Since the Middle Ages, Aristotle has been hailed as the father of economics. But recently classicists have maintained that he did no economics at all. This book clears up the anomaly. The author argues that Aristotle had a theory of money and commerce, but that it is ethical rather than economic. According to Aristotle ethics and economics are fundamentally opposed and can never be reconciled.

Aristotle's treatment of trade in the Politics book one is usually regarded as especially hostile, and this is put down to snobbery and political prejudice on his part. The Greeks often regarded trade as a degrading thing for a free man to engage in, and it would be surprising if Aristotle's view of trade were entirely unconnected with this Greek sensibility. But there should be something more definite than a loose general affinity if a charge of prejudice is to be (...) taken seriously. A balance of hostile judgements over argued cases to back them up would be some sort of evidence for prejudice, and prima facie evidence against would be anything like a theory from which the hostile judgements followed as conclusions. Theories can be concocted to give the required conclusions, of course, and then we must try to decide how serious the theory is. It comes to this: is there so little in the reasons Aristotle gives for his condemnation of trade that they may be convincingly explained away and belittled as no more than expressions of attitudes? (shrink)

Aristotle's treatment of trade in the Politics book one is usually regarded as especially hostile, and this is put down to snobbery and political prejudice on his part. The Greeks often regarded trade as a degrading thing for a free man to engage in, and it would be surprising if Aristotle's view of trade were entirely unconnected with this Greek sensibility. But there should be something more definite than a loose general affinity if a charge of prejudice is to be (...) taken seriously. A balance of hostile judgements over argued cases to back them up would be some sort of evidence for prejudice, and prima facie evidence against would be anything like a theory from which the hostile judgements followed as conclusions. Theories can be concocted to give the required conclusions, of course, and then we must try to decide how serious the theory is. It comes to this: is there so little in the reasons Aristotle gives for his condemnation of trade that they may be convincingly explained away and belittled as no more than expressions of attitudes? (shrink)

Elster's understanding of Marx is reviewed in three areas: the theory of value, the theory of history, and dialectics. In each area Elster goes astray in quite superficial ways, not instructive ones. There is a simple underlying reason in almost every case, viz. that Elster fails to confront the distinction in the philosophy of science between the methods of atomism and essentialism. Since Marx was an essentialist, Elster's attempt to assimilate Marx to the atomist tradition has as much serious interest (...) as attempts to show that Kant was a utilitarian, Hegel a classical empiricist, or whales fishes. The conclusions are that the book is an unsympathetic treatment of Marx, that it is lacking in scholarship and balance, and that the standard of argument is unusually poor. (shrink)

The understanding of the philosophy upon which Karl Marx's work is based has undergone more fundamental changes in the last 30 years of the 20th century than at any time since the death of Engels. The articles in this collection have been chosen to represent these changes as they have been registered in the learned journals of the Anglophone world. There have been three main loci of change: the relation between Marx's work and that of Engels; the place of ethics (...) in Marx's work; and Marx's relation to the Enlightenment on the one hand and to the Aristotelian tradition in philosophy on the other. (shrink)

This paper traces the shift from Marx’s labour theory of value to his later forms of value theory and attributes the change to Marx’s shift from agency to causation as the dominant dependent relationship in economic phenomena.