ARISTOTLE AND FOREIGN TRADE 45
These statements are found in the context of a general argument about the
art of acquisition (ἡ κτητική).^16 The topic here is a philosophical analysis of
acquisition in its natural form, not a discussion about the practices of the state.
But it is very clear that the examples chosen (exchange of wine for grain –
one finds the same example in the Nicomachean Ethics), the terminology used
(‘help from foreign sources,’ imports and exports), and the explicit reference to
self-sufficiency, which, as we have seen earlier, was the ‘aim and the ideal’ of the
city, all show that Aristotle develops his theoretical analysis by taking foreign
trade as his example.
Let us set aside the question of money, which does not enter into ouranalysis.^17 From Aristotle’s discussion, one should keep four points in mind:
- Aristotle considers it self-evident that a city cannot exist without exchange with
foreign communities. Even if (as we have already seen from the earlier discussion)
one would like to have a chora that allows the city to be as self-sufficient as
possible, the philosopher does not waste his time constructing a model of an
imaginary city that has access to every kind of product in the world. He considers
it self-evident that no city will ever be able to have access to everything it needs,
whether it is foodstuffs, wood, metal, or anything else.- Foreign trade is therefore a clear and absolute necessity. By ‘foreign trade’ we
mean both imports and exports, which are inextricably linked. We will come
back to this point.- Foreign trade that is limited to ‘achieving natural self-sufficiency’ forms part
of ‘the natural skill of acquisition.’ It therefore receives the approval of the
philosopher, who elsewhere insists on the destructive character of chrematistike,
which he discusses at length. Chrematistike is the mode of acquisition in which
acquisition is an end in itself, whose aim is not the satisfaction of a need, but
the ‘inexhaustible thirst for gold.’ Entirely artificial, chrematistike is, as we know,
harshly condemned by Aristotle.- At the same time Aristotle states with considerable regret that chrematistike, the
bad mode of acquisition, is inextricably tied to trade because it is ‘logically’ (κατὰ
λόγον) based on the natural mode of acquisition in the same way that money is
introduced ‘by necessity’ (ἐξ ἀνάγκης).Thus, foreign trade is very much present in Aristotle’s thought, with limits that
he finds desirable for this activity. In this respect, one can establish a parallel
between the conditions that prevail for exchange between individuals – that
is, exchanges taking place within a community – and foreign trade. In reality,
it is necessary that individuals be able to exchange because this is the ‘best way
to achieve full independence.’^18 In the same way, it is desirable that the city
be placed in a suitable geographical location so that it can easily attract food-
stuffs, wood, and other necessary commodities.^19 Finally, it is necessary that
the city have easy access to the sea despite the social and political risks foreign