Politics   

pleasure, as though the relationship of father and son or of brothers
with one another made no difference.
This community of wives and children seems better suited to the
husbandmen than to the guardians, for if they have wives and children
in common, they will be bound to one another by weaker ties, as a
subject class should be, and they will remain obedient and not rebel.
In a word, the result of such a law would be just the opposite of
which good laws ought to have, and the intention of Socrates in making
these regulations about women and children would defeat itself. For
friendship we believe to be the greatest good of states and the
preservative of them against revolutions; neither is there anything
which Socrates so greatly lauds as the unity of the state which he and
all the world declare to be created by friendship. But the unity which
he commends would be like that of the lovers in the Symposium, who, as
Aristophanes says, desire to grow together in the excess of their
affection, and from being two to become one, in which case one or both
would certainly perish. Whereas in a state having women and children
common, love will be watery; and the father will certainly not say 'my
son,' or the son 'my father.' As a little sweet wine mingled with a
great deal of water is imperceptible in the mixture, so, in this sort
of community, the idea of relationship which is based upon these names
will be lost; there is no reason why the so-called father should care
about the son, or the son about the father, or brothers about one
another. Of the two qualities which chiefly inspire regard and
affection- that a thing is your own and that it is your only
one-neither can exist in such a state as this.
Again, the transfer of children as soon as they are born from the rank
of husbandmen or of artisans to that of guardians, and from the rank
of guardians into a lower rank, will be very difficult to arrange; the
givers or transferrers cannot but know whom they are giving and
transferring, and to whom. And the previously mentioned evils, such as
assaults, unlawful loves, homicides, will happen more often amongst
those who are transferred to the lower classes, or who have a place
assigned to them among the guardians; for they will no longer call the
members of the class they have left brothers, and children, and
fathers, and mothers, and will not, therefore, be afraid of committing
any crimes by reason of consanguinity. Touching the community of wives
and children, let this be our conclusion.
Part V
Next let us consider what should be our arrangements about property:
should the citizens of the perfect state have their possessions in
common or not? This question may be discussed separately from the
enactments about women and children. Even supposing that the women and
children belong to individuals, according to the custom which is at
present universal, may there not be an advantage in having and using
possessions in common? Three cases are possible: (1) the soil may be
appropriated, but the produce may be thrown for consumption into the
common stock; and this is the practice of some nations. Or (2), the
soil may be common, and may be cultivated in common, but the produce
divided among individuals for their private use; this is a form of
common property which is said to exist among certain barbarians. Or
(3), the soil and the produce may be alike common.
When the husbandmen are not the owners, the case will be different and
easier to deal with; but when they till the ground for themselves the
question of ownership will give a world of trouble. If they do not
share equally enjoyments and toils, those who labor much and get
little will necessarily complain of those who labor little and receive
or consume much. But indeed there is always a difficulty in men living
together and having all human relations in common, but especially in
their having common property. The partnerships of fellow-travelers are
an example to the point; for they generally fall out over everyday
matters and quarrel about any trifle which turns up. So with servants:
we are most able to take offense at those with whom we most we most
frequently come into contact in daily life.