_Labor and industry._—Aristotle’s attitude to labor, the third factor in production, is similar to that of Plato, though he lays greater emphasis on the evil physical and moral effect of the “banausic” arts. They are defined as those that “render men unfit for the practice of virtue.”[607] They not only cause the body to degenerate,[608] but, being “mercenary” employments, they also vulgarize the soul.[609] The occupations that require the most physical labor are the most “slavish.”[610] The life of artisans and laborers is mean (φαῦλος) and has no business with virtue.[611] The citizen youth should be taught none of the illiberal pursuits of the tradesmen.[612] No citizen should enter into industrial labor or retail trade, since they are ignoble (ἀγεννής) and hostile to virtue.[613] Even all the agricultural work must be performed by slaves, that the citizens may have leisure for personal development and for service to the state.[614] In addition to his other objections to retail trade and the arts, Aristotle considers them to be naturally unjust, since they take something from him with whom they deal.[615] Indeed, the productive classes have but slight recognition in his ideal state. They seem to be tolerated only as a necessary evil, and are in a state of limited slavery ἀφωρισμένην τινὰ δουλείαν. Virtue is even less possible for them than for slaves, and they lead a less tolerable life.[616] All hired labor belongs to the category of “false finance” which degrades individual and state alike.[617] The state that produces a multitude of mechanics and but few hoplites can never be great.[618] Here we have the very antithesis of the modern commercial standpoint. However, the truth is not all with the moderns, for a highly developed commerce and industry and the general prosperity of the mass of the people are not always necessarily coincident. Moreover, it is hardly fair to interpret Aristotle too rigidly. He understood well the necessity of craftsmen and all other industrial workers to the state.[619] The burden of his attack was directed against retail trade. Like Plato’s his prejudice had a moral and political root,[620] and was arrayed against the extreme application to labor, and against its false purpose, rather than against labor itself. He insisted that even intellectual work, when carried to an extreme, and pursued with the wrong aim, might become equally demoralizing.[621]