At the end of the first chapter of Book II of Politics, Aristotle poses the question: Is it “better to remain in our present condition or to follow the rule of life laid down in The Republic?” Aristotle presents a wide range of arguments to combat the particulars of what he perceives to be the result of Socrates’ advocacy for a city that would be fit only for one individual. In 1261a10, he uses the logic of the distinction he makes between polis, household, and individual to assert that the ideal city for Plato and Socrates would mean the destruction of the city because it would set out to erase all difference between its constituents through a rigid ordering of freedom and the rule of the singular and perhaps even tyrannical philosopher-king.
For Aristotle, “real unity must be made up of elements which differ in kind.” A city full of the same peoples is not a city, but a military alliance, he posits; today one may liken it to a gymkhana or a turf club. The social make-up of a city must reflect its needs and requirements, for the limited sliver of society that leads the good life in the Aristotelean manner needs to be provided for by others — from something as simple as a pair of sandals to an amphora of olive oil, there stands no chance for this upper crust to involve themselves in these sub-intellectual activities if they are to reach the goals Aristotle lays out for them. Thus, in part, Plato’s Republic is at odds with that of Aristotle’s ideal polis that he lays out in Politics.
Furthermore, Aristotle posits a fundamental issue with economic systems such as socialism and communism, where the state or ‘all’ own everything and there is a distinctive lack of private property. He astutely recognises that “what is common to the greatest number gets the least amount of care,” particularly in matters of property. It is natural for humans to procrastinate and ease responsibility onto the next liable person, Aristotle believes, and consequently if the pool of such people is large enough, no one will take responsibility for the upkeep, care, and maintenance of that which is held in the commons and solely contribute to that which interests them. This issue with communism — the hand of the state in lieu of the hand of the market — poses fundamental issues for the bulldozing of the very foundation of the polis. The foundation of the polis for Aristotle is the household, but when as Plato’s Socrates recommends in The Republic women and children are held in common, there can be no households. Without households, there can be no polis.
Another remarkable statement from Book II stands out: “Almost everything has been discovered already; though some things have not been combined with one another, and others are not put into practice.” Aristotle’s statement is remarkable because he is right in some ways — the Ancients did manage to figure out many of the philosophical questions we still strive to refine our answers to today. The Greeks also managed to produce art that embodied — in the words of Johann Winckelmann — “noble simplicity and quiet grandeur”. The classical style and language of art was the standard of all Western art until the ruptures of radical modernist art and architecture in the 20th century. Aristotle’s conception of science and corpus of knowledge was still being used well until the start of the Enlightenment. The Homeric epics, among the other Greek classics, still enjoyed along with later Latin texts a cultural and literary reputation that was primus inter pares. Aristotle was more correct than we would think he would be at face value.