Re: [Marxism] marxist critique of polanyi?

[Husunzi <husunzi@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Larry,

Thanks for the response. Actually I'm afraid I came off sounding more
dead-set against Polanyian approaches than I am. I don't have a
systematic critique of Polanyi, more of just a suspicion based on the
fact of his own politics and the way his theory is often used to
justify market reformism, as opposed to locating the fundamental
contradictions of capitalism within market logic itself and seeking to
replace the market. In other words, I suspect that a critique of
Polanyi's analysis of the market needs to be part of the Marxist
critique of the market in general, including the various theoretical
and practical versions of market socialism. A few years ago I read a
collection edited by Bertell Ollman of arguments for and against
market socialism (Market Socialism: The Debate among Socialists) that
I found useful in this regard, and it seems to me that the type of
arguments against market socialism in there (by Ollman and Ticktin,
among others) could be extended to Polanyi, as could critical studies
of really existing market socialism, such as the books on China by Bob
Weil and Hart-Landsberg and Burkett, among others. But of course they
couldn't be directly extended to Polanyi - that would just be one
starting point.

But again, this is all pretty new to me, so at this point I just want
to know what other people have written on the subject.

I will check out the pieces you mention. I'm also looking forward to
the forthcoming article and book mentioned by Gareth.

Cheers,

Matt



On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Larry Damms <larrydamms@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Husunzi asked:
>
> Has anyone seen a Marxist critique of Polanyi?
>
> LD comments:
>
> Might you furnish a capsule version of your Marxist critique of Polanyism?
> Is your main
> problem with the analytic adequacy of Polanyist concepts, or with the
> politics that you
> seem to believe are organically linked to the Polanyist perspective... or
> both? If the latter,
> beware too linear a correspondence between theory and practice.
> "Re-embedding"
> fictitious commodities might imply post-war social democracy, it might imply
> community/
> worker self-management, it might imply something else along the lines of
> what the more
> visionary Bolivarians are up to. There is no hard set of one-to-one
> relationships here. If the
> former, keep in mind that there are stone cold Marxists whose interpretive
> powers have been
> enriched by critical appropriation of Polyanism, rather than subverted
> by it. I'm thinking
> mainly of Jim O'Connor in his red-green phase of the last 20 years, and of
> somewhat more
> recent vintage Kees Van Der Pijl. O'Connor's original "second contradiction"
> essay and a
> piece that van der Pijl had published in _Monthly Review_ about 12 years ago
> (sorry, don't
> have the references handy) are excellent starting points. But maybe you
> aren't buying what
> I'm selling.
>
> In any event, it is refreshing to finally see some real intellectual
> engagement on this
> woebegone maillist, rather than turgid recitation of the CPUSA position on
> "emerging market
> countries." I wouldn't mind one bit if Louis consigned the likes of Feldman,
> Lippman, et al to
> the proverbial dustbin.
>

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu