Chresmatism, Means, End

As has been previously discussed, since Aristotle and Marx share a condemnation of Chresmatism, i. e. the pursuit of Money for its own sake, that position is independent of the Private Property vs. Collective Property dispute.  Now, one distinction between the two treatments is while Marx focuses on the harm to others of Chresmatistic behavior, i. e. exploitation, Aristotle diagnoses it as personally harmful; he does not need to ground that diagnosis in any concept of Greed, though that approach is available to him.  Instead, an analysis that they each present reveals the source of a more fundamental dis-ease, in the literal sense of the term.  For, ease comes with the achieving of an End, but even as the Chresmatist tries to make Money an End, it retains its essential nature as a Means, and, so, satisfaction perpetually eludes them.  Thus, at the heart of Chresmatism there is a profound confusion that is manifested as not merely as perpetual instability, but as the seeking of stability in what is actually profound instability.  Or, in more popular terms, the love of money is not a root of evil; it is already evil.