Very nice post, Sean--thanks for sharing publicly. Not that you need yet another thing to read, but if you have the capacity I'd be super interested to hear your thoughts on Robert Gallagher's work on Marx's criticism of Aristotle that you mention at the end (i.e., that Aristotle has no theory of value, properly speaking).
Ok I've had some time to read the short piece and to get through the Intro and the Aristotle sections of the book (will finish the whole before attempting a more substantive response), and already some interesting connections and disagreements, which I may write more about in a future entry. It seems like Gallagher and I share *most* of a reading of Aristotle on money and exchange, with two big caveats.
One is that he thinks the natural slavery argument is mostly separate from the kind of inequality that underlies Aristotle's account of exchange, and I just don't think this bears out! I think the natural slavery argument is pretty close to the theoretical core of Book I of the Politics, even if I think it's not been well-understood by most modern commentators. So I think Gallagher gets something important right that others don't about the significance of diagonal proportion, and something important wrong as well. I'll lay this out at more length in a future entry, even if it might not end up directly framed as a response to Gallagher.
The other is that I don't think Aristotle has a theory of value--I'm with Marx on this--but I don't think this is a deficiency in Aristotle; I think 'value' as sought by political economy simply doesn't exist, and so the fact that Aristotle doesn't contort himself looking for it is a source of insight rather than a source of confusion! Ironically, this is partly a semantic disagreement rather than a substantive one; I don't think Gallagher ends up offering a theory of value in a way that would satisfy political economy's search for one either, and he confuses the issue by calling it one.
Anyway, still mulling over the larger significance of those differences, but wanted to provide an update as I was thinking about it!
Thanks for this! I don't know if I'll be able to fully digest it before my next post (which is on my own response to Marx's claim) but I'm excited to check it out, and will definitely try to say something about it.
Very nice post, Sean--thanks for sharing publicly. Not that you need yet another thing to read, but if you have the capacity I'd be super interested to hear your thoughts on Robert Gallagher's work on Marx's criticism of Aristotle that you mention at the end (i.e., that Aristotle has no theory of value, properly speaking).
https://www.academia.edu/5786166/In_Defense_of_Moral_Economy_Marxs_Criticisms_of_Aristotles_Theory_of_Value
https://www.routledge.com/Aristotles-Critique-of-Political-Economy-With-a-Contemporary-Application/Gallagher/p/book/9780367666569
Ok I've had some time to read the short piece and to get through the Intro and the Aristotle sections of the book (will finish the whole before attempting a more substantive response), and already some interesting connections and disagreements, which I may write more about in a future entry. It seems like Gallagher and I share *most* of a reading of Aristotle on money and exchange, with two big caveats.
One is that he thinks the natural slavery argument is mostly separate from the kind of inequality that underlies Aristotle's account of exchange, and I just don't think this bears out! I think the natural slavery argument is pretty close to the theoretical core of Book I of the Politics, even if I think it's not been well-understood by most modern commentators. So I think Gallagher gets something important right that others don't about the significance of diagonal proportion, and something important wrong as well. I'll lay this out at more length in a future entry, even if it might not end up directly framed as a response to Gallagher.
The other is that I don't think Aristotle has a theory of value--I'm with Marx on this--but I don't think this is a deficiency in Aristotle; I think 'value' as sought by political economy simply doesn't exist, and so the fact that Aristotle doesn't contort himself looking for it is a source of insight rather than a source of confusion! Ironically, this is partly a semantic disagreement rather than a substantive one; I don't think Gallagher ends up offering a theory of value in a way that would satisfy political economy's search for one either, and he confuses the issue by calling it one.
Anyway, still mulling over the larger significance of those differences, but wanted to provide an update as I was thinking about it!
Interesting thanks this is helpful. I'll definitely look forward to future posts as well.
Thanks for this! I don't know if I'll be able to fully digest it before my next post (which is on my own response to Marx's claim) but I'm excited to check it out, and will definitely try to say something about it.