Aristotle, Adam Smith and Karl Marx

Aristotle, Adam Smith and Karl Marx

On Some Fundamental Issues in 21st Century Political Economy

Spencer J. Pack

Spencer Pack compares and contrasts Aristotle’s, Smith’s and Marx’s theoretical systems on six fundamental issues: exchange value, money, capital, character, government, and change. This book also provides insights on issues concerning the continuing development of world money, saving, managerial capitalism, corrupt governments, and various secular and religious movements for social change.

Chapter 13: Government and Change in the 21st Century

Spencer J. Pack

Subjects: economics and finance, economic psychology, political economy, politics and public policy, political economy


THE PROBLEM OF GOVERNMENT For Aristotle, different types of government will have different goals, hence governments themselves will have different characters. The government should most likely be ruled by people in the mean, the middle classes. Hence, there is a need for a stable government and society to have a large middle class. Moreover, just as one studies the choices made by individuals to know their goals or ends, one should study the choices made by various governments to come to know their goals or ends. The emphasis for Aristotle is not on the historical development of the state. Rather, it is on the different types of states, their forms and their goals. Governments in their true or natural forms will rule in the interests of their citizens. In their defective, corrupted, unnatural forms, governments rule in the interests of the rulers themselves. Since history is basically circular, there is always the tendency for good, natural governments to degenerate, to become corrupt, to turn into their bad unnatural forms. This is a problem. The good, natural state will help develop the capacities, the potentialities of its citizens. It will help citizens develop their excellences, so they can lead a good life, an excellent life, and not mere life or mere existence. Smith’s position, I argue,1 was in many ways close to that of a modern 20th century US liberal democrat in terms of the role of the government; nonetheless, I do not think he would necessarily be in favor...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information