Acquisition and Wealth According to Aristotle
After glancing through the first chapter of Aristotle’s Politics I am surprised at the amount of emphasis that Aristotle puts on modes of acquisition and its “art”, within a treatise of politics, but, then again, wealth equals power. The modes of acquisition come in two types, natural and unnatural. The former is necessarily linked to the management of the household and providing necessary provisions and even, in some cases, unnecessary luxuries of the household in the support of an estate [household]. The latter or “unnatural” form is derived from the use of currencies and the hoarding of such in accounts; the worst form of this example comes in the form of usury, when inspired Aristotle to comment along with some of his contemporaries, that the practice “makes metal breed.” This unnatural lust of gain inspires what Aristotle calls “the art of acquisition”, which of course has a negative connotation for the philosopher.
In his analysis, Aristotle claims that the natural acquisition is fulfilled by nature for every household, and that the accumulation of what nature produces is the definition of true wealth. This makes sense considering that a man who possesses a billion dollars but who lives in a house, a large house but a house nonetheless, is less wealthy [In the true sense of the word] than a man who makes one million dollars but has a thousand acre farm and the potential for high return or simply modest return.
The acquisition of numbers in a bank representing currency is an unnatural and also infinite form of acquisition considering the quest for accumulation might never be satisfied.
The way I understand it, the man from the former example could potentially purchase ten football stadiums with the amount of money he has in the bank but could never hope to fit that investment onto his estate or employ them for the purposes of his estate. The latter is a different scenario all of his money can potentially go toward the management of his estate.
It is true that Aristotle claims that everything necessary to the household is available in nature but, like Adam Smith, he is careful to emphasize the essential role of division of labor in dealing with those resources. To have every household managing independently those things which God has given man in nature is potentially dangerous for a nation. Basically, there must be those who specialize in certain forms of labor; either for the different collections of resources or in production using resources. Aristotle says in Ch. II: “A polis [body of citizens] is essentially different it necessarily requires a difference of capacity among its members, which enables them to serve as compliments to one another, and, to attain higher and better life by the mutual exchange of their different services” Ch. II §3.
Adam Smith calls this division of labor and gives an example which embodies perfectly the gist of both of their arguments.
The nature of the New World in Smith’s time and before had thrived as a civilization for over two thousand years, yet, had not reached the technical achievement of Europe. Smith said the true source of wealth for a nation was initially derived by the division of labor, that certain professions, due to the concentration of full-time professionals, could achieve a higher advancement which would allow a civilization to grow technologically.
