Introduction
The book I of Politics describes the role and importance of the state in the life of citizens. Aristotle sees every city as a society ruled by its principles and traditions. The main institutions of society are a family, a government, and a legal institution. “For example, the ruler over a few is called a master; over more, the manager of a household; over a still larger number, a statesman or king, as if there were no difference between a great household and a small state” (Aristotle).
Main body
In historical context, the book describes the main principles of society and ideals of a state typical for 3 century BC. Absolute uniformity of political, economic, and social organization is no prerequisite of that measure of international government which is indispensable to prevent chaos and anarchy. On the other hand, any society which would regard the internal structure of State government and society with the indifference of pre-war days would be doomed to failure and chaos from the outset.
The reading is relevant to the world today as it allows us to understand the main principles of social organization and relations between a person and a state. The growth of the movement towards the formation of states is, however, a gradual one; it is continuous, from the sixteenth century to our day, and while, throughout this period, and in almost every country the middle class has been a principal factor in the growth of the State, the political and social conditions have varied greatly. Firstly, in those countries which already enjoyed political independence and a strong central government, the transition from absolutism to the constitutional and liberal government of a modern national State is essentially the work of the new commercial middle class. Economic determinism leads to class struggle. In any system of private property, there is a division of the classes into those who have and those who do not have. The “haves” wish to retain the status quo which has blessed them with property, while the “have nots” wish for a change. “Property is a part of the household, and the art of acquiring property is a part of the art of managing the household; for no man can live well, or indeed live at all, unless he is provided with necessaries” ()Aristotle n.d… The wish for change is powerless to bring it, and any moral or spiritual considerations are irrelevant. But when the mode of production changes, the dispossessed class has the power of history upon its side, so that it inevitably rises, while the former ruling class must pass from the scene. This change will not be made without conflict, for the rulers will fight to retain their privileges. Resistance, however, is useless for the laws of history are now with the rising class as once they were with the ruling class in its hour of triumph. The state is above all else the captive of class interest. It is the center of power that must be captured by the class that would rule. Aristotle underlines:” man is more of a political animal than bees or any other gregarious animals is evident. Nature, as we often say, makes nothing in vain, and man is the only animal whom she has endowed with the gift of speech.” (Aristotle n.d.). On the traditional view, the treatises must seem — to put it paradoxically: the trumpeted system is simply not apparent in their pages.
Modern social conditions have made this state of affairs long obsolete. Among the immediate problems, there will be such matters as international food relief, exploitation and distribution of raw materials, reorganization of transport, and the rebuilding and development of vast areas. Among the wider problems will be the principles of education, a permanent system of state security, and the redistribution of industrial and agricultural production. The control of the State over the vital spheres of economic life has by now become a universal necessity and is all but universally accepted in principle, though with much controversy as to the extent of this control. But it is equally obvious that such vital matters as an international security system, cultural cooperation for peace instead of war, or an international agreement on minimum rights of the individual or labor conditions, presupposes a wide measure of harmony among the parties regarding the principles of government. Should more closely-knit organizations, such as Federal Unions or an international Charter of the Rights of Man, materialize, the measure of homogeneity would, of course, have to be greater still. But the formal requirements of Parliamentary democracy should not be overrated at the expense of more fundamental aspects of social and political life. As regarding economic organization, considerable differences in the internal political structure do not impede international cooperation as long as there is harmony on the ultimate objects of community.
By a combination of professional interest and social prejudice — especially where the aristocratic background prevails — joins forces with modern dictators in the conduct of large-scale warfare, which ignores, sacrifices, and mutilates the national State. The modern bureaucracy is trained in absolute obedience to the State and follows its rulers. The working class gradually turns from international class solidarity towards loyalty to the State, but recently, with the merging of social issues in present-day international conflict, a new element of international class solidarity struggles with the support given by organized labor to the State.
Works Cited
Aristotle, Politics. Book I. n.d. Web.