an example of the former, he uses the bed and the dress, and of the latter the weaver’s comb (κερκίς).592 He points out that all wealth is produced for consumption, but that part of it is consumed indirectly in manufacture. Here is an approach to Adam Smith’s593 definition of capital, as “that part of a man’s stock which he expects to afford him revenue.”
Unfortunately, however, the Greek fails to pursue his distinction farther. The theme of his thought is, after all, not capital or production either, but the status of the slave, though, from his standpoint, the slave is capital. He proceeds with the very uneconomic assertion that life consists in action (πρᾶξις), not in production (ποίησις),594 and concludes with the real goal of his argument, that the slave is an assistant (ὑπερέτης), or an animate instrument in the realm of action, not of production.595
The slave is therefore an instrument to increase the life or action of his master, who himself is not represented as a producer, but as a consumer of the present stock. Thus what bids fair to be a fruitful distinction ends in a denial of the primary importance of production.
The purpose of Aristotle is here similar to that in some passages of Ruskin596 and Adam Smith,597 to emphasize consumption rather than production.
In another passage, he repeats his definition of capital in different terms. Goods are classified as for “purposes of production” or for “mere enjoyment,”598 but here again no theory of capital is developed. Yet these two definitions are sufficient evidence that he advanced beyond his predecessors in his apprehension of the meaning of the term.599
His division of production and finance, however, into the natural or limited, which deals only with natural resources,600 and the unnatural, which is unlimited, and includes commerce, usury, and even industry,601 reveals a mind neither greatly interested in capital, nor clear as to its true economic importance.