-known critique of Plato’s “communism.” Whether Plato was truly a forerunner of “socialist systems,” as Vilfredo Pareto believed, is not the concern of these pages. What matters is that Aristotle took seriously Socrates’ proposal in the Republic — that the just City would establish a community of women and property — and that he offered a thorough response in the opening chapters of Book II of the Politics. This response deserves to be read attentively today, to avoid slipping into the delusions of egalitarian socialism.
[snip]
The ideal is thus not to be found in the complete sharing of all possessions, but rather in a measured and virtuous use of property. The best solution, writes Aristotle, “is for the ownership of property to be private, while its use is made common.” As for how to bring people to act accordingly, “this is the task of the legislator.” Indeed, through good laws, the legislator can become the artisan of ethical dispositions in citizens. He cannot change the order of things — still less the nature of man — but he can enact good laws, encourage good habits, which are the foundation of virtue, and of a good and happy life.
**
Full article:
Aristotle and the Community of Property
Antoine Dresse (“Ego Non”) revisits Aristotle’s critique of Plato’s idea of communal property, warning against the seductive yet perilous dream of a perfectly unified society.
www.arktosjournal.com