It is evident from the preceding outline of Aristotle’s negative and positive doctrine on the matter of private property that his system is in substantial agreement with that of Plato’s second state.[848] Besides the points of similarity noted above, he agrees with his predecessor in emphasizing strongly the power of the state over the life of the citizens. Both insist that the citizen belongs, not to himself, but to the state, and can realize his best life only through the state.[849] Thus Aristotle is far from being a defender of private property in the absolute sense. On the other hand, his emphasis upon the social obligation of individual possession is, if not socialistic, at least very modern. He is certainly a much better socialist than the alleged communist of the _Republic_, whom he criticizes so severely. Like the Plato of the _Laws_, he is a semi-collectivist. As Barker has observed,[850] Aristotle thought in terms of land, while modern socialism thinks in terms of capital and labor. Both standpoints involve social ownership and the limitation of the individual, and in this respect the Greek thinker was socialistic in tendency. But despite their social spirit and their trend toward nationalism, which is so strong in all progressive countries today, neither he nor Plato was a socialist, in the modern sense, in spirit or in aim.[851] Any attempts at direct comparison with modern socialism, therefore, are likely to be fanciful and confusing. Whatever analogy there is between them is of a very general nature and should not be pressed.[852] Footnote 517: Cf. _infra_ for the _Economica_, which is generally recognised to be from a later member of the Peripatetic school, about 250-200 B.C.; cf. Susemihl, _Economica_, Intro. to the ed.; Croiset, _op. cit._, IV, 710; Zeller, _op. cit._, II, 2, 944 ff. Moreover, it deals chiefly with the practical phase of economics. On the other hand, we shall cite _Eud. Eth._ and _Mag. mor._ under Aristotle, since, though later than him, they merely imitate his thought, in so far as they touch economics. For the numerous and diverse writings ascribed to Aristotle, cf. Christ, _op. cit._, IV [1905], 684 ff. Footnote 518: B. St. Hilaire (preface to his French translation of the _Politics_, pp. 4-11) calls him “le créateur de l’économie politique.” Zmavc (_Archiv f. d. Gesch. d. Philos._ [1899], pp. 407 ff.) also tends to overestimate him. Footnote 519: Zmavc (_ibid_, and also _Zeitschr. f. d. gesammt. Staatswiss._ [1902], pp. 48 ff.) emphasizes this fact. Footnote 520: _Pol._ i. 1. 1252_a_7-13, cited on p. 9, n. 5, a criticism of Plato’s _Politics_ 258E-259C; on the truth in this confusion, cf. p. 10. Even Adam Smith said: “What is wise with a family can hardly be foolish with a great kingdom.” Footnote 521: