VI

It must be borne in mind that production being carried on mainly by slaves, who formed part of the family of the citizen, there was practically no exploitation of labour under the form of “free-contract” such as is the key-stone of modern capitalism. The “rich man” of antiquity was of the nature of a hoarder of treasure. The notion of increasing this treasure by means of the process of circulation was almost entirely foreign to him. His idea was to preserve it intact, either in the shape of houses, furniture, slaves, etc., or in that of the precious metals which he would probably bury. This wealth did not create wealth, except occasionally in the form of simple and direct usury, for which, in most cases, the borrower had in the last resort to pay with his skin, by becoming the property or chattel-slave of the lender, thus terminating the transaction. The “rich man” added to his hoard of course when he could, but the addition was generally altogether independent of the existent hoard itself. Hence the wealth of the “rich man” was constantly at hand in a concrete shape to be directly appropriated. In the disturbances which occurred in some of the Greek cities, – e.g., Samos, between the rich and the poor, this hoarded wealth often changed hands in the lump, so to speak, two or three times. The poor citizens would rise and drive the rich out, and take possession of their wealth; the rich would subsequently return in force and retake their property.