Re: Greed

["David B. Shemano" <dshemano@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ted Winslow writes:

>> > Is Marx making an empirical point?
>>
>> Yes.  It's an empirical claim about the psychology dominant in
>> capitalism.  The idea of "greed' as an irrational "passion" is ancient.
>>   As Marx points out in Capital, it can be found in Aristotle.
>>
>> > "Aristotle opposes Oeconomic to Chrematistic. He starts from the
>> > former. So far as it is the art of gaining a livelihood, it is limited
>> > to procuring those articles that are necessary to existence, and
>> > useful either to a household or the state. ?True wealth (o aleqinos
>> > ploutos) consists of such values in use; for the quantity of
>> > possessions of this kind, capable of making life pleasant, is not
>> > unlimited. There is, however, a second mode of acquiring things, to
>> > which we may by preference and with correctness give the name of
>> > Chrematistic, and in this case there appear to be no limits to riches
>> > and possessions. Trade (e kapelike is literally retail trade, and
>> > Aristotle takes this kind because in it values in use predominate)
>> > does not in its nature belong to Chrematistic, for here the exchange
>> > has reference only to what is necessary to themselves (the buyer or
>> > seller).? Therefore, as he goes on to show, the original form of trade
>> > was barter, but with the extension of the latter, there arose the
>> > necessity for money. On the discovery of money, barter of necessity
>> > developed into kapelike , into trading in commodities, and this again,
>> > in opposition to its original tendency, grew into Chrematistic, into
>> > the art of making money. Now Chrematistic is distinguishable from
>> > Oeconomic in this way, that "in the case of Chrematistic circulation
>> > is the source of riches poietike crematon ... dia chrematon diaboles .
>> > And it appears to revolve about money, for money is the beginning and
>> > end of this kind of exchange ( to nomisma stoiceion tes allages estin
>> > ). Therefore also riches, such as Chrematistic strives for, are
>> > unlimited. Just as every art that is not a means to an end, but an end
>> > in itself, has no limit to its aims, because it seeks constantly to
>> > approach nearer and nearer to that end, while those arts that pursue
>> > means to an end, are not boundless, since the goal itself imposes a
>> > limit upon them, so with Chrematistic, there are no bounds to its
>> > aims, these aims being absolute wealth. Oeconomic not Chrematistic has
>> > a limit ... the object of the former is something different from
>> > money, of the latter the augmentation of money.... By confounding
>> > these two forms, which overlap each other, some people have been led
>> > to look upon the preservation and increase of money ad infinitum as
>> > the end and aim of Oeconomic.? (Aristoteles, De Rep. edit. Bekker,
>> > lib. l. c. 8, 9. passim.)
>> > (<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm>)

I understand the Aristotelian argument -- that there is a difference in producing for use value and producing for money ad infinitum as an end in itself.  I understand the criticism of capitalism as an ideology that glorifies accumulation free of all restraint.  However, as an empirical point, is it your position that the typical businessman in modern capitalist society has a materially different subjective motivation than a typical businessman in say, Augustan Rome or 14th Century Venice?  Similarly, as an empirical point, in my experience, most people engaged in business, whether self-employed or employed in an organization, are not primarily motivated by money as an end (although some are), but by other goals that can be achieved through the use of money, such as providing for a family in a comfortable manner, etc.

David Shemano