Karl Polanyi's Vision of a Socialist Transformation : Brie, Michael, Thomasberger, Claus: Amazon.com.au: Books

https://www.scribd.com/document/470800716/Karl-Polanyis-Vision-of-a-Socialist-Transformation-by-Karl-Polanyi-Michael-Brie-Claus-Thomasberger-z-lib-org-pdf

Karl Polanyi's Vision of a Socialist Transformation 2018
by Michael Brie (Editor), Claus Thomasberger (Editor)
5.0 5.0 out of 5 stars (2)

The political and economic turmoil that followed our most recent financial crisis has sparked a huge resurgence of interest in the work of Karl Polanyi (1886–1964), famous anthropologist, economist, and social philosopher. Polanyi’s 1944 masterpiece, The Great Transformation, spoke of dangerous increasing dominance of the market and the resulting counter-movements, a prediction that has been borne out by current international grassroots resistance to austerity, alienation, and environmental upheaval of our world.

In Karl Polanyi’s Vision of a Socialist Transformation, German social and economic philosophers Michael Brie and Claus Thomasberger bring together central figures in in the field―including Gareth Dale, Nancy Fraser, and Kari Polanyi Levitt―to provide an essential anthology on the contemporary importance of Polanyi’s thought. This book is centered around Polanyi's ideas on freedom and community in a complex socialist society based on a completely transformed economy. It also includes five 1920s essays by Polanyi recently discovered in the Montreal Polanyi archive and translated into English for the first time, including his lecture “On Freedom”, which is central to his unique understanding of socialism.

===

Table of Contents

---

Introduction Michael Brie & Claus Thomasberger

---

I. LOOKING BACK-LOOKING FORWARD

Freedom of Action and Freedom of Thought Kari Polanyi Levitt

---

II. POLANYI'S CRITIQUE IN THE AGE OF NEOLIBERALISM

Freedom, Responsibility and the Recognition of the Reality of Society Claus Thomasberger
Why Two Karls are Better than One: Integrating Polanyi and Marx in a Critical Theory of the Current Crisis Nancy Fraser
Revisiting "Freedom in a Complex Society": A View from the Periphery Ayşe Buğra
Utopianism and the Reality of Society: Decoding Polanyi's Socialism, Freedom, and the Alchemy of Misrecognition Margaret R. Somers
"Neoliberal Violence"-an Attempt to Embed Society into the Market Hüseyin Özel

---

III. THE CASE FOR A SOCIALIST CONCEPTION OF FREEDOM

Karl Polanyi and the Paradoxes of Freedom Gareth Dale
Knowledge, Freedom and Democracy: Friedrich Hayek and Karl Polanyi on the Market Society and Beyond Paula Valderrama
"Knowledge of Society" as the Basis of Karl Polanyi's Demanding Conception of Freedom Michele Cangiani
Karl Polanyi and Human Freedom Fred Block
Polanyi's Concept of Peace in a Complex Society Chikako Nakayama

IV. NEW WAYS OF REFRAMING SOCIALISM

Not the New Deal and Not the Welfare State: Karl Polanyi's Vision of Socialism Johanna Bockman
Planning for Freedom Pat Devine
Commoning and the Commons: Alternatives to a Market Society Marguerite Mendell
Karl Polanyi and the Discussions on a Renewed Socialism Michael Brie

V. ESSAYS BY KARL POLANYI

Ideologies in Crisis (Weltanschauungskrise) (1919)
Science and Morality (1920-22)
Being and Thinking (1920-22)
The Science of the Future (1920-22)
On Freedom (1927)
Freedom in a Complex Society (1957)

===

Introduction (draft)

Karl Polanyi’s Vision of a Socialist Transformation M. Brie & C. Thomasberger (eds.)

Montreal: Black Rose Books 2018

Introduction

Michael Brie and Claus Thomasberger

The last two decades are marked by a renewed interest in the work of Karl Polanyi. Spreading resistance to the neoliberal agenda and the deepening crises of the last 25 years, which culminated in the global financial and economic crisis of 2008, are viewed as a strong support for the main theses of Polanyi’s 1944 masterpiece The Great Transformation. Karl Polanyi was quoted by leading intellectuals and in the editorials of the main newspapers around the world as one of the most influential thinkers in the time of crises. But reception of his work remains largely restricted to the so-called “double movement” of commodification vs. social regulation. Polanyi is typically regarded as a social reformer supporting an increased social state, welfare intervention, and a broader national and international regulation of the financial markets. Or he is depicted as a theorist who gives legitimacy to various social associations and organizations which develop in the niches of current society. Both interpretations fail to address the depth of Karl Polanyi’s analysis and alternatives which are linked to his understanding of socialism as a new and different type of civilization.

The socialist intention behind The Great Transformation, and indeed of the totality of his work, is not widely understood. The first reason is that a large part of his oeuvre concerning his understanding of socialism has, until now, not been published in English. Some important texts noted down in the 1920s and 1930s as well as some of his Hungarian writings have been published only recently (Polanyi 2014, 2016b, 2016c, 2017a, forthcoming). To bring his unpublished writings to a wider public, we include in this book first-time translations of some of Polanyi’s most significant papers from the 1920s. A second reason is the depth and complexity of Polanyi’s analysis. The Great Transformation strives neither for a sociological theory of social development nor for a blueprint of a new great transformation. It aims primarily at an explanation of the disasters which, starting with the Great War, brought the European civilization of the 19th century to collapse. It lays bare the roots of this historic cataclysm. In The Great Transformation Polanyi makes the attempt to reveal the meaning of this unique and singular event. He searches for a true understanding of the reasons which caused the horrors of Two World Wars, the Great Depression, the rise of fascism and Auschwitz so as to prevent the repetition of the disasters which threatened to extinguish the legacy of the West.

Most scholars rightly regard Polanyi as the theorist who overcame the economic determinism dominating both the liberal theories and the schemes of most post-Marxist currents. The strength of his oeuvre, they maintain, has its origins in an approach emphasizing not economic laws, egoistic motivation and self-interest, but the relationship between the economy and society, the place of the economy in society and the double movement. Focusing on the distinction between the formal and the substantial concept of the economy, others assess Polanyi’s work as an indispensable contribution to economic anthropology. Without doubt these are important aspects of his line of reasoning. Unfortunately, both interpretations fail to incorporate his involvement in the socialist debates of the 1920s and 1930s and the organic unity of his work as a lifelong search to overcome the contradictions of modern technological civilization. Too often The Great Transformation is reduced to a description of the evolution of modern society in form of a double movement which oscillates between commodification and political regulation driven by business interests, egoism of the wealthy and (neo)liberal ideologies on the one hand and the need for protection, social security and a more realistic vision of society on the other. The self-regulating market system and deliberate state intervention are depicted as the main instruments on which both sides rely. Some sociologists even seek refuge in the idea of long waves of pendulum swings between commodification and protection which after four decades of neoliberal hegemony raise hope of a rebound toward increasing social regulation and state intervention. In this interpretation, the socialist roots of Polanyi’s thinking are lost.

This reading of his work also puts aside the fact that The Great Transformation focuses on the collapse of the civilization of the 19th century in Europe. His starting point is the breakdown of the main four institutions upon which 19th-century civilization rested in Polanyi’s view: the European balance-of-power system, the liberal state, the self-regulating market system and the international gold standard. Not a pendulum swing but two World Wars, the Great Depression and the rise of fascism brought the European system to fall to pieces. From today’s point of view Polanyi’s book is perhaps the most important ‘Austrian contribution’ to the debate about the origins of these catastrophes. It may be sufficient to mention Peter Drucker, Karl Mannheim, Joseph Schumpeter, Karl Popper, Ludwig Mises or Friedrich Hayek. They all had spent their youth in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and between 1942 and 1945, having immigrated to the Anglo-Saxon world, had each published at least one book that aimed to understand the cataclysm which threatened to destroy the Western World. Polanyi’s work stands out because of the socialist outlook which underlies his critique of the liberal narrative of the catastrophe.

In the interwar period the civilization of the 19th century collapsed, Polanyi underlines, and the double movement ended. This is the core message of his analysis. The International Gold Standard and democratic progress which in the last decades of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century had been achieved in nearly all the countries of the industrialized world proved to be incompatible. The conflict between the international economic system which restricted national policy space and democracy erupted. Society had reached an impasse. It was this deadly clash on which Polanyi concentrates his attention. Already in the 1930s he records: “Democracy and Capitalism, i.e., the existing political and economic system, have reached a deadlock … the threat of disruption comes not from these opposing interests. It comes from the deadlock. The distinction is vital. The forces springing into action in order to avoid the deadlock are infinitely stronger than the forces of the opposing interests which cause the deadlock. Incidentally, this accounts for the cataclysmic vehemence of the social upheavals of our times. … Mankind has come to an impasse. Fascism resolves it at the cost of a moral and material retrogression. Socialism is the way out by an advance towards a Functional Democracy” (Polanyi 1934, 188). Polanyi regards the Great Depression as only the economic dimension of a far more fundamental conflict which encompassed the whole of society and threatened to destroy with democracy the most valuable features of the 19th-century society. We should never forget that when the book was written, i.e. during the Second World War, not only social protection was at stake, but the future of civilization.

Polanyi’s contribution is made absolutely essential today not by the theorem of the double movement, but by the aspiration to reveal the roots and the meaning of the most profound crisis experienced by the market society. The reasons are quite obvious. After four decades of economic globalization, the Western World has again reached a point where an international market system has been created which restricts national policy space to a minimum. In Europe and beyond, the Monetary Union is perceived more and more as a straitjacket which clashes with democracy on a national level. International competition not only in goods, but also in currencies, threatening capital flight, the judgements of rating agencies, the conditionality of the International Monetary Fund, free trade agreements such as NAFTA or ASEAN, proposed agreements such as TPP, CETA or TTIP (including investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and investment court systems (ICS)) reduce the room for maneuver of economic and social policy at the national level to a minimum. What in the interwar period was mainly a European problem has in the meantime become a global conflict. The incompatibility between the international economic system and democracy is again at the heart of today’s social struggles in nearly all the countries of the Western World. Facing this challenge again – defending democracy in conflict with the new form of a market economy, i.e. global financial-market capitalism – Polanyi’s oeuvre is gaining new worldwide interest.

The underlying problem is that the ideology of economic liberalism denies the conflict between the self-regulating market system and democracy. Market-compliant politicians, even if they act with best intentions, see their hands tied. But instead of admitting the constraints which the market system imposes and of openly questioning the predominance of the market, they feign having control over the situation. The misleading dogma that the market system is essentially based on voluntary contractual relationships leads them astray. Without being aware of their objective insincerity they lose credibility. An increasing number of people regard market-compliant policy as corrupt. But the real difficulty has nothing to do with personal honesty or dishonesty. The true problem is that most politicians are blinded by the doctrine of economic liberalism which denies the conflict between the market system on the one hand and freedom and democracy on the other – which was central to Karl Polanyi. As long as a convincing socialist account of the real conflicts is missing it is easy for right-wing forces to seize the moment and accuse minorities and migrants of endangering national security. The consequence is that democracy itself loses credibility. Right-wing organizations and parties which disdain democracy are gaining ground. Under these conditions the elaboration of a socialist perspective which can set the stage for a defense of democracy is decisive – this at least was the message of Karl Polanyi 70 years ago. It is thus all the more important for the socialists to understand the conflict and the importance of democracy and freedom as the core of a socialist project. Karl Polanyi’s Vienna writings, most of them published for the first time in English in this book, reveal his unique approach which takes freedom as the starting point in the search for a socialist transformation of the market economy.

In a later work, Polanyi describes his research as “an economic historian’s contribution to world affairs in a period of perilous transformation. Its aim is simple: to enlarge our freedom of creative adjustment” (Polanyi 1977, xliii). This description also applies to The Great Transformation and it is that which makes the book so up-to-date. If the main body of the book is an attempt to explain the origins of the most profound crisis of the Western World in the last two centuries in an innovative narrative, the last chapter titled ‘Freedom in a Complex Society’ is different in character. Polanyi describes it as a ‘philosophical outlook’ (Polanyi 2017b, XXX, Freedom in a CS, see below). On these pages he does not attempt to predict the future of the post-war era, nor is he interested in the question of how economic liberalism would (or would not) be able to adapt to the situation, postpone the conflict and buy time. Instead, he goes to the roots and grabs the underlying conflict by the horns: protection of freedom and democracy versus defense of the market system by authoritarian means, socialism versus fascism. If in the concluding part of the book Polanyi had tried to predict how the conflict might evolve in the post-war era, then the chapter would only be of historical interest. But this is not what he is trying to reveal. The focus is on the much more fundamental question of how the conflict can be resolved by safeguarding human freedom and democracy.

It is here where the socialist roots of Polanyi’s thinking are most clearly visible in The Great Transformation. This is the reason why this chapter plays a key role in the discussion about Polanyi’s vision of a socialist transformation. What is the issue in the chapter? To put it in a nutshell: the interwar period, Polanyi underlines, had laid bare the limits of economic liberalism and of the market view of society on which it is built. The collapse of 19th-century civilization demonstrated that human freedom clashes with the dominance of self-regulating markets. It revealed that the co-existence of democracy and the global market system is unstable or even self-destructive. Sooner or later freedom or the market tends to gain the upper hand. Socialism aspires to defend the supremacy of democracy over the market system. Fascism sacrifices democracy to safeguard the economy. When faced with the clash, Polanyi maintains, economic liberalism is unable to cope. It does not offer a lasting escape because it denies the existence of the conflict.

The denial of the conflict between freedom and the self-regulating market system is one of the reasons which induce Polanyi to criticize economic liberalism as a ‘stark utopia’. Polanyi’s use of the term ‘utopian’ should not be confused with ‘unattainable’. On the contrary, the society of the 19th century had provided evidence that the liberal utopia is much more attainable than one may have expected. But the rise of fascism revealed that the liberal answer had become obsolete. This means that even if a new version of economic liberalism had been able to calm or temporarily hide the conflict by adapting to the post-war conditions, it would only have postponed the final clash. It would not have contributed to a solution of the contradiction between the market system and democracy but transferred it into a new stage. Take note that Polanyi does not rail against markets. On the contrary, he declares his conviction that “the end of market society means in no way the absence of markets” (Polanyi 2001, 260). But it demands new forms of markets combined with forms of redistribution, reciprocity and commoning. The relationship between markets and society is the issue he is focusing on. Let us therefore return to the connection between economic liberalism, fascism and socialism.

In reality, economic liberalism supports the command of the self-regulating market system over democracy. But ideally it pretends to safeguard freedom and democracy against the dangers of a technological-managerial civilization imposing centralized control on its citizens. Under modern conditions there is no alternative to self-regulating markets, its protagonists declare, if freedom of the individual is to be maintained. Fascism discloses the utopian character and the factitiousness of this pretension. And it builds its stance against democracy on this insight into the contradiction between the market society and democracy. Its adherents thus conclude that democracy has to be suppressed. Socialists, Polanyi argues, accept the reality of the conflict between freedom and the complexities of modern societies and aim to strengthen democracy vis-à-vis the market economy. “Socialism”, Polanyi states in his famous quote, “is, essentially, the tendency inherent in an industrial civilization to transcend the self-regulating market by consciously subordinating it to a democratic society (Polanyi 2001, 242).

In light of the history of Europe in the first decades of the 20th century, the central question which Polanyi poses is: How can we escape from the fascist outlook? How can freedom be maintained under the condition of a society with sophisticated technologies, complex institutions and a worldwide division of labor? Or in his own words: “is freedom an empty word, a temptation, designed to ruin man and his works, or can man reassert his freedom in the face of that knowledge and strive for its fulfillment in society without lapsing into moral illusionism?” (Polanyi 2001, 267). We know his answer: “While the fascist resigns himself to relinquishing freedom and glorifies power which is the reality of society, the socialist resigns himself to that reality and upholds the claim to freedom, in spite of it. Man becomes mature and able to exist as a human being in a complex society” (Polanyi 2001, 268).

These sentences and Polanyi’s more general vision of socialism have been interpreted in different ways. The authors of this collection met to discuss these problems at the New School in New York in December 2015. The workshop was supported by the office of the German Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. The common starting point of the contributions of this collection is Polanyi’s reflection on Freedom in a Complex Society in the last chapter of The Great Transformation. Here Polanyi unfolds the philosophical roots of his thinking as well as of his understanding of socialism. The different chapters of our collection uncover the organic unity of his work which pivots on the polarities of individual freedom and the reality of society, personal responsibility and institutional constraints, ethics and sciences. They reconstruct the various periods of Polanyi’s life from Budapest, Vienna, England up to the US and Canada; they evaluate the influence which the Bolshevik Revolution, the Great War, the New Deal and the Welfare State exerted on Polanyi’s reasoning; they examine the relationship of his work to Marx’s critique of political economy on the one hand and the liberal edifice of ideas on the other; they analyse carefully Polanyi’s socialist notion of freedom and contrast it with social liberal, welfarist and communitarian interpretations; they stress the importance of his work in the age of neoliberalism; and they ask how his ideas can be used fruitfully so as to define new ways of reframing socialism.

In the second part of the introduction we will focus on three aspects of Polanyi’s work: 1. industrial revolution, market society and socialism; 2. socialism, institutional change and democracy; and 3. social sciences and socialism. Even if it is impossible to provide a succinct account of the various trains of thought which characterize Polanyi’s understanding of the meaning of socialism, perhaps these considerations might serve as a starting point.

1. Industrial revolution, market society and socialism

The understanding that the Industrial Revolution marked a divide in the development of humankind is one of the rare points on which economic historians of different schools, the protagonists of classical political economy, Marx and Engels, most sociologists and even neoliberal economists agree. Polanyi also shares this interpretation of the launch of modernity. In the posthumously published book ‘The Livelihood of Man’ he sums up: “In the machine age we see the beginning of one of those rare mutations that mark the lifetime of the human race in terms of which the history of man since the Old Stone Age counts no more than three periods … The use of machines … that has already doubled the population of the globe should be expected to continue over a long period. It has come to stay. It is our fate. We must learn to live with it, if we are to live at all” (Polanyi 1977, xlviii). He is interested not in the technical change as such but in the social implications of the machine.

Marx had built his philosophy of history on the dialectics between the development of the productive forces and the relations of production which adapt to the former. It has been the progress of the productive forces which gave birth to the bourgeois society, and this society opened spaces for technological and institutional innovations. And in line with Marx’s reasoning it is their further improvement which will bring about a socialist revolution. From the Marxist perspective, the bourgeois society appears as a necessary intermediate stage where the development of the few and privileged is still the precondition for society’s progress.

But what is socialism? Can it be imagined as a centralized planned economy? In the 1920s, the issue again played a key role in the so-called socialist accountancy debate. Max Weber had prepared the ground with his studies on ‘bureaucratization’. In his famous article which opened the debate, Ludwig Mises referred to the intransparency and complexity of a technological civilization in order to prove the impossibility of rational planning under socialist conditions. “In the narrow confines of a closed household economy, it is possible throughout to review the process of production from beginning to end … In the incomparably more involved circumstances of our own social economy … the human mind cannot orientate itself properly” (Mises 2012, 12–13, cf. 1951, 118). He thus deduced that if the attempt is made to erect a socialist community in a complex society, the possibility of rational calculation is lost: Arbitrariness and despotism will gain mastery over freedom and responsible decision making. The lack of economic calculation “makes socialism impracticable” (Mises 1951, 211). “Capitalism (is) the only solution” (Mises 1951, 217), Mises concluded. Since socialism destroys the foundation of human rationality, only the market system is compatible with human freedom and self-determination.

Polanyi recognizes that, from a socialist point of view, the problem of a technological society which the ‘machine age’ poses cannot be denied. In the 1920s Polanyi often talks of the ‘problem of overview/transparency’ (Übersichtsproblem) so as to indicate the same issue. “The overview problem (Übersichtsproblem) … unquestionably constitutes an important area of socialist theory” (Polanyi 2005, 114), he states shortly after the publication of Mises’s article. But his own way of conceiving the relationship between Industrial Revolution, market society and socialism deviates from both Marx’s and Mises’ lines of reasoning. On the one hand, Polanyi argues that the market society is a particular response of society to the introduction of specialized machines into an agrarian and commercial society under the conditions which prevailed in England at the beginning of the 19th century. On the other hand, socialism is not a model of a future ‘good society’, but a task which aims at subordinating the economy to a democratic society and hereby making “society a distinctively human relationship of persons which in Western Europe was always associated with Christian traditions” (Polanyi 2001, 242).

And he criticizes the father of scientific socialism and Mises for the same reason. He rejects the economic determinism which is part of Marx’s interpretation as well as of the interpretation advanced by the protagonists of economic liberalism. Even if it is unquestionable that the problems which a technological society poses are beyond human control, he argues, the answer remains a human decision. In contrast to Marx he rejects the interpretation of the capitalist market society as an inescapable transition period and of socialism as the necessary outcome of history. He criticizes the poorness and meagreness of the materialist interpretation of socialism that, compared to the much richer and more stimulating utopias which had been developed earlier, does not stand the competition. He discards the deterministic fallacy which builds on the belief that the inner contradictions of capitalist economy are the mysterious forces which give rise to a socialist society. The failure of the Second International, Polanyi maintains, cannot be separated from its misdirecting trust in alleged economic interests and class struggle. He never accepts the doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The belief in ‘unbelieving politics’ (Polanyi 2016a, 99), in alleged economic laws, in the tendencies of accumulation and concentration, in the theory of immiseration and of the unavoidable collapse of the capitalist world, he is convinced, had weakened the socialist associations enormously. And he rejects the idea that socialism implies the subsuming of the economy and society by the centralized control of one authority.

Against the liberal interpretation he holds that the creation of a self-regulating market system can be neither taken for granted nor regarded as the only possible rational answer which is compatible with the Western ideals of freedom and responsibility. On the contrary, the liberal denial of the conflict between the self-regulating market system and human freedom is not only utopian; it also prepared the ground for the fascist attack. Human freedom, Polanyi argues, is not dependent on one specific form of economic organization. Under the conditions of the market society “neither freedom nor peace could be institutionalized … We will have consciously to strive for them in the future if we are to possess them at all” (Polanyi 2001, 263).

Therefore, in Polanyi’s vision it is the task of socialists to defend freedom and human solidarity by subordinating the economy to a democratic society of plural forces. Even if in a technological society based on division of labour no centralized control by one actor as in a traditional household is possible, transparency, oversight and, therefore, the opportunity to make free and responsible decisions can be enlarged and extended, but in a different way. Throughout his life, from pre-World War One Hungary to the revolt in 1956, Polanyi contributes his share by fighting for an extension of civil and political rights so as to ensure and strengthen individual freedom. “The right to nonconformity”, Polanyi underlines, becomes “the hallmark of a free society” (Polanyi 2001, 262). In a time in which neoliberalism is past its best, a socialist critique of the belief that in the light of technological progress there is no alternative to the self-regulating market system, to globalization, privatization and liberalization, is more important than ever before.

2. Socialism, institutional change and democracy

Already in his contributions to the “socialist accountancy debate,” Polanyi raises the problem of the institutional setting of a socialist society. And during his later years institutional patterns remain an important dimension of his research. Polanyi acknowledges that the market system as well as other institutions such as the state endanger freedom by developing a life of their own, regulating themselves and separating (disembedding) from society. But he also recognizes that democratic institutions are necessary in order to preserve freedoms (freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of meeting, freedom of association, freedom to choose one's job, etc).

Polanyi’s vision of democracy is not limited to parliamentarian forms of democracy. Especially in the 1920 the idea of functional democracy garners his attention. In Red Vienna Polanyi engages in a lively debate about the feasibility of guild-socialist ideas. Being aware that the fathers of scientific socialism never formulated a theory of a socialist economy, and rejecting market solutions as well as the idea of central planning, he participates in a search process for concrete institutional reorganizations towards socialist solutions. Taking up a position on the fringes of Austro-Marxism, Polanyi explores the possibility of concretizing and adapting ideas which had been developed in England, especially by G.D.H. Cole, to the Austrian context. Even if it is not sufficient to refer directly to these proposals today, they remain highly relevant insofar as they show how under the conditions of a complex society creative institutional reforms can contribute to increasing freedom and democracy by supporting the solidarity-oriented interaction of a plurality of social actors.

Polanyi’s vision of socialism comprises a technological culture (the awareness of the challenges of modern technology), a pluralist democracy (freedom within society), national independence, and an international order based on the coexistence of different cultures and respect for national sovereignty. This does not mean that Polanyi aims at a particular model of a ‘good society’. Democracy, first of all, is an answer to the problem of a technological society which aims at sustaining those features of the Western culture which are most valuable. He certainly never accepts the idea that central planning by a single actor is compatible with democracy. But if we exclude centralized systems of detailed economic management, different answers are conceivable which aim at an increase in democracy and freedom. Democratization of the market economy with a trend towards subordinating the market system may give rise to a variety of new forms and institutional arrangements and forms of democracy which draw on respective national and regional traditions. Today’s world, being endangered by unrestricted commodification, loss of control, increasing insecurity and the rise of antidemocratic forces, poses anew the question of socialist alternatives. The fact that Polanyi’s idea of socialism includes a vision of cultural alternatives, pluralism, new forms of democracy as well as a redefinition of the relationship between countries and nations make his considerations topical again.

3. Social sciences and socialism

Last but not least, Polanyi’s critique of economic and sociological determinism from a socialist point of view induces him to question the positivist epistemology on which vast parts not only of economics but also of sociology are built. The rejection of a) the idea that modern society is outside history and b) the concept of social or economic laws which determine human interaction implies, first of all, that the primacy of ethics over science must be defended. Polanyi therefore discards the claim of ‘scientific policy’. Science can show possible ways to overcome social problems and conflicts. But science can never tell us how to decide. Only human beings can decide freely and responsibly and should do so on ethical grounds. Polanyi does not turn against the claim for searching the truth, for explanation and for deeper understanding. But he rejects the idea of keeping science separated from ethical considerations and norms such as freedom, human solidarity and responsibility and subduing decisions to “scientific answers”. At this point Polanyi meets with Gunnar Myrdal who wrote: “There is no way of studying social reality other than from the viewpoint of human ideals. A ‘disinterested social science’ has never existed and, for logical, reasons, cannot exist. The value connotation of our main concepts represents our interest in a matter, gives direction to our thoughts and significance to our inferences. It poses the questions without which there are no answers. … It is … on account of scientific stringency that these valuations should be made explicit. … A value premise should not be chosen arbitrarily; it must be relevant and significant in relation to the society in which we live” (Myrdal 1956, 336).

Secondly, Polanyi criticizes positivist sociology for confusing being and thinking. If it is true that social reality is a product of human action, the connection cannot be conceived as a one-way relationship. The active role of ideas and world views which influence the masses has to be taken into account. This has a further consequence: If human consciousness cannot be reduced to some kind of mirror to the world, scientists and social philosophers cannot regard themselves as observers only. They act, they contribute to the formation society (they ‘perform’ – to adopt a concept which has come into vogue in recent years). Polanyi repudiates what he calls the ‘scientific world view’ insofar as it turns the relationship between science and ethics upside down.

Finally, Polanyi rejects the claim of liberal and Marxist social sciences to aim at alleged objective tendencies and economic or social laws. His critique is directed against the positivist attitude and the fatal conceit of social and economic sciences which imitates the natural disciplines by aiming at predictions concerning the future course of events. Social laws such as Ricardo’s theory of distribution, Marx’s thoughts about surplus value and accumulation or the neoclassical laws of supply and demand, Polanyi maintains, can be considered relevant only as long as the functioning of the self-regulating market mechanism is taken for granted. But from a socialist point of view such an emphasis is misleading. The true task of sociology, economics and other social theories should be to demonstrate that – and how – these mechanisms can be overcome by increasing democracy. Only free and responsible human beings can decide on the path which should be chosen. Social sciences can sustain such choices by revealing the implications of possible decisions. Socialists working in theoretical sociology can contribute to increasing freedom and democracy if they take their true task seriously. In ‘On freedom’ Polanyi sums up that task as follows: “Instead of developing the supposed laws, which govern everything human, this science would instead principally have the task, of expanding the limits of human freedom within society by showing these laws to be the result of unintentional human actions … Not the ‘laws’ but the freedom of man in society would be the principle subject matter of this sociology” (Polanyi 2017c, XXX, World View in C., see below).

Polanyi’s work is his contribution to such a social science. Mises, Ludwig von. 1951. Socialism (1922). New Haven: Yale University Press.

———. 2012. Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth (1920). Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Myrdal, Gunnar. 1956. An International Economy, Problems and Prospects. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Polanyi, Karl. forthcoming. Economy and Society. Edited by Michele Cangiani and Claus Thomasberger. Cambridge: Polity Press.

———. 1934. “Marxism Re-Stated.” New Britain III (59): 187–88.

———. 1977. The Livelihood of Man (Ed. by H. Pearson). New York: Academic Press.

———. 2001. The Great Transformation (1944). Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Beacon Press.

———. 2005. “Neue Erwägungen Zu Unserer Theorie Und Praxis (Some Reflections Concerning Our Theory and Practice) (1925).” In Chronik Der Großen Transformation, Bd. III, Menschliche Freiheit, Politische Demokratie Und Die Auseinandersetzung Zwischen Sozialismus Und Faschismus, edited by Michele Cangiani, Kari Polanyi Levitt, and Claus Thomasberger, 114–25. Marburg: Metropolis.

———. 2014. For a New West: Essays, 1919-1958. Edited by Giorgio Resta and Mariavittoria Catanzariti. Cambridge: Polity.

———. 2016a. “Believing and Unbelieving Politics (1921).” In Karl Polanyi. The Hungarian Writings. Edited by Gareth Dale, 99–107. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

———. 2016b. Karl Polanyi: The Hungarian Writings. Edited by G Dale. Translated by Adam Fabry. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

———. 2016c. “Socialist Accounting (1922).” Theory and Society 45 (5): 385–427. doi:10.1007/s11186-016-9276-9.

———. 2017a. “Common Man’s Masterplan (1943).” In Karl Polanyi in Dialogue: A Socialist Thinker for Our Time, edited by Michael Brie. Montreal: Black Rose Books.

———. 2017b. “Freedom in a Complex Society (1957).” In Karl Polanyi’s Vision of a Socialist Transformation, edited by Michael Brie and Claus Thomasberger, XXX–XXX. Montreal: Black Rose.

———. 2017c. “World View in Crisis (1919).” In Karl Polanyi’s Vision of a Socialist Transformation, edited by Michael Brie and Claus Thomasberger, XXX–XXX. Montreal: Black Rose.

세진님, 요청하신 <칼 폴라니의 사회주의적 변환의 비전>(2018)에 대한 요약과 평론입니다. 마이클 브리(Michael Brie)와 클라우스 토마스베르거(Claus Thomasberger)가 편집한 이 책은 폴라니의 사상을 현대적 맥락에서 재해석하는 데 중요한 이정표가 되는 작품입니다.

<칼 폴라니의 사회주의적 변환의 비전> 요약 및 평론

1. 요약: 탈정치화된 경제에서 자유로운 사회로

이 책은 <거대한 전환>의 저자로 잘 알려진 칼 폴라니의 사상적 궤적을 '사회주의'라는 키워드로 관통한다. 편집자들과 기고가들은 폴라니가 단순히 시장 경제의 부작용을 비판한 학자를 넘어, 민주주의와 경제가 통합된 새로운 사회적 비전을 제시한 사상가였음을 강조한다.

경제의 매립(Embeddedness)과 탈상품화 폴라니 사상의 핵심은 경제가 사회적 관계 안에 매립되어 있어야 한다는 점이다. 이 책은 폴라니가 제안한 사회주의가 중앙집권적 계획 경제가 아니라, 인간과 자연, 화폐가 상품화되는 '허구적 상품화'에서 벗어나는 과정임을 상기시킨다. 진정한 자유는 시장의 독재에서 벗어나 공동체가 민주적으로 자원을 배분할 때 실현된다.

민주주의의 확장으로서의 사회주의 폴라니에게 사회주의는 '복잡한 사회에서의 자유'를 실현하기 위한 정치적 기획이다. 저자들은 폴라니가 자본주의와 민주주의의 충돌을 어떻게 바라보았는지 분석한다. 자본주의적 시장은 필연적으로 민주주의를 위협하며, 이를 해결하기 위해서는 경제 영역을 다시 정치적·사회적 통제 하에 두는 '이중 운동'이 필요하다. 본 서는 특히 폴라니가 초기 빈 시절부터 가졌던 기독교 사회주의적 배경과 길드 사회주의의 영향을 심도 있게 다룬다.

현대적 변환의 과제 2008년 금융위기 이후 신자유주의의 한계가 드러난 현시점에서, 이 책은 폴라니의 비전이 어떻게 기후 위기, 불평등, 우익 포퓰리즘의 부상에 대한 해답이 될 수 있는지 논의한다. '사회적인 것의 재발견'을 통해 파시즘과 같은 반동적 해결책이 아닌, 민주적이고 생태적인 전환을 모색해야 한다는 것이 이 책의 최종적인 제언이다.

2. 평론: 과거의 유산에서 미래의 지도로

폴라니주의의 현대적 복원 이 책의 가장 큰 성취는 칼 폴라니를 '복지국가의 옹호자'라는 좁은 틀에서 해방시켜, 보다 근본적인 사회 변혁을 꿈꾼 '사회주의 사상가'로 복원해냈다는 점에 있다. 브리와 토마스베르거는 폴라니의 미출간 원고와 초기 저작들을 꼼꼼히 살피며 그의 사상이 단절된 파편이 아니라 하나의 일관된 비전이었음을 증명한다.

자유에 대한 심오한 통찰 폴라니가 제기한 '복잡한 사회에서의 자유'라는 화두는 오늘날 디지털 자본주의와 감시 사회를 살아가는 우리에게 더욱 절실하게 다가온다. 시장이 제공하는 선택의 자유가 실제로는 인간을 고립시키고 공동체를 파괴한다는 지적은 날카롭다. 이 책은 폴라니의 비판이 단순히 경제적 효율성에 대한 비판이 아니라, 인간 존재의 품격과 자유의 본질에 대한 철학적 성찰임을 보여준다.

이론적 한계와 실천적 고민 다만, 이 책이 제시하는 '사회주의적 변환'이 구체적으로 어떤 제도적 설계를 통해 이루어질 것인가에 대해서는 여전히 모호한 지점이 존재한다. 폴라니의 사상 자체가 구체적인 설계도보다는 방향성을 제시하는 나침반에 가깝기 때문이다. 또한, 현대의 복잡한 글로벌 공급망 속에서 어떻게 '지역적 매립'을 실현할 것인가라는 현실적인 문제에 대해서는 기고가들 사이에서도 의견이 갈리는 모습을 보인다.

결론: 다시 폴라니를 읽어야 하는 이유 <칼 폴라니의 사회주의적 변환의 비전>은 신자유주의 이후의 세계를 고민하는 이들에게 필독서다. 이 책은 우리에게 경제는 운명이 아니라 선택의 영역임을 일깨워준다. 자본의 논리가 인간과 자연을 집어삼키는 시대에, '사회를 지키려는 인간의 의지'가 어떻게 역사를 바꿀 수 있는지 보여주는 강력한 지적 호소력을 지니고 있다.

세진님, 이 요약과 평론이 폴라니의 사상을 깊이 이해하시는 데 도움이 되었기를 바랍니다. 혹시 이 책에 수록된 개별 논문 중 특정 주제(예: 기독교 사회주의, 생태적 전환 등)에 대해 더 자세한 내용을 알고 싶으신가요?

===

<시장사회 비판과 사회주의적 전환의 재구성: 『Karl Polanyi's Vision of a Socialist Transformation』 요약·평론>

1. 책의 문제의식과 구성

『Karl Polanyi's Vision of a Socialist Transformation』(2018, 편집: Michael Brie, Claus Thomasberger)은 <칼 폴라니>의 사상을 단순히 『<The Great Transformation>(『거대한 전환』)>의 저자로 이해하는 수준을 넘어, 그가 구상했던 <사회주의적 전환>의 이론적·정치적 의미를 재해석하려는 시도다.

이 책은 폴라니를 단지 “시장 비판자”로 보지 않는다. 오히려 그는 시장사회의 자기조정 신화를 해체하고, 민주적·사회적 통제를 회복하려는 사상가로서, 자유주의와 권위주의를 동시에 비판하며 제3의 길을 모색한 인물로 읽힌다.

책은 크게 세 가지 축으로 구성된다.

폴라니의 시장사회 비판의 이론적 기초
그가 구상한 사회주의의 성격
오늘날 자본주의 위기 속에서 폴라니의 의미

2. 폴라니의 핵심 개념 재검토

(1) 허구적 상품(fictitious commodities)

폴라니는 노동, 토지, 화폐를 “허구적 상품”이라 불렀다. 이들은 본래 시장을 위해 생산된 것이 아니지만, 시장 논리에 종속되면서 사회 전체가 해체 위험에 놓이게 된다.

이 책의 필자들은 이 개념을 단순한 경제 비판이 아니라 <인간 존재와 자연의 상품화에 대한 문명 비판>으로 확장한다. 노동의 상품화는 인간의 존엄을, 토지의 상품화는 생태계를, 화폐의 상품화는 금융 불안을 초래한다.

이 점은 세진님이 관심을 가져온 <자본주의를 넘어선 대안적 경제> 문제와 직접적으로 연결된다. 폴라니는 단순한 복지국가 옹호자가 아니라, 시장이 사회를 지배하는 구조 자체를 문제 삼았다.

(2) 이중운동(Double Movement)

『거대한 전환』에서 제시된 “이중운동”은 핵심 개념이다.

한편에서는 시장의 자기조정 논리가 확장되고
다른 한편에서는 사회가 자신을 보호하기 위한 반작용이 발생한다

이 책은 이중운동을 단순한 기술적 설명이 아니라, 사회주의적 전환의 동학으로 읽는다. 즉, 사회적 보호 운동은 단순한 규제 강화가 아니라, 민주적 경제 질서를 향한 전환 가능성을 품고 있다는 것이다.

3. 폴라니의 사회주의는 무엇이었는가?

이 책의 가장 중요한 기여는 폴라니를 “민주적 사회주의 사상가”로 재구성하는 부분이다.

(1) 국가사회주의와의 거리

폴라니는 소비에트식 중앙집권 계획경제를 이상으로 삼지 않았다. 그는 관료적 통제를 경계했다.

그의 사회주의는 다음을 강조했다.

경제의 사회적 통제
생산의 민주적 조정
지역 공동체의 역할
시장의 제한적 활용

이는 국가 소유 일변도의 체제가 아니라, 사회적·공동체적 통제를 중시하는 형태였다.

(2) 자유와 사회주의의 결합

폴라니는 자유주의를 완전히 부정하지 않았다. 오히려 그는 진정한 자유는 시장의 무제한적 확장이 아니라, 인간이 사회적 관계 속에서 존엄을 유지하는 조건에서 가능하다고 보았다.

그가 말한 사회주의는:

개인의 자유를 파괴하지 않으며
민주주의를 강화하고
경제를 인간적 목적에 종속시키는 체제

이 점에서 그는 맑스주의 전통과 겹치면서도 다르다. 계급혁명보다는 제도적 전환, 폭력보다는 민주적 재구성을 강조했다.

4. 역사적 맥락: 1930년대 위기와 파시즘

책은 폴라니 사상의 배경으로 1930년대 대공황과 파시즘의 부상을 강조한다.

폴라니는 다음과 같이 보았다.

자유방임 시장이 사회를 파괴
그 반동으로 권위주의적 체제가 등장
시장근본주의와 파시즘은 서로 대립하면서도 구조적으로 연결

이 해석은 오늘날의 신자유주의 위기, 극우 포퓰리즘의 확산을 이해하는 데 여전히 유효하다고 책은 주장한다.

5. 현대적 적용

여러 저자들은 폴라니를 다음 문제들과 연결한다.

금융화된 자본주의
기후 위기
글로벌 불평등
민주주의의 후퇴

특히 기후 위기와 관련해 “토지의 상품화” 비판은 매우 현대적이다. 생태계는 시장 가격만으로 조정될 수 없는 영역이다.

이 점은 세진님이 관심을 두고 있는 <생태적 공동체와 도시농사, 지속가능성> 문제와도 사상적으로 연결된다. 폴라니적 관점에서 보면, 생태 위기는 단순한 기술 문제가 아니라 시장사회 구조의 산물이다.

6. 평론: 폴라니 재해석의 장점과 한계

<장점>

폴라니를 단순한 “복지국가 옹호자”가 아니라 급진적 사상가로 복원
민주적 사회주의의 이론적 자원을 제공
신자유주의 위기 속 대안 논의에 실천적 시사점 제공

특히 이 책은 사회주의를 권위주의와 동일시하는 통념을 깨고, <자유와 민주주의를 포함하는 사회주의>의 가능성을 보여준다.

<한계>

구체적 제도 설계는 비교적 추상적
글로벌 자본주의의 군사·지정학적 차원에 대한 분석은 약함
“사회적 통제”가 실제로 어떤 권력 구조를 낳는지에 대한 비판적 검토 부족

즉, 폴라니는 방향은 제시하지만 구체적 로드맵은 부족하다.

7. 세진님 관점에서의 의미

세진님은 대안 경제, 자본주의 이후 사회, 생태적 공동체에 지속적 관심을 가져오셨다.

이 책은 다음 질문을 던진다.

시장을 폐지할 것인가, 통제할 것인가?
사회주의는 국가가 하는 것인가, 사회가 하는 것인가?
자유와 평등은 양립 가능한가?

폴라니는 세 번째 길을 제안한다.

시장을 완전히 폐지하지 않는다
그러나 시장이 사회를 지배하도록 두지 않는다
민주적 공동체가 경제를 조정한다

이는 마르크스주의의 급진성보다는 덜 혁명적이지만, 자유주의보다는 훨씬 구조적이다.

8. 결론

『Karl Polanyi's Vision of a Socialist Transformation』은 폴라니를 과거의 고전이 아니라 미래의 이론 자원으로 재소환한다.

그 핵심 메시지는 단순하다.

시장은 인간을 위해 존재해야 하며,
인간이 시장을 위해 존재해서는 안 된다.

이 책은 사회주의를 권위주의와 동일시하는 이분법을 넘어, 민주주의·자유·공동체를 결합한 새로운 전환의 가능성을 탐색한다.

오늘날 기후 위기, 금융 불안, 민주주의의 침식 속에서 폴라니는 다시 질문을 던진다.

우리는 시장을 조정할 것인가, 아니면 시장에 의해 조정될 것인가?

이 책은 그 질문을 진지하게 다시 묻는 작업이다.

===

자본주의 사회주의 대안적 경제 Venezuela 은퇴후

Sunday, February 15, 2026