Dictatorship and Democracy in the Ancient World - Part 2 (1940)

From the October 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

(Continued from September issue).

One cause of complaint against Athens was the fact that after the Persian War the wealth which had flowed in as tribute from the Allies to build the Athenian fleet was diverted to beautifying the city. Pericles defended this policy on the following grounds: —

“It was right, Pericles argued, that after the city had provided all that was necessary for war, it should devote its surplus money to the erection of buildings which would be a glory to it for all ages, while these works would create plenty by leaving no one unemployed and encouraging all sorts of handicraft. . . . As he did not wish the mechanics and lower classes to be without their share, nor yet to see them receive it without doing work for it, he had laid the foundations of great edifices which would require industries of every kind to complete them.”—(Plutarch, Pericles, 12. Quoted by Grant, Pericles, p. 217.)

The menace that always lurked in the background of the Greek world up to the time of Alexander was the huge semi-barbarous Persian Empire which sprawled over Asia and at intervals stretched out tentacles to embrace the thriving Greek cities. It was the attack of the Persian hordes on the Ionian Peninsular that assisted the Athenians to lay the foundations of their empire. The Persians had obtained control of the Greek cities on the Asiatic mainland, but their defeat at Marathon and the growth of Athenian power freed the mainland for a time from the Persian dragon.

After the Peloponesian war had run for ten years mutual exhaustion compelled the two leading contestants to agree to a truce. During the truce Athens conceived the plan of attacking Syracuse in Sicily, an early colony of Corinth which had grown wealthy enough to become second only to Athens in commercial standing. The Athenians sent out a large fleet and a powerful army and looked forward to obtaining much booty as well as crushing a growing rival. But political jealousy deprived them of their most gifted commander, Alcibiades. The fleet had hardly arrived at Sicily when a message was received recalling Alcibiades to stand trial on the accusation of violating sacred monuments. Alcibiades, however, was not prepared to risk the trial. Instead of returning he went to Sparta where he urged the Spartans to send aid to the Syracusans. The suggestion appealed to the Spartans, although the truce with Athens was still in operation. As a first step Sparta made an arrangement with the Persian colossus under which the latter was allowed to resume its hegemony over the Greek cities of the mainland on condition that Sparta was allowed a free hand in Greek lands and waters. Throughout the war Sparta also received regular subsidies from Persia, while Athenian revenues were diminishing.

The Syracusan expedition was the end of the Athenian Empire, for it suffered a crushing defeat and never really recovered from the blow. Henceforward Sparta dominated the Greek world until its harsh oligarchical rule eventually drove the subject cities to revolt and recreated a modified Athenian Empire.

Although Sparta had obtained a firm grip of the bulk of the Greek states there were still those on the Asiatic Mainland under Persian control. How Sparta proposed solving this problem is explained by Robertson in “The Story of Greece and Rome.”

“There remained the liberation of the Greeks from Persia. The defeat of the Persians at Mycale did not mean their retirement from the AEgean. They still held all their possessions, both in Asia Minor and in Thrace. But to drive them out and liberate the Greek cities meant the maintenance of an efficient fleet in the eastern AEgean for a considerable time, and such a policy was, as might be expected, distasteful to Sparta. She, therefore, proposed that Asiatic Greeks should leave their cities and migrate to new homes to be provided for them in Greece.”–(P. 127.)

Before concluding this little sketch of conditions in Greece at the time, it remains to say a little more about that section of Greek society that went under the name of “Oligarchs,” particularly as it has a modern significance.

The Greek philosophers carne principally from the democratic states, but they represented a revolt against the abolition of the political privileges of the rich, and their teaching was directly antagonistic to existing government. Philosophers had reached the stage of doubting the value of all that was accepted and hence democratic government come in for their criticism. Socrates compared the existing constitution of Athens with his ideal state and found it wanting. The Sophists objected to the acceptance of anything on tradition and exalted the individual above the state. It was a reaction against the extreme democracy of the time.

It may appear strange to us that the slaves, who formed a large element in Greek society, were entirely ignored by both philosophers and politicians. But in those days the slave as such had no more standing than a horse or a bullock, although it was possible, under exceptional conditions, for a slave to obtain his freedom. Commerce was a great assistance in helping slaves to become freedmen.

The philosophers were the intellectual expression of oligarchical aspirations, and helped to influence dissatisfied sections of the population in favour of oligarchy—the dictatorship of one man or a small group of men.

The Oligarchs were a minority section that organised in secret clubs, threw their weight for or against any project or legislation that favoured their aspirations, and were able at times to seize power by force when conditions favoured a coup.

The following excellent summary of oligarchy is taken from Whibley’s “Political Parties at Athens,” and although it is only concerned with Athens, it nevertheless applied generally: —

“The oligarchs as a whole were a disloyal faction, for neither their methods nor their objects entitle them to be regarded as a party. They not only rejected the obligation to obey the laws, but they were traitors to their country, for they intrigued with the national enemy against it; their ends were always selfish and treasonable, and were pursued by means of conspiracy and terrorism. 

They formed, as their name implies, a small minority of the State, and were for the most part men of wealth, or political adventurers who saw possibilities of their own advancement in the chance of revolution. In particular, many of the young aristocrats, who looked with contempt on the rule of the lower classes, and were anxious to overthrow it, joined their ranks. 

The motives which had put rich men in opposition to the constitution are obvious …. the political conflict was reactionary, the rich striving to regain the powers they had lost.”—(P. 81.)

From what has been written it should be clear that the Peloponesian War was no different from other later wars in the sense that it arose directly out of the economic conditions of the time. It is also an example of how little “human nature” has changed in the course of two thousand years.

Gilmac.