Economics

Do not some men possess enemies?Of course; some in fact possess many.Shall we include their enemies in their possessions?It would be ridiculous, surely, if one actually received a salary for increasing the number of a man’s enemies!

Because, you know, we supposed a man’s estate to be the same as his property.To be sure—meaning thereby the good things that he possesses. No, of course I don’t call any bad thing that he may possess property.You seem to use the word property of whatever is profitable to its owner.Certainly; but what is harmful I regard as loss rather than wealth.

Yes, and consequently if a man buys a horse and doesn’t know how to manage it, and so keeps on getting thrown and injuring himself by trying to ride it, the horse is not wealth to him, I presume?No, if we assume that wealth is a good thing.It follows that land is not wealth either to a man who works it in such a way that his work results in loss.To be sure: even land is not wealth if it makes us starve instead of supporting us.

And the same will hold good of sheep, will it not? if a man loses through ignorance of sheep farming, his sheep too will not be wealth to him?I think not.It seems, then, that your view is this: what is profitable is wealth, what is harmful is not wealth.Quite so.

That is to say, the same things are wealth and not wealth, according as one understands or does not understand how to use them. A flute, for example, is wealth to one who is competent to play it, but to an incompetent person it is no better than useless stones.True—unless he sells it.

We now see that to persons who don’t understand its use, a flute is wealth if they sell it, but not wealth if they keep it instead of selling.Yes, Socrates, and our argument runs consistently, since we have said that what is profitable is wealth. For a flute, if not put up for sale, is not wealth, because it is useless: if put up for sale it becomes wealth.

Yes, commented Socrates, provided he knows how to sell; but again, in case he sells it for something he doesn’t know how to use, even then the sale doesn’t convert it into wealth, according to you. You imply, Socrates, that even money isn’t wealth to one who doesn’t know how to use it.

And you, I think, agree with me to this extent, that wealth is that from which a man can derive profit. At any rate, if a man uses his money to buy a mistress who makes him worse off in body and soul and estate, how can his money be profitable to him then?By no means, unless we are ready to maintain that the weed called nightshade, which drives you mad if you eat it, is wealth.

Then money is to be kept at a distance, Critobulus, if one doesn’t know how to use it, and not to be included in wealth. But how about friends? If one knows how to make use of them so as to profit by them, what are they to be called?Wealth, of course, and much more so than cattle, if it be true that they are more profitable than cattle.

Yes, and it follows from what you say that enemies too are wealth to anyone who can derive profit from them.Well, that is my opinion.Consequently it is the business of a good estate manager to know how to deal with enemies so as to derive profit from them too.Most decidedly.In fact, Critobulus, you cannot fail to notice that many private persons have been indebted to war for the increase of their estates, and many princes too.

Yes, so far so good, Socrates. But sometimes we come across persons possessed of knowledge and means whereby they can increase their estates if they work, and we find that they are unwilling to do so; and consequently we see that their knowledge profits them nothing. What are we to make of that? In these cases, surely, neither their knowledge nor their property is wealth?

Are you trying to raise a discussion about slaves, Critobulus?Oh no, not at all: I am referring to persons of whom some, at any rate, are considered men of the highest lineage. I observe that there are persons skilled in the arts of war or peace, as the case may be, who are unwilling to practice them, and the reason, I think, is just this, that they have no master over them.

What, no master over them, when, in spite of their prayers for prosperity and their desire to do what will bring them good, they are thwarted in their intentions by the powers that rule them?

And who, pray, may these unseen rulers be?No, not unseen, but open and undisguised, surely! And very vicious rulers they are too, as you yourself must see, if at least you regard idleness and moral cowardice and negligence as vice.

Aye, and then there is a set of deceitful mistresses that pretend to be pleasures—such as gambling and consorting with bad companions: even the victims of their deception find as time goes on that these, after all, are really pains concealed beneath a thin veneer of pleasures, and that they are hindering them from all profitable work by their influence over them.

But there are other men, Socrates, whose energy is not hindered by these influences, in fact they have an eager desire to work and to make an income: nevertheless they exhaust their estates and are beset with difficulties.

Yes, they too are slaves, and hard indeed are their masters: some are in bondage to gluttony, some to lechery, some to drink, and some to foolish and costly ambitions. And so hard is the rule of these passions over every man who falls into their clutches, that so long as they see that he is strong and capable of work, they force him to pay over all the profits of his toil, and to spend it on their own desires; but no sooner do they find that he is too old to work, than they leave him to an old age of misery, and try to fasten the yoke on other shoulders.

Ah, Critobulus, we must fight for our freedom against these tyrants as persistently as if they were armed men trying to enslave us. Indeed, open enemies may be gentlemen, and when they enslave us, may, by chastening, purge us of our faults and cause us to live better lives in future. But such mistresses as these never cease to plague men in body and soul and estate all the time that they have dominion over them.