Marx's Das Kapital and Aristotle

[jacobin1949]

This paper makes the claim that Marx's economic theory in Das Kapital can be derived from Aristotle's works on economic ethics.

C-M-C is certainly dervied from Aristotle

Right now I'm reading Tony Smith's work which traces the influence of Hegel's logic on das kapital
http://www-econ.stanford.edu/academics/Honors_Theses/Theses_2003/Chau.pdf
www-econ.stanford.edu/academics/ Honors_Theses/Theses_2003/Chau.pdf

This paper examines the influences of Aristotelian moral economic
thought on Marx’s labor theory. This paper looks at certain moral ethical
frameworks attributed to Aristotle and later used by Marx in developing
his ideas on communism. The similarities between Marx’s labor theory
and Aristotle’s ethical theories, including those on human flourishing
(eudaimonia), justice and exchange, will be examined. This paper also
finds that Marx’s communist model is partly an adaptation of Aristotle’s
household economy (oikonomia). This study reveals not only the
influences Aristotle’s moral economic theory had on Marx, but also the
implications of its applications to Marxist labor theory

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that, Jacobin; but I have already posted a link to this paper:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1121122&postcount=47

Many of Marx's ideas can be derived from Aristotle, the Scottish Historical Materialists, and a few others.

Hegel is not needed, therefore.

[Hit The North]

Thanks for that, Jacobin; but I have already posted a link to this paper:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1121122&postcount=47

Many of Marx's ideas can be derived from Aristotle, the Scottish Historical Materialists, and a few others.

Hegel is not needed, therefore.

Hardly a conclusive argument, given that the sources of Marxism are oft quoted as British political economy, French socialism and German idealism (that is, above all, Hegel). Also, the word "derived" seems to indicate that you think Marx just lifted these ideas. It would be more accurate to argue that his work is derived from a critique of these ideas.

Besides, Hegel also derived inspiration from the Scottish Enlightenment (I think you give them too much credit by naming them Scottish Historical Materialists) and not a little from Aristotle.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CZ, you are right about Hegel, but he mystified everything, and tied Historical Materialism to an unworkable, if not incomprehensible metaphysic.

And, do not read too much into 'derived'. I 'derived' my ideas from Marx, but you will find I have pushed them much further than he would have dreamt -- as he did, too, with the ideas that influenced him.

The term 'Scottish Historical Materialists' is not mine, but that of Marxist scholar, Ronald Meek. His essay on this, which influenced my ideas, is well worth reading, if you can get hold of it:

Meek, R. (1967a), Economics And Ideology And Other Essays (Chapman Hall).

--------, (1967b), 'The Scottish Contribution To Marxist Sociology', in Meek (1967a), pp.34-50.

And, the above comments of mine were not meant to be conclusive; however, I will be presenting my full argument for you to consider sometime in 2009.

If you can wait that long...

[Hit The North]

If you can wait that long...


Guess I'll have to. You can't hurry genius, Rosa :)

[heiss93]

How could it be claimed that Aristotle is more relevant to understanding modern capitalism than Hegel?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Heiss93:


How could it be claimed that Aristotle is more relevant to understanding modern capitalism than Hegel?

Because, Hegel was a bumbling idiot -- read the thread!

[Awful Reality]

Heiss93:



Because, Hegel was a bumbling idiot -- read the thread!

As are you. It's impossible to be a Marxist and reject Dialectics. Almost every single facet of Marxism is based on Dialectical materialism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FI:


As are you. It's impossible to be a Marxist and reject Dialectics.

Not so -- I have been a Marxist for longer than most RevLefters have been on the planet; indeed, as the above thread shows, and as others have shown, Marx deliberately downplayed this mystical theory in Das Kapital. And no wonder; not only does it not work, it makes not one ounce of sense.

What you mean is that Marxists should be slaves to tradition, and one that has presided over 150 years of almost total failure.

[gilhyle]

Any derivation of Marx from Aristotle can also be done for Hegel (Hegel adored Aristotle and derived his whole philosophy from him).....but its all deeply one-sided. Marx's method is not Aristotelean because it is not essentialist and, in the end, Aristotle is essentialist.

As to Scottish Enlightenment theories of history, true they influenced Marx.....through Hegel......and if you want to know about them skip Meeks somewhat simplistic analysis and judge for yourself by reading Ferguson's Essay on the History of Civil Society, available in a very good modern paperback edition from the Cambridge Texts in the History fo Political Thought.......but all it illustrates is that the belief in historical progress is a charcteristically bourgeois capitalist idea. What it tells you is that people who think tht is Marx's cocneption of history have missed the point of Marx's theory and are on the road to reducing Marx to a bourgeois ideology. Thats not to say that the Scottish Enlightenment writers were crap, actually they are very impressive...but pre-figured Marxists they aint.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sure, but since Hegel was a logical and philosophical incompetent, whereas Aristotle was not, it is more illuminating going back to the master, not the Hermetic dunce.

And you are right to recommend reading Ferguson (and Millar, etc.) -- but, Hegel screwed the theory up, by mystifiying it.

Good job Marx rescued it, then, isn't it?

[gilhyle]

Good job Marx rescued it, then, isn't it?
Quite right Rosa :) :)

[trivas7]

It's impossible to be a Marxist and reject Dialectics. Almost every single facet of Marxism is based on Dialectical materialism.

Agreed. There'd have been no Marxism w/o Hegel.

[Hyacinth]

Agreed. There'd have been no Marxism w/o Hegel.
Nonsense. There is nothing central to Marxism which can’t be rephrased into ordinary language. Marx just, unfortunately, adopted Hegelian terminology, which was rather prevalent at the time. If anything Marx’s use of Hegelian terms serves to obscure what he is trying to say. Not to mention, the central component of Marxism, and Marx’s, IMO, greatest contribution, wasn’t “dialectical materialism” (whatever that means), but rather historical materialism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


Quite right Rosa

I am glad you agree that Marx abandoned the dialectic as you 'understand ' it...

:):) squared.

[trivas7]

Nonsense. There is nothing central to Marxism which can’t be rephrased into ordinary language.
It's not a matter of language, it's a matter of influence. What is scientific re the class struggle and historical materialism if not their dialectical logic?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


It's not a matter of language, it's a matter of influence. What is scientific re the class struggle and historical materialism if not their dialectical logic?

Even you have to use language to express your ideas; so it is largely a question of the language we choose to analyse the class struggle.

Dialecticians prefer the sloppy use of language; us materialists prefer precision.

And, give me a break: the word 'logic' is misplaced next to that obscure term 'dialectical'.

Why you would want to connect that mystical doctrine with science is, therefore, a mystery.

Except -- we already know you are a dogmatist.

[McCaine]

It's not a matter of language, it's a matter of influence. What is scientific re the class struggle and historical materialism if not their dialectical logic?What precisely does this sentence mean?

[trivas7]

It's not a matter of language, it's a matter of influence. What is scientific re the class struggle and historical materialism if not their dialectical logic?


What precisely does this sentence mean?
That's two sentences. What part of English don't you understand?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Not a good idea to piss McCain off, dummy...

[NoValue]

This paper makes the claim that Marx's economic theory in Das Kapital can be derived from Aristotle's works on economic ethics.

C-M-C is certainly dervied from Aristotle

Right now I'm reading Tony Smith's work which traces the influence of Hegel's logic on das kapital

www-econ.stanford.edu/academics/ Honors_Theses/Theses_2003/Chau.pdf

This paper examines the influences of Aristotelian moral economic
thought on Marx’s labor theory. This paper looks at certain moral ethical
frameworks attributed to Aristotle and later used by Marx in developing
his ideas on communism. The similarities between Marx’s labor theory
and Aristotle’s ethical theories, including those on human flourishing
(eudaimonia), justice and exchange, will be examined. This paper also
finds that Marx’s communist model is partly an adaptation of Aristotle’s
household economy (oikonomia). This study reveals not only the
influences Aristotle’s moral economic theory had on Marx, but also the
implications of its applications to Marxist labor theory

well the C-M-C form of simple commodity circulation witch aristoteles tried to figure out is tied to his times,and marx explains why he could not go any further ...for the fact that in his times the mode of production was slavery so for aristoteles there was no reasonable way that the abstract work could be posible in human thinking,cause when you talk about abstract work
you take as granted that in practice all people are equal in terms of work so that you can equalize their works...but back then the mode of production was based upon slaves who didnt trade their products,and on the other hand their masters who traded them to others (other cities etc) could not posibly theorize them as equal to them cause they were posible slaves for them in case of need for slaves granted by war.So for aristoteles the only logical way that such an exchange of values could be possible was just a practical need.
This equation of values comes to the surface just when the capitalist mode of production apears were free workers are equalized by capital,since the first forms of industrial work was standardised(manufacture period)and each worker is as good as any other for capital.
Well...marxs capital goes through the histoical form of value to his time and his way of thinking cant be atributed to each thinker of his sources.
Furthermore he is a product of his time since other economic phenomena apeard in the process of capitalist accumulation,such as the ability of monopolies to set monopoly prices to products...