Friday 1 May 2020
ARISTOTLE'S ECONOMICS - Part Three of our "The State in Economic Theory"
What makes the inversion of this age-old
nexus between State and economy ever more peremptory and pressing is the fact
that now more than ever we are witnessing how it is not the economy that is the
foundation of the State but much rather it is the “statality” of being human (Hegel's Logos of the Objective State and Marx's notion of "species-conscious being" or Gattungswesen) that is culpably obfuscated by “economic
science”. The great part of Aristotle’s study on the State, the Politics, is devoted to what he deems to
be its foundation – the oikos or
household whose “regulation” or “laws” (nomia)
lend the name to present-day economics (oiko-nomia).
Since Aristotle, and then thanks to his influence through Antiquity and the
Christian Middle Ages, it is the laws of the household that found the reproduction of human society intended
as societas civilis and not vice versa – that is, it is not the
“statality” of human being that founds economics. With Aristotle, “the freedom
of the ancients” answers to the physis
of human beings – the zoon politikon.
This is the active side of the animal
sociale in that human beings seek ful-filment
in Politics, in the State. Hence, the State is the ethico-political perfection of its citizens in the sense
that the State’s ethico-political dimension, quite distinct from its police and
military functions, is an emanation from the citizens as animalia rationalia (rational animals) distinct from other animals
by the faculty of language and therefore of reason.
In Aristotelian metaphysics, the “nature” (physis) of an entity is to pro-duce or
generate its “purpose” (telos). The
nature of an entity is that without which that entity could not exist (its raison
d’etre in French): the progeny of an entity is the telos of its physis. Hence,
it is in the nature of the household to give rise to the State. The State
exists because it is the ec-sistence of the household: the State is the telos of the household. The State is the
telos (purpose) of the family household
as the “natural” reproductive unit whose “nature” or physis it is to bring forth the State. But the nature of the
household itself is constituted by that without which human beings could not
exist – the union of man and woman. That is why for Aristotle it is not the
individual but the household that takes precedence – because no individual
could exist without a household. In turn, Aristotle contends, the household
could not exist, would not be self-sufficient, without its more developed
progeny – the State.
Yet, it is not the State that sanctions the
rationality and ethico-political perfection of its citizens but it is the
citizens who ful-fil and per-fect themselves by establishing the
State. In Aristotle’s theory, the citizens play an active role in the formation and life of the State understood as a
polity founded on the household as its natural reproductive unit. But they
achieve this perfection only in the ethico-political
sphere, not in the reproductive and economic one of the household! Because the
State is perceived as an agglomerate of households, so far as the reproductive
and economic spheres are concerned, the State serves merely as an adventitious
mechanical instrument of protection against internal disruption (police) and
external enemies (army). There is no “statality” in the sphere of social
reproduction which is left entirely to “the household” - except where the
household threatens social peace by exceeding, by going beyond, the bounds of
its reproduction and thereby defeats the pursuit of the ethical ideal of the
good life.
However much Aristotle may insist on its
“self-sufficiency”, the State does not play a reproductive role in the society
he describes given that its scope is limited to internal and external order. Here
the ambit of the State, its role in society, is merely confined to the ethical
one of “temperance and liberality” on the active side, and of policing and
defence on the negative side. But in the first case the State turns out to be a
wholly ideal, moral and ethical entity, and in the second case a purely
mechanical and militarist one. There simply is no organic nexus between the
existence of the State and the needs of households – there is no “statality” in
the households which are presented instead as self-contained and “self-sufficient
units”! Despite his contention to the contrary, the household Aristotle
describes exists only ontogenetically,
that is to say, it is capable of subsisting
independently of the State! In
reality, it is painfully evident from Aristotle’s exposition of his political
theory that the interests of the household in expanding its genetic and
territorial reach – its telos of
“populating the earth” - will inevitably threaten the integrity of the State as
a regulator of households and as a defender of them against external threats –
because the expansion of households will make the State liable to internal
dissolution if it is uneven, and also necessarily be liable to external attack
if it is excessive – except for the entirely “idealistic and moralistic” Aristotelian
prescription of “temperance” and “liberality”.
What makes Aristotle’s theory of the State
idealistic and voluntarist is the fact that the interests of households and those
of the State do not coincide – which is why Aristotle has to appeal passionately
to the extrinsic philosophical ideal of “living well”. Of the two aspects of “the
good life” as prescribed by Aristotle, one, temperance (phronesis or prudence), shrivels into a
pious renunciation of profiteering by privileging use values over exchange values,
whilst the other, liberality or the pursuit of excellence in the arts,
degenerates into the cynicism of “knowledge is power”.
The incompatibility of the interests of the
household in expanding its family and possessions and that of the State in regulating
this impulse by means of the philo-sophic “ideal” of phronesis is made painfully evident by Aristotle’s invocation of it
as a cure for the intrinsic ills of the household economy and its inevitable
descent into the blind pursuit of wealth on which the Greek city-state was
founded to its unavoidable detriment and undoing. Thus, the State in Antiquity was
bound to remain a superstructural entity that was understood only in its
ethico-political but not in its metabolic reproductive dimension –
the dimension of social labour. The State legislates only over the policing of autonomous households in their relations
inter se and over the defense of the
polity because the households have no organic relation to one another: their
interests inter se and therefore vis-à-vis the State are neither co-extensive
nor harmonious – in fact, they are antagonistic.
As a result, even the apparent
dis-interestedness of leisurely philosophical pursuits which are the
deliberative active foundation of the Greek city-state is ultimately dependent
on the material “economic” ability of the household to
support its master, the citizen who forms the State. But given the obvious
antagonism between the material interests of individual households, this
“economic” side of the State will never suffice to secure its survival as a
free deliberative assembly of citizens! Aristotle fails to apply to his own
political theory the critique that he deploys to dismiss Plato’s attempts in
the Republic and the Laws to prescribe the forms of external
intervention of the State on the autonomy of the household: given that the
household remains the fundamental unit of the State and households have
conflicting interests, it is impossible for the State to reconcile the
divergent interests of households except in an idealistic and moralistic sense
prescribed by phronesis.
Indeed, as Marx’s and other historical
analyses of the ancient economy have shown (Karl Polanyi, The Great
Transformation, Moses Finley, The Ancient Economy, Perry Anderson), Aristotle’s
impassioned defence of the household and virulent condemnation of
“wealth-seeking” is disarmingly moralistic or velleitary in that the
“speculation” of chrematistics (commerce for the sake of profit) which
so obviously endangers the survival of the Greek economy based on the
household, can only be “tempered” by the pursuit of “the good life” or
“excellence” epitomised by the love of wisdom or philo-sophy. But given that
the speculative dis-interestedness of
philo-sophy is supported materially by the “speculative” pursuit of
wealth by the household (chrematistics or finance), it is quite simply
impossible for philo-sophy, the real source of phronesis, to restrain its
material speculative counterpart in the chrematistics blindly pursued by the
household!
In Aristotle’s political theory, economics (the law of the household) is
distinguished from chrematistics (the
pursuit of abstract wealth for its own sake). Just how inconsistent and
specious Aristotle’s plea for temperance and just how deficient his theory of
the State are can be inferred from how the philosophical “speculation”
that supposedly leads to temperance and liberality – to phronesis – rapidly and inexorably degenerates into the financial
speculation that he so vehemently decries, in the example of Thales, the
philosopher who, when reproached by his peers for wasting his time on pointless
philosophical “speculation”, determined to show how knowledge can turn into power
by “speculating” on the market for the production of olive oil by monopolising
olive trees and oil-making equipment at a time when prices were low only to
make a fortune by selling them when prices rose. The fact that knowledge
(sophia) can demonstrate its power
only by turning from philosophical speculation to financial speculation (chrematistike) shows just how
contradictory and pathetic Aristotle’s pleas for temperance and liberality –
for “living well” – are, because they are founded on his incomprehension of the
inevitable inconsistent dynamics of the Greek city-state founded on private
households. Here, the “speculation” of philosophy insidiously turns into the
“speculation” of chrematistics just as swiftly and inevitably as the law of the
household, oiko-nomia, was bound to
turn by its internal contradictions into that of “finance”, chrematistics, and
thereby come to threaten the very existence of the Greek polis or
city-State! (In similar vein, Ernst Mach in Erkenntnis
und Irrtum champions pure scientific research against its application for
gain.)
In his
review of Classical political theory in Theorie
und Praxis, Habermas is too pre-occupied with decrying the abandonment of
the ethico-political understanding of politics in Antiquity – which he,
following Arendt [in The Human Condition],
is very eager to praise - in the social theory of Thomism and the mechanistic
scientism of Machiavelli and Hobbes, and so fails to stress the purely
“idealistic/moralistic” or “voluntarist” nature of Aristotelian politics. This
is the limit also of Herman E. Daly’s “ecological economics” directed precisely
at this distinction between the household and chrematistics. Daly condemns
modern economics for promoting chrematistics by neglecting “economics” in the
Aristotelian sense (see hisThe Common
Good). He fails to see that economic science [chrematistics] can return to
the use values of the household only once “the household” itself has disappeared
with the abolition of the individual labours of the wage relation. Daly sees
“the irrational pursuit of wealth or exchange value for its own sake” – as did also
Aristotle and Weber and the entire Scholastic opposition to usury – but cannot
explain why the “use values” pursued by the economics of “households” have led
inevitably to the exchange values of chrematistics and therefore to capitalism
and its “science”, economics! Thus, his call for a return to the economics of
the household, just like Habermas’s nostalgia for Aristotelian politics, remains
voluntaristic because it fails to see
that it is not “economic science”, or Habermas’s “scientized political science”
since Machiavelli and Hobbes, that is the problem but rather the interests that lie behind the imposition
of the wage relation by the capitalist State and its “private enterprise”.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment