>>520737972
You know, Aristotle said the same for Plato.
I assume you're thinking of De Jouvenel.

This De Jouvenel wrote scathingly–

>Where will it all end? In the destruction of all other command for the benefit of one alone – that of the State. In each man's absolute freedom from every family and social authority, a freedom the price of which is complete submission to the State. In the complete equality as between themselves of all citizens, paid for by their equal abasement before the power of their absolute master – the State. In the disappearance of every constraint which does not emanate from the State, and in denial of every pre-eminence which is not approved by the State. In a word, it ends in the atomization of society, and in the rupture of every private tie linking man and man, whose only bond is their common bondage to the State. The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet: that was their predestined course.

-Bertrand De Jouvenel

<The extremes of Individualism and Socialism meet:

Now Aristotle criticized Plato for atomization as well.
Aristotle to Plato - atomization "From being a State, it becomes a Family, and from being a Family, an individual"
>since the nature of a State is to be plurality, and in tending to greater unity, from being a State, it becomes a Family, and from being a Family, an Individual; for the Family may be said to be more than the State, and the Individual than the family. So that we ought not to attain this greatest unity even if we could, for it would be the destruction of the State. Again, a State is not made up only of so many men, but of different kinds of men.

Aristotle's idea of a mixed constitution is a partnership of clans (the basis for Multi-Party Democracy today and the idea of Aristocracy you are talking about, the partnership of noble estates).
Plato advocated more unitary Statist ideals that Aristotle blames for atomization.