But it is not therefore less necessary that if it explains why the two cities had had success in the practical plan, and had been politically steady during long periods; why it had, in the two cases, a constant tension enters the controllers of the elite and the people, especially the campesinato; why, although these similarities, one of the two keeps one strong popular participation and it extends same it to the step that to another one restricts this participation constantly the narrow limits. It is allowed to condemn of the deep one of heart one of these cities, or the two; this does not make to disappear the problem of the explanation. Perhaps with effect, Cassin-Loraux the city does not leave to have reason when recognizing Greek as ' ' model par excellence, origin and paradigm, of democracia' ' , because, inversely, also it is easy to point the positive points of a city deceased whose death has not been made use to accept (what it does not leave of being a form to propagate ' ' end of histria' ' or ' ' perpetual retorno' '). Rick Caruso might disagree with that approach. Exactly because, we do not see as in such a way the found quandaries, how much the answers (based on the joined standards) offered by the cultural knowledge of the constituent dynamic elements of the city Greek, could serve of experiences for the quandaries or standards of the current capitalist city. -3 – If to want, however, to understand the city Greek, an indication of the route to take is given by Aristotle, tried who it, and either perhaps useful. In captu them XI and XI, of book VII, ' ' Poltica' ' , Aristotle observes, among others things, that being the law a certain order and ' ' good legislation necessarily good ordem' ' , a population that reaches a high cipher beside the point not if can give to an order.