----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Winslow" <egwinslow at rogers.com>
It's irrational to treat it as an end rather than, as you do here, as a means. Marx associates the distinction with 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>)
This mistaken treatment of "the preservation and increase of money ad infinitum as the end and aim of Oeconomic" constitutes the self-estrangement of the capitalist.
=====================
Oh yeah, Aristotle. A guy who never lacked a material comfort in his adult life and hung out with the Donald Rumsfeld of his time. He's a moral authority on wealth.
There is no effective decision procedure whereby we can irrefutably determine whether the love of money is irrational. The 'in itself' issue is just so much Kantian baggage.
Does anyone really believe Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are psychopaths and would tell them that to their face if they had the chance.
Oh, and what about the term *Aristocrat*?
Ian