• @redtea
    link
    21 year ago

    Book V.9 (the italics suggest Aristotle would not see a capitalist as virtuous and might see the wage labourer as harmed even if they voluntarily accept less value than they produce, i.e. in the market):

    Of the questions we intended to discuss two still remain for discussion; (3) whether it is the man who has assigned to another more than his share that acts unjustly, or he who has the excessive share, and (4) whether it is possible to treat oneself unjustly. [I]f the former alternative is possible and the distributor acts unjustly and not the man who has the excessive share, then if a man assigns more to another than to himself, knowingly and voluntarily, he treats himself unjustly; which is what modest people seem to do, since the virtuous man tends to take less than his share. … [H]e suffers nothing contrary to his own wish, so that he is not unjustly treated as far as this goes, but at most only suffers harm.

    Men think that acting unjustly is in their power, and therefore that being just is easy. … [B]ut how actions must be done and distributions effected in order to be just, to know this is a greater achievement than knowing what is good for the health; though even there, [knowledge] applied with a view to producing health, is no less an achievement than that of being a physician.

    In Book VIII.10, Aristotle reveals the type of system he reveres and the type of systems that he detests:

    There are three kinds of constitution, and an equal number of deviation-forms–perversions, as it were, of them. The constitutions are monarchy, aristocracy, and thirdly that which is based on a property qualification, which it seems appropriate to call timocratic, though most people are wont to call it polity. The best of these is monarchy, the worst timocracy.

    The deviation from monarchy is tyrany; for both are forms of one-man rule, but there is the greatest difference between them; the tyrant looks to his own advantage, the king to that of his subjects. For a man is not a king unless he is sufficient to himself and excels his subjects in all good things; and such a man needs nothing further; therefore he will not look to his own interests but to those of his subjects; for a king who is not like that would be a mere titular king.

    Now tyranny is the very contrary of this; the tyrant pursues his own good. And it is clearer in the case of tyranny that it is the worst deviation-form; but it is the contrary of the best that is worst. Monarchy passes over into tyranny; for tyranny is the evil form of one-man rule and the bad king becomes a tyrant.

    Aristocracy passes over into oligarchy by the badness of the rulers, who distribute contrary to equity what belongs to the city-all or most of the good things to themselves, and office always to the same people, paying most regard to wealth; thus the rulers are few and are bad men instead of the most worthy.

    Timocracy passes over into democracy; for these are coterminous, since it is the ideal even of timocracy to be the rule of the majority, and all who have the property qualification count as equal. Democracy is the least bad of the deviations; for in its case the form of constitution is but a slight deviation. These then are the changes to which constitutions are most subject; for these are the smallest and easiest transitions.

    I disagree with the type of system that Aristotle preferred – he was no communist. But I fail to see how anyone can read him and find support for markets and especially not capitalist markets, which are principally based on unequal exchange.