Aristotle and the Tensions between Politics and Economy

Abstract

As presented by Georgio Agamben, the notion of sacer (sacred) appears to be an unavoidable element to analyze the structure of occidental political thought from its very beginning up to the present time. Such interpretation throws new ideas on an essential question: the relationship between politics and economy in Aristotle, the one who had the most complete political project of the ancient world. In that sense, money has a privileged place to deepen Aristotle's thought. As much in the critique of accumulation and the usury that takes place in his analysis of chrematistics (Politics 1256b-1258a) as well as in the need to consecrate ill-gotten gains in democracies (Politics 1320a), it is clear that money appears in crucial points for defining the relationship between sacred and profane, between politics and the economy. The attempt of this communication will be, then, to make a concrete study of the Aristotelian passages previously mentioned along with commentary on some complementary notes taken from the Nicomaquean Ethics and the Constitution of Athens and to integrate them with Agamben's explanation of the Homo Sacer. For that reason, categories as 'sacred', 'use', and 'exclusion' will be fundamental for this study.

The Potential for Community and Complementary Currencies (CCs) to Enhance Human Aspects of Economic Exchange

“…Notably, CCs can perform only some of the functions of formal currencies: "they cannot act as a standard of deferred payment (which involves charging interest)" (Pearson, 2003). Thus, CCs may avoid the dehumanizing aspects of modern economic exchange, namely the "unnatural chrematistics" mentioned by Aristotle (2017; also see Borisonik, 2014). This may be why several contemporary CCs are subject to demurrage, whereby the value of the "local scrip" falls over time (e.g., every week or every couple of months).…”

“…The Aristotelian concept of oikonomia took in broader social relations, while the modern concept of economy is generally limited to the pursuit of financial profit and capital accumulation. Aristotle advocated the use of currency as a tool for exchange rather than for accumulating money for its own sake (Borisonik, 2014). This concern was echoed, albeit in varying ways, by 'The Founding Fathers' of Sociology such as Karl Marx (2010 [1867]) and Max Weber (1992[1904) who, though taking divergent philosophical positions, reached similar conclusions regarding Capitalism's negative consequences for individuals (alienation and the iron cage of rationality, respectively).…”

“…Unlike the conceptualization of human behavior used in modern economic analysis, Aristotle did not take a unidimensional view of human economic agents as the rational and instrumentallybehaving homo oeconomicus. Instead, he sought to understand the social processes regulating market situations where currency was used as a medium for exchange (Borisonik, 2014).…”

Economics, chrematistics, oikos and polis in Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas

“…An interpretation that explains the difference between the two chrematistics is based on the idea that the exchange taking place in different societies or in different contexts of sociability is of a different nature. Natural chrematistics implies reciprocity, is based on friendship, entails a personal relationship, and unifies the polis, unlike the chrematistics that seeks profit as an end (often outside the polis) which dissolves it (Borisonik, 2013(Borisonik, , 2014.…”

Untitled

“…Unlike the conceptualization of human behavior used in modern economic analysis, Aristotle did not take a unidimensional view of human economic agents as the rational and instrumentallybehaving homo oeconomicus. Instead, he sought to understand the social processes regulating market situations where currency was used as a medium for exchange (Borisonik, 2014). There can be no doubt that the dominant currency-dependent system of exchange partly contributes to high levels of global economic inequality, which have now reached obscene levels (e.g., see Hardoon, 2017).…”