SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Hugo Cerqueira)
Date:
Fri Mar 31 17:18:19 2006
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (42 lines)
----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
I agree with Peter Stillman about Aristotle's economics. However, I  
find no basis for his belief that Marx considered Aristotle "a kind of  
reactionary".   
 
Marx refers to Aristotle as "the great thinker who was the first to  
analyse so many forms, whether of thought, society, or Nature, and  
amongst them also the form of value" (Capital, volume I, chapter 1,  
section 3). He notes approvingly that Aristotle perceived that "the  
money-form of commodities is only the further development of the  
simple form of value" and that the value-relation requires the  
equalisation of the commodities (the comparation of two different  
commodities as commensurable quantities).   
 
For Marx, Aristotle could not develop his analysis of value only  
because the historical conditions of Greek society (slavery) prevented  
him to see human labour as the essence of value: "The brilliancy of  
Aristotle's genius is shown by this alone, that he discovered, in the  
expression of the value of commodities, a relation of equality. The  
peculiar conditions of the society in which he lived, alone prevented  
him from discovering what, 'in truth,' was at the bottom of this  
equality."   
 
Marx criticized many of his contemporaries that were trying to turn the  
capitalist social relations back to a previous form, instead of promoting  
new forms (socialist) of social relations. But the fact that Aristotle  
disapproved the development of "chrematistic" (the art of making  
money, as something opposed to "oeconomic", the art of gaining a  
livelihood) and saw that it could erode the social relations which  
prevailed at his time doesn't turn him into a reactionary. As Karl Polanyi  
pointed out (and I think Peter Stillman would agree with him),  
Aristotle's disapproval of "chrematistic" reveals his sensibility to the  
potential disruptive effects of money-making trade and usury.   
 
Hugo Cerqueira 
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask] 
 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2