I use Copleston (History of Philosophy, V I Part II) to lay forth the ideas. I first read this in detail in the Fall of 1962 just after the Cuban Missie debacle. From Copleston we have a powerful discussion of revolution, against a Constitutional government:
Aristotle treats acutely of the various kinds and degrees
of revolution which tend to occur under different Constitutions, of their
causes and the means of preventing them; and, owing to his great historical
knowledge, he was able to give apt historical illustrations of the points he
wished to make. He points out, for instance, that the revolutionary state of
mind is largely brought about by one-sided notions of justice—democrats
thinking that men who are equally free should be equal in everything, oligarchs
thinking that because men are unequal in wealth they should be unequal in
everything. He emphasizes the fact that rulers should have no opportunity of
making money for themselves out of the offices they hold, and stresses the
requisites for high office in the State, namely, loyalty to the Constitution,
capacity for administrative work and integrity of character. Whatever be the
type of Constitution, it must be careful not to go to extremes; for if either
democracy or oligarchy is pushed to extremes the ensuing rise of malcontent
parties will be sure to lead in the end to revolution.
Extremes are always a danger and even today we see that occurring. Beware the words of Aristotle.
In Books Seven and Eight of the Politics Aristotle
discusses his positive views of what a State should be. (i) The State must be large enough to be self-sufficing
(of course Aristotle's notion of what a self-sufficing community actually is
would be altogether inadequate for modem times), but not so large that order
and good government are rendered impracticable. In other words, it must be
large enough to fulfil the end of the State and not so large that it can no
longer do so. The number of citizens requisite for this purpose cannot of
course be arithmetically determined a priori. (ii) Similarly with the territorial extent of the State.
This should not be so small that a leisured life is impossible (i.e. that
culture is impracticable) nor yet so large that luxury is encouraged. The city
should not aim at mere wealth, but at importing her needs and exporting her
surplus. (iii) Citizens. Agricultural labourers and artisans are
necessary, but they will not enjoy citizen rights. Only the third class, that
of the warriors, will be citizens in the full sense. These will be warriors in
youth, rulers or magistrates in middle-age and priests in old age. Each citizen
will possess a plot of land near the city and another near the frontier (so
that all may have an interest in the defence of the State). This land will be
worked by the non-citizen labourers
The above is again prescient. Who is a citizen and borders, and of course limits. Moreover, who is not a citizen.
Aristotle treats acutely of the various kinds and degrees
of revolution which tend to occur under different Constitutions, of their
causes and the means of preventing them; and, owing to his great historical
knowledge, he was able to give apt historical illustrations of the points he
wished to make. He points out, for instance, that the revolutionary state of
mind is largely brought about by one-sided notions of justice—democrats
thinking that men who are equally free should be equal in everything, oligarchs
thinking that because men are unequal in wealth they should be unequal in
everything. He emphasizes the fact that rulers should have no opportunity of
making money for themselves out of the offices they hold, and stresses the
requisites for high office in the State, namely, loyalty to the Constitution,
capacity for administrative work and integrity of character. Whatever be the
type of Constitution, it must be careful not to go to extremes; for if either
democracy or oligarchy is pushed to extremes the ensuing rise of malcontent
parties will be sure to lead in the end to revolution.
Aristotle had a point here. Do we choose our leaders this way? All too often we see excess self aggrandizement. Finally:
The only real guarantee of the stability and prosperity
of the State is the moral goodness and integrity of the citizens, while
conversely, unless the State is good and the system of its education is
rational, moral and healthy, the citizens will not become good. The individual
attains his proper development and perfection through his concrete life, which
is a life in Society, i.e. in the State, while Society attains its proper end through
the perfection of its members. That Aristotle did not consider the State to be
a great Leviathan beyond good and evil is clear from the criticism he passes on
the Lacedaemonians. It is a great mistake, he says, to suppose that war and
domination are the be-all and end-all of the State. The State exists for the
good life, and it is subject to the same code of morality as the individual. As
he puts it, “the same things are best for individuals and states.” Reason and
history both show that the legislator should direct all his military and other
measures to the establishment of peace. Military States are safe only in
wartime: once they have acquired their empire, they rust away like iron and
fall. Both Plato and Aristotle, in their preoccupation with the fostering of a
truly cultural political life, set their faces against imperialist dreams of
military aggrandizement.
Posts
