When the philosopher Karl Marx set out to unravel the mysteries of value, exchange, and labor in capitalist society, he found a surprising intellectual ally in Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher who lived two millennia earlier. Despite their different historical contexts, both thinkers examined how value arises not inherently from things but from their social relations—especially through the lens of use and exchange.

Marx, in Capital, openly acknowledged Aristotle’s importance. Not only did Aristotle lay the groundwork for distinguishing use-value from exchange-value but his reflections on early human society, property, and the role of labor and technology revealed a conceptual framework that Marx would radicalize for modern critique.

Use-value and exchange-value: Aristotle’s anticipation

Aristotle’s analysis of value in Politics distinguishes between two uses of a commodity. One is proper and natural while the other is improper or derivative. He writes:

“Every commodity has two uses: both belong to the thing itself, but not in the same manner—one is the proper use, the other is not. For example, a shoe serves either to be worn or to be exchanged; both are uses of the shoe, for he who gives a shoe in exchange to someone who needs it, receiving in return money or food, uses the shoe as a shoe, but not according to its proper use, for it was not made to be exchanged.”

This distinction—between use-value and exchange-value—is a cornerstone of Marx’s analysis. For Marx, this Aristotelian formulation prefigures what he calls the “value-form” of the commodity. Commodities are useful in particular ways (use-value), but also enter into a social system of equivalence when exchanged (exchange-value).

Marx directly builds on this by showing that exchange-value does not exist inherently in an object but arises through the abstraction of labor—because human labor makes different useful things commensurable. Aristotle notes that a shoe does not exist for exchange. Marx took this insight and asked: What kind of society inverts this logic and makes objects valuable only in proportion to their exchangeability rather than their utility?

From the household to the marketplace: society before exchange

Aristotle’s theory of the household (oikos) as the first form of society was essential for Marx’s historical materialism. In Politics, Aristotle describes early society as beginning with families. In these families, property was communal and exchange unnecessary. It was only as the population grew and self-sufficiency gave way to interdependence that markets and money emerged.

Marx adopts this trajectory in Capital and his Grundrisse notebooks, writing that commodity exchange is not a timeless activity. Instead, it is a historically specific development that reflects changes in social relations and property forms. The transition from common property to private ownership and from useful production to production for exchange is the material foundation of class society.

In Aristotle, we already see the seeds of this analysis. He distinguishes between natural wealth-getting (production for use) and unnatural chrematistics (the accumulation of wealth for its own sake). Marx seizes upon this distinction to critique capitalism as a system in which the unnatural pursuit of profit replaces human need as the goal of production.

The machine and slavery

One of the most striking moments in Capital (Vol. I) occurs when Marx discusses machinery and automation. Here, he ironically invokes Aristotle’s dream that if tools could operate themselves, no slaves would be needed:

“If—dreamed Aristotle, the greatest thinker of antiquity—if every tool could perform its task at command or even by anticipation, like the statues of Daedalus that moved of their own accord, or the tripods of Hephaestus that spontaneously began their sacred work, if the shuttles of the loom wove by themselves, then master craftsmen would not need assistants, nor masters slaves.”

This vision did not remain uniquely Aristotelian. Antipatros, a Greek poet from the era of Cicero, hailed the invention of the watermill—the earliest rudimentary form of productive machinery—not simply as a technical advancement but as a social revolution. He praised it as the liberator of enslaved women who had been condemned to grind grain by hand. He envisioned it as the usher of a new golden age of human dignity and freedom.

In these ancient myths and poetic praises, technology is seen not merely as efficiency but as emancipation. The ancients, despite their slave-based economies, understood that the highest purpose of tools was to free people from servitude.

Marx’s irony and the betrayal of the promise of automation

Marx, however, saw this ancient hope turned upside down in modern capitalist society. In his words, what was supposed to free labor had become its jailer:

“Ah, those idolaters! They knew nothing of political economy or Christianity, as discovered by clever Bastiat and even cleverer McCulloch. They failed to understand, among other things, that the machine is the most reliable means for lengthening the working day.”

Here, Marx mocks the liberal economists of his time. Frédéric Bastiat and John Ramsay McCulloch, champions of laissez-faire capitalism, celebrated mechanization without recognizing its role in intensifying exploitation. Unlike the “idol-worshiping pagans,” who at least had the imagination to conceive of automation as a force for liberation, these modern theorists lacked even that mythical foresight.

Marx continues with biting irony:

“They failed to understand, among other things, that the machine is the most reliable means for lengthening the working day.

Thus the strange phenomenon arises in the history of modern industry. That the machine, the most powerful instrument for reducing labor time, becomes the most unfailing means of converting the whole life of the worker and his family into labor-time for capital’s valorization.”

The true paradox for Marx is that mechanization offers a means to liberate humanity but capital instead weaponizes it to intensify exploitation. The ancients envisioned automation as a means of human emancipation. Capitalism uses it to deepen alienation and dependency.

The irony is profound: the ancients dreamed of freedom through the machine, and capitalism delivered machines that reinforce dependency. In this way, Marx reclaims the ancient vision but also shows how the promise of automation has been betrayed.

Aristotle and Marx: From ancient slavery to modern compulsion

Marx’s dialogue with Aristotle was not just academic—it was dialectical. He admired Aristotle’s clarity in distinguishing between types of value and his historical insight into the development of exchange. However, Marx also showed how the slave economy of antiquity historically constrained Aristotle’s ideas.

Ironically, in an age in which full automatism is increasingly possible, the prevailing economic model continues to reproduce the conditions that Aristotle associated with slavery—not through direct ownership of people but through economic compulsion and structural inequality. In that sense, Marx saw in Aristotle both the seed of critical insight and the limit of pre-modern social theory.

Hence, while Aristotle could not imagine that labor determines value in commodities, he sensed something essential: that value is not a thing but a relation and that social forms of labor determine the shape of society itself.

For the Ancient Greeks, virtue was regarded as the highest quality a person could possess, and living virtuously was considered the ultimate goal of life.

Virtue was not merely a philosophical concept but a moral guide to be followed. Living a virtuous life was the greatest achievement for an Ancient Greek, but beyond moral virtue, the word itself also conveyed meanings of excellence, purpose in life, goodness, and happiness (eudaimonia, ευδαιμονία)—the fulfillment of human nature itself.

Reference to virtue (aretē, αρετή) first appeared in Homer’s epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey, and later evolved into a central ideal for Greek philosophers such as Socrates and Aristotle. In the Iliad, Homer exalted the virtue of bravery, placing Achilles at the forefront as the model of an excellent warrior. Achilles fought and triumphed for the sake of honor but accepted the fate destined for him.

In the Odyssey, Homer praised the virtues of intelligence (or cunning) and the endurance of Odysseus. His loyalty to Penelope is also celebrated, reflecting the virtue of loyalty to family and home. Upon returning to Ithaca, Odysseus declared that “there is nothing nobler than a man and wife who share their minds and hearts in harmony.”

The Ancient Greeks, Socrates, and virtue

Socrates, the Ancient Greek philosopher regarded by most as the father of philosophy, believed that knowledge and virtue were inseparable. The pursuit of virtue was of great importance, as Socrates viewed it as synonymous with knowledge of the good: to know what is good is to do what is good. “Virtue does not come from wealth, but wealth and every other good thing which men have comes from virtue, both to the individual and to the state” Socrates said.

By the time of the classical philosophers, the Ancient Greek world had evolved. The city-state (polis) had replaced the heroic household as the center of life, and the question was no longer how to be a great warrior but how to be a good citizen and a good person. Socrates emerged as the first great moral philosopher. “No one errs willingly,” he insisted in Plato’s Protagoras—meaning that moral failure arises from ignorance, not malice. He believed that virtue could be taught.

Socrates’ famous elenchus was a dialectical method of questioning, testing, and refining ideas. Through a series of probing questions, the method sought to expose contradictions in a person’s beliefs and systematically guide them toward a clearer, more consistent understanding of truth. By revealing these contradictions, Socrates led people toward self-knowledge.

When he was arrested and tried for disrespecting the gods and corrupting Athenian youth with his teachings, he famously declared, “The unexamined life is not worth living” (Apology 38a). For Socrates, the pursuit of virtue was the same as the pursuit of wisdom. Courage, justice, temperance, and piety were not separate traits but expressions of a unified understanding of the good. Thus, Socrates transformed virtue from heroic excellence into a philosophical and ethical ideal grounded in reason and self-knowledge.

Plato and the soul

Plato, Socrates’ most famous pupil and the philosopher who became his master’s voice, once remarked: “Consider your origins: you were not made to live as brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge.” He developed this vision of virtue further, seeking to define its nature and role in human life. In his dialogues, especially The Republic, he explored the essence of virtue in both the individual and the state.

For Plato, the human soul was composed of three parts: the rational, spirited, and appetitive. Virtue, he taught, consisted of harmony among these elements, with reason guiding spirit and desire. Justice was this inner balance made visible in action. As he wrote, “Justice is doing one’s own work and not meddling with what is not one’s own” (Republic IV.433a). The just person, therefore, is one whose reason governs, whose spirit supports, and whose desires obey.

Plato identified four cardinal virtues that reflected this harmony: wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice. Wisdom was the virtue of reason; courage, that of the spirited part; temperance, the balance among all desires; and justice, the overarching order of the soul. These four virtues became the foundations of Western moral philosophy and profoundly influenced Christian ethical thought.

For Plato, virtue also had a transcendent dimension. True virtue was likeness to God, aimed at the Form of the Good—the ultimate reality that gives meaning and value to all things. As he wrote, “The Good is the cause of all that is right and beautiful” (Republic VI.517b). The virtuous person, through philosophical contemplation, seeks to align the soul with this divine Good, just as the sun illuminates the visible world. Thus, virtue is not only inner harmony within the self but also participation in a higher cosmic order.

Aristotle and practical virtue

For Aristotle, the concept of virtue was practical wisdom (phronēsis). He believed that ethical virtue, rather than mere self-control, is required for practical wisdom. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle defined virtue as a disposition to act correctly, formed through habit and guided by reason. Virtue was not innate, nor purely intellectual; it was something cultivated through action. “We become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts” (Ethics II.1), he explained. In other words, virtue is learned by living it. As he also said, “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.”

Aristotle’s famous doctrine of the mean illustrates the balanced nature of virtue. Every virtue lies between two extremes of excess and deficiency. Courage, for example, lies between cowardice (too little fear) and recklessness (too much). Generosity lies between stinginess and extravagance. “Virtue, then, is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean,” he writes, “this being determined by reason and as the prudent person would determine it” (Ethics II.6).

For Aristotle, the goal of life was eudaimonia, often translated as “happiness” but more accurately “flourishing.” This state is achieved not through pleasure or wealth but through the full realization of one’s potential as a rational and social being. “The good for man is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue,” he said (Ethics I.7). Virtue, then, is not a single act or rule but the lifelong practice of living wisely, courageously, and justly within a community. It requires both intellectual virtues (like wisdom and understanding) and moral virtues (like courage and moderation), harmonized under the guidance of practical wisdom.

Aristotle’s conception of virtue was purpose-driven. He believed that everything in nature has an end (telos). The eye’s purpose is to see, the seed’s to grow into a tree, and the human’s to live rationally and ethically. Virtue is the perfection of this natural purpose. Hence, for Aristotle, ethics was not about obeying rules but about fulfilling one’s nature as a rational being in society.

Quotes on virtue from Aristotle

Aristotle’s work on virtue and knowledge is unparalleled. A student of Plato and tutor to Alexander the Great, he established his own school, the Lyceum, where he explored topics ranging from biology to metaphysics. His reflections on virtue and the cultivation of character remain influential. Below are some of his most notable insights:

• Aristotle emphasized the importance of educating both mind and character, stating that “educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all.” He highlighted self-knowledge as the foundation of wisdom: “Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom,” and courage and freedom were intertwined in his thought as is evident in his statement, “He who has overcome his fears will truly be free.”
• Aristotle also emphasized the role of habit in shaping virtue: “Good habits formed at youth make all the difference.” For Aristotle, wisdom involved understanding life beyond immediate pleasure: “The aim of the wise is not to secure pleasure, but to avoid pain.” Cultivation of the mind and spirit was central to a flourishing life: “The energy of the mind is the essence of life,” and “The ideal man bears the accidents of life with dignity and grace.”
• Aristotle also reflected on honor, leadership, and moral excellence: “Dignity does not consist in possessing honors, but in deserving them,” and “He who cannot be a good follower cannot be a good leader.” Finally, he distinguished the cultivated from the uncultivated, stating that “the educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living from the dead.”

Through these statements, Aristotle encapsulated his enduring vision of virtue as a combination of wisdom, moral character, and practical living.

The Stoics, moral worth, and virtue in Ancient Greece

The Stoics believed that the goal of all philosophical inquiry was to provide a mode of conduct characterized by tranquility of mind and certainty of moral worth. Flourishing during the Hellenistic period after Aristotle’s death, Zeno of Citium founded Stoicism around 300 BC, building on and radicalizing the moral insights of earlier philosophers. For the Stoics, virtue was not merely the highest good—it was the only good.

All external things—wealth, pleasure, health, even life itself—were morally indifferent. What mattered was the state of one’s soul: one’s rational and moral integrity. As the Stoic philosopher Epictetus later observed, “It is not things themselves that disturb men, but their opinions about things” (Enchiridion 5).

The Stoics saw virtue as living in accordance with nature, which meant acting in accordance to reason and accepting fate. Since the universe was governed by divine reason (logos), the wise individual aligns with it, remaining tranquil amid the changes of fortune. Courage, justice, temperance, and wisdom remained the core virtues, but now they were expressions of a single rational attitude toward life. As Seneca, the Roman Stoic, wrote, “Virtue is the only good, and vice the only evil; everything else is indifferent” (Letters 76). Even suffering or poverty could not harm the virtuous person because virtue itself was self-sufficient.

In this way, Stoicism universalized the Greek idea of virtue. It was no longer the privilege of citizens or philosophers but the potential of every human being. The Stoic sage, like Socrates before him, embodied moral freedom through inner mastery and reason. Marcus Aurelius, emperor and Stoic, summarized this ideal succinctly: “A man’s worth is measured by the things he pursues” (Meditations VII.3). To pursue virtue was, therefore, to live fully in harmony with the divine order of the world.

Influence of the Ancient Greek conception of virtue

The ancient Greek concept of virtue has had a profound influence on Western civilization. Ideas of moral inquiry, a virtuous life, practical wisdom, and moral worth were later adopted by Christian theology and continue to resonate today. Thomas Aquinas, for example, integrated Aristotle’s virtues with Christian faith in his writings.

In their exploration of virtue, the Ancient Greek philosophers offered no simple answers to questions such as, “How can I become virtuous?” Yet they left behind a framework for thinking, questioning, and appreciating the importance of a moral life for Western civilization.

For the Ancient Greeks, to live a virtuous life was to live well, to become the best version of oneself, and to align human nature with the rational order of the cosmos. They believed that this path led not only to moral goodness but also to true happiness.