Write an academic essay on the topic "The concepts of slave labor in ancient society (Plato and Aristotle)" for 1200 words, based on the text: "The division of labor is the basis for the organization of modern society in any sphere of life and production. Without the division of labor activity, it is difficult to imagine the modern economy, as well as modern society as a whole. It is quite possible that without the division of labor, humanity would have stopped at the primitive stage of its development, because it appeared even among primitive tribes, when there was a primitive division of duties of a man (whose duties included ensuring the safety of the tribe and hunting) and a woman (engaged in bearing and raising offspring). The historically necessary collapse of the tribal community and the emergence of slavery created opportunities for a broader division of labor, which, in turn, was a powerful impetus for the flourishing of the ancient Greek world. Problems and the need for the division of labor have been the subject of study of thinkers since the time of ancient philosophy and continued throughout the development of society. It was the ancient thinkers who laid down the basic principles of this concept. Philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, based on the study of natural economy, production in ancient Greek workshops and primitive trade, were able to explain in their writings the need for a division of labor. Plato, in search of a model of an ideal state, notes the difference in human nature and the individuality of his abilities. The impossibility of each person to provide himself with everything necessary for life is the reason why it is necessary to divide the labor of citizens into separate crafts. For the most efficient use of temporary, physical and material resources, the thinker proposed the concept of the division of labor, because, in his opinion, you can do everything in greater quantities, better and easier if you do one job according to your natural inclinations, and moreover, on time, without being distracted by other works. In Plato's ideal state, each citizen is engaged exclusively in one craft, the ability for which he possessed from birth. He will do his job all his life, not being distracted by other things. The presence of various needs of each citizen, but limited abilities to satisfy them, according to Plato, gives rise to the state, since it is it that is able to organize society in such a way that the abilities of each go to satisfy the needs of all other citizens: each person attracts one or the other for satisfaction of a particular need. Feeling the need for many things, many people gather together to live together and help each other: such a joint settlement is what we call the state [4]. At the same time, he noted that the division of labor is a natural phenomenon for society and absolutely necessary. Justice, according to Plato, consists in the fact that each principle does its own thing and does not interfere in other people's affairs. In addition, justice requires, according to Plato, the appropriate hierarchical subordination of these principles in the name of the whole: the ability to reason (that is, philosophers who personify this ability) should dominate; furious beginning (i.e. warriors) - to be armed protection, obeying the first beginning, both of these beginnings control the lustful beginning (artisans, farmers and other producers), which “by its nature craves wealth. Plato was committed to the need to attach a worker to his specialty for life. Plato saw the most important division not between individual professions, but between managers and those who were ruled. However, he also noted the importance of those who do not have the ability to manage and do all the hard-physical work, since if it were not for this category of people, managers would have to do all the hard work themselves. This means that just as the governed need managers, so the latter depend on the citizens who obey them. The ancient Greek thinker did not attribute slaves to any of the categories, considering them only an instrument of production and labor. Warriors and philosophers Plato attributed to the upper class, while artisans and philosophers occupied the lower class. However, according to the ancient Greek philosopher, the basis of the state economy was agriculture and subsistence farming. In addition, all land belonged to the state by right of ownership. Obviously, a contradiction arises: why do citizens who provide one of the basic branches of government belong to the lower class? After all, if we draw an analogy with the military industry, the maintenance of which was also necessary, the warriors still occupied the upper class, in contrast to the farmers. Plato did not see any negative aspects in the division of labor, however, a follower of Socrates, Xenophon, believed that engaging in one type of craft spoils not only the physical condition of a citizen, but besides, the craft leaves very little free time to take care of friends and hometown. Therefore, artisans are considered unfit for a friendly community and poor defenders of the fatherland. And in some cities, especially in those that are famous for military affairs, none of the citizens is even allowed to engage in crafts. Obviously, the thinker was concerned about the impossibility of participation of the majority of citizens in the political affairs of the policy, as well as the inability of their participation in military affairs. Perhaps such concern was caused by the fact that Xenophon himself belonged to the class of horsemen and from childhood was trained in military affairs, since his childhood fell on the period of the Peloponnesian War. The military situation also left its mark on the work of the thinker, who divided the managers into those who controlled the population and rural workers; and on the rulers who control the armed force and fortresses. At the same time, according to Xenophon, equal care is needed for both agriculture and military affairs, since the farmers feed the soldiers, and they, in turn, provide protection not only to the farmers, but also to the state as a whole. But Xenophon, despite the negative properties of the concept under consideration, was not opposed to the division of labor and believed that a person performs the simplest work in the best possible way. Therefore, it is necessary to divide production among several workers. He demonstrated this model of division by the example of shoe workshops, in which it is necessary to divide production not only into men's and women's shoes, but also into the performance of certain types of work: cutting, marking fabric, sewing, and so on. The positions of Aristotle and Plato on the issue of the division of labor are very similar, since Plato was Aristotle's teacher and had a significant influence on his worldview. Aristotle drew many provisions in his works on the state and society from the ideas of his teacher. He was also a supporter of the concept of the division of labor, since the occupation of the same craft allowed a citizen to master it to perfection and produce benefits to provide for all the inhabitants of the policy. The ancient thinker, exploring the question of the best state system, noted that citizens should not lead the life that artisans or merchants lead (such a life is ignoble and runs counter to virtue); citizens should not be farmers either, as they will need leisure [1]. And only such two types of activity as military affairs and a meeting on what is useful, and a discussion of what is fair (in other words, management functions) Aristotle recognized and made the basis of a better political system. But a fundamental question arose: should these functions be concentrated in the hands of one person or should they be divided among different people in accordance with their capabilities? Aristotle gives an unambiguous answer to this question: in some respects - the same, in some respects - different. Since for the performance of each of these duties people of different ages are needed, and for one thing prudence is required, for another - physical strength, then - different; but since, on the other hand, it is inconceivable that people who have the opportunity to exercise force and resist, constantly put up with their subordinate position, then - one and the same. In accordance with the fact that nature has awarded physical strength to the young, and prudence to the elders, it is useful and fair to make an appropriate distribution of duties between both. Such a division will correspond to their value. Speaking of justice, Aristotle draws a clear line between physical and mental labor, giving preference to the latter. According to the philosopher, only slaves should be engaged in physical labor, while mental labor was valued higher and was the lot of thinkers. Slave labor must be organized by slave-owning householders, who, in addition to organizing the labor of their slaves, had to engage in various sciences and arts in order to differ in mental abilities from those whom they manage. According to philosophers, the impossibility of one individual to provide himself with everything necessary for life creates the need for the division and cooperation of labor. This, in turn, leads to the emergence of the first markets, thanks to which goods are exchanged between individuals in order to satisfy mutual needs. In addition to markets for organizing the entire process of production, life and exchange, the first states come to the rescue. Thus, the inferiority of a single individual and the many needs that accompany him throughout his life lead to the emergence of the first states in which the mechanism of production, exchange and consumption is best adjusted. Comparing the organization of labor proposed by ancient thinkers and the one that has developed in the modern world, including in Russia, it should be noted that the justification for the need for the division of labor was taken as the basis, but the organization of such a division itself is very different. There is no need to prove the positive impact of the division of labor in modern society, because, as in ancient Greek society, this allows you to reduce time, physical and quantitative resources. Thanks to the concept of the division of labor, people receive professional education, improve their skills in a certain field of activity and, as a result, realize their abilities for a certain work at a professional level, thanks to which the population receives professionally rendered services and products of the appropriate quality. However, in modern developed countries, unlike the ancient Greek ones, there is no that rigid boundary between physical and mental labor. Modern man, like the ancient Greek citizen, is unable to satisfy many of his needs on his own. To do this, he has to resort to the help of citizens who specialize in other activities. But unlike the ancient society, thanks to the principles of freedom and equality, including in the labor sphere, every citizen has the right to engage in any type of activity, regardless of origin or social status. This does not at all mean that the concept of the division of labor is no longer relevant and that all citizens are simultaneously engaged in various activities. This only means that the concept of the division of labor, having gone through a long history, having fallen under the influence of democratic principles, has become even more perfect and loyal. Thus, the ancient philosophers laid the foundations for the concept of the division of labor, which are also used in the modern economy. The positive and negative aspects of such a division in the sphere of production and provision of services are taken into account by modern economists, legislators and law enforcers for the most successful organization of society. The division of labor, used by mankind for centuries, has shown itself to be the most effective model of labor organization, capable of realizing the abilities of an individual in a certain field of activity and thereby satisfying the needs of everyone else".