It has been over two millennia since Aristotle penned his work Politics. If the influence of Aristotle’s seminal work has largely been recognized by thinkers such as Hannah Arendt, Leo Strauss, or Michael Sandel, it has gone somewhat unappreciated that Karl Marx has significantly interacted with his work. In presenting key criticism and commentary on Aristotle’s writing, he contributed to bringing these ancient texts to the forefront of the realm of the modern. In advancing on Aristotle’s conception of value (the economic worth of a good that is produced, that is), Marx suggests a critical perspective that acknowledges the societal and ideological constraints of ancient Greek lifeways, culminating in the annexation of an anti-capitalist labour theory. This will lead Marx to assess that, even though Aristotle reaches many relevant conclusions, his justifications for enslavement through the notion of the natural hierarchy of humankind renders his argument insufficient.
Introducing Aristotle’s Conception of Value
In Book I of his Politics, Aristotle mobilizes conceptions of natural law to differentiate between two forms of wealth and resource acquisition, drawing a distinction between “natural” and “unnatural” acquisitions and trade. Natural acquisition, he says, are those relating to the foundational necessities that each subdivision of society – household, village, city-state – ought to procure to sustain themselves; the mundane processes of exchange between producers who each have different expertise. This form of obtainment is natural as it is a foundational prerequisite for stable social, political, and economic regulation. In essence, Aristotle views basic transactions as an organically emergent part of (what were at his time) modern state forms.
Contrastingly, unnatural acquisitions refer to the project of attaining wealth beyond necessity, with goals of limitless profit-making and a framework valorizing abundance. Their unnaturalness stems from the ‘exceeding beyond’, ultimately betraying the natural purpose of wealth and the resources at hand – sustenance, rather than extravagance. The unnatural form ought to be “hated because what is acquired [from the unnatural form] comes from the currency itself and not from the thing for which it was produced” (Aristotle, 1258B). This form of acquisition facilitates a specific type of exchange, “the commercial sort,” which is most concerned with “what way will make the most profit” (1257B). In such exchanges, “the currency seems to be nonsense, a matter of convention through-and-through and nothing natural because it is worth nothing when its users alter it and is not useful for any of the necessities” (1257B). The value of a currency is fickle and ever-changing, dependent solely on the condition that the individual concurs that there is such a thing as monetary value in the first place – it is foundationally unstable and conventional and, therefore, normatively worthless. What, then, is the equalizing force in which two objects can be made commensurable for exchange? Aristotle never addressed this question, but someone one day would.
Marx’s Answer to Aristotle’s Unanswerable Question
If Marx is often most known for his Communist Manifesto, a text that somewhat draws parallels to Aristotle’s theory of acquisition, it is, however, within the pages of his much lengthier Capital 1that he mentions Aristotle by name. Praising him for his careful analysis of value, he nuances his analysis by mentioning that Aristotle fatally fell short of uncovering “that equal something, that common substance” which facilitates transactions; Marx argues this to be human labour (Marx, 40). It is human labour that valueates all goods and assets into a system of value, assigning them economic meaning – it is human labour that makes sense of what is ‘naturally’ nonsensical. Surely, Aristotle lived within a society in which there was human labour – why, then, did he not include this piece to conclude his puzzle? The answer is enslavement.
The Ancient Hellenic world was a slave-oriented society, in which the practice of enslavement was not only enshrined into convention but stemmed from conceptions of the nature of individual life.2 In this way, Aristotle makes a theoretical mistake, stemming from his inability to recognize the value-producing nature of all forms of human labour. Indeed he considers some labour to be oriented not to the valuation of the worker through his ability to produce, but instead through the worker’s value and product of his works being fully subjected to another. This shortcoming is due to his loyalty to the idea that the enslaved person toils not for any economic reward, but rather is rightfully in alignment with their essential purpose (1254B10-20).
What arises from this discussion are the seemingly blatant paradoxes within Aristotle that Marx aids in illuminating that the ‘unnatural’ iteration of commoditized value is only made possible through the labour of enslaved people, which he views as definitively natural. The fact that all forms of labour are equal in value, maintains Marx, “cannot be deciphered, until the notion of human equality has already acquired the fixity of a popular prejudice” (Marx, 40). In essence, if Aristotle views the labour of enslaved people as a fulfillment of their metaphysical purpose – and such fulfillment is, therefore, valuable for them – it becomes extremely difficult to make sense of how a good bears post-production value. The labour of the enslaved, in this line of argument, is considered to be generating value for the enslaved themselves, a moral fulfilment of purpose that eclipses the need for any economic compensation. It becomes hidden, then, that it is labour itself that determines the worth of the output, and therefore its value – for the idea of labour is not understood to be a commodity in of itself. The equalizing force drawing commensurable economic value between two distinct goods thus remains unknowable and mystified until the labour that creates them is comprehensively and, without any exception, regarded as equal in value.
From this consideration, important conclusions can be drawn when it comes to the history of political ideas. This perfectly illustrates the referential and evolutionary nature of philosophy and politics alike – illuminating the vital historical dimension within both. While the ancient world may be thousands of years behind us, that does not mean that the ideas it put forth lack relevancy. On the contrary, in fact – it is only when we study the ideologies of the past that the realities of the now become truly clear. Any response to Marx, in this way, is an implicit response to Aristotle as well – an answer to a call made thousands of years ago. Let us always, then, take into deep consideration the offerings the history of philosophy has for us and never take for granted our current ideological landscape.
- Written with the help of Friedrich Engels, who co-authored the Communist Manifesto. ↩︎
- Aristotle himself presenting an extensive justification for ‘natural slavery,’’, stating that some people are simply born to be enslaved, and through enslavement their life’s purpose is fulfilled with the guidance of their master. ↩︎
Edited by Sofia V. Forlini
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and they do not reflect the position of the McGill Journal of Political Science or the Political Science Students’ Association.
Featured image by Midwest Society
References:
Marx, Karl, 1818-1883. “The Capital, a Critique of Political Economy.” Chicago: H. Regnery, 1959.
Plato., Bloom, A., & Kirsch, A. The Republic of Plato. Paperback third edition. New York: Basic Books, 2016