Karl Polanyi. Группа авторов
‘its collapse would unleash those forces of democratic self-destruction that have already become such a dramatic challenge for Europe. It would lead precisely to the regression and complete marginalisation of the semi-continent described by Karl Polanyi just before the end of World War II.’
Likewise, several Austrian papers reported on the tribute to Kari Polanyi Levitt in the form of a commemorative plaque at her former family home in Vienna, and on this occasion also used the opportunity to expand on Karl Polanyi’s work at the same time. By and large, the reception in Austrian media publications remains non-committal, although there are exceptions every now and then: for example, Der Standard published a comprehensive Polanyi portrait including an interview with Kari Polanyi Levitt by Tanja Traxler on the occasion of the Polanyi Conference in Linz on 18 January 2017. Other reports were published by the Wiener Zeitung, such as an op-ed article by economist Sigrid Stagl on 29 August 2017 calling for ‘new rules for economic activity in the Anthropocene’.
As for German and Swiss daily papers, in a nutshell, Polanyi is either honoured or derisively criticised, depending on the specific political orientation of the respective paper. The conservative Neue Zürcher Zeitung remains surprisingly neutral and frequently quotes Polanyi in its more elaborate essays; for example, urban planners Robert Kaltenbrunner and Olaf Schnur appear quite at home using the term ‘commodification’ – in reference to Polanyi (16 April 2014).
The Süddeutsche Zeitung and taz clearly sympathise with Polanyi. In an article for the Süddeutsche of 18 June 2018, political scientist Claus Leggewie reviews the Polanyi-related works by Gareth Dale and Robert Kuttner. And English literature professor Jeremy Adler writes on the subject of Brexit:
‘The correct diagnosis comes from Hayek's opponent Karl Polanyi. The economic historian regarded the “free market” as a myth because it was in fact based on countless laws: “The laissez-faire was planned”. The one-sided preference of the market undermined democracy. A natural economy is socially embedded. According to Polanyi, Hayek confused the disease with the cure. Fascism stems from “a market economy that does not function”.’ (Süddeutsche Zeitung, 24 August 2018)
For economic sociologist Jens Beckert, then, The Great Transformation is the most important book he has come across, full stop (Süddeutsche Zeitung, 14 June 2016). Unsurprisingly, when quoting Polanyi, the taz expresses agreement with his positions, or rather assumes the reference to him to be entirely natural and self-explanatory (e.g. in the case of author and political scientist Franz Walter on 6 April 2013).
Among the most interesting coverage of Polanyi is that by the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ). Although the main thrust of the FAZ and its Sunday edition, the Frankfurter Allgemeinen Sonntagszeitung (FAS), is that students of Polanyi cling to his theory only out of concern for the general helplessness of the left, it is still a paper in which there is comprehensive, at times even sympathetic engagement with Polanyi.
Here, US economist Shoshana Zuboff states, with reference to Polanyi’s analysis of the market’s destructiveness:
‘Google brings us to the precipice of a new development in the scope of the market economy. A fourth fictional commodity is emerging as a dominant characteristic of market dynamics in the 21st century. “Reality” is about to undergo the same kind of fictional transformation and be reborn as “behavior”. This includes the behavior of creatures, their bodies, and their things. It includes actual behavior and data about behavior.’ (FAZ, 30 April 2014)
Economist Carl Christian von Weizsäcker in turn cites Polanyi in his economics of migration (FAZ, 12 January 2016).
Likewise, economic editor Rainer Hank notes at the end of his Polanyi portrait, rather positively: ‘Many of today’s critics of capitalism graze on Polanyi’s pasture. The critique of “economism” and “capitalism in its pure form”, the admonition to maintain reasonable measure, which resounds on a daily basis from politicians ranging from Sahra Wagenknecht to Volker Kauder, has its origin here. When Chancellor Merkel demands a “democracy that conforms to the market”, today’s friends of Polanyi would, by contrast, demand a “market that conforms to democracy”.’ (FAS, 24 August 2018)
It should be added that the very same editor, with regard to Polanyi’s legacy, distorts his differentiated critique of capitalism, as well as accusing him of ‘anti-capitalist romanticism’ (FAS, 13 January 2013). Yet Hank keeps returning to Polanyi, be it in the context of his review of Dickens (FAS, 16 March 2014), or in a philippic against critics of capitalism who, in his view, are unaware that they are Polanyi’s heirs (FAS, 24 August 2014).
In his FAZ article titled, ‘Why intellectuals don’t like capitalism’, multi-millionaire and historian Rainer Zitelmann enlightens readers about the reason for middle-class publicists’ intuitive mistrust: ‘One of the reasons why many intellectuals lack an understanding of capitalism is its character as spontaneously evolved social order. In contrast to socialism, capitalism is not an intellectual construct that is imposed on reality, but an order that evolved largely spontaneously, rather growing “from the bottom upward” than being decreed from above. Historically, it has evolved like languages have evolved. Languages were not invented, constructed and conceived, but are the result of uncontrolled, spontaneous processes’ (18 May 2018).
It is hardly possible to misunderstand Polanyi and his school of thought any more profoundly, for in the latter’s view, precisely the opposite is true: laissez-faire was planned.
The picture is entirely different when we consider the UK and US. In the UK, the reason for this is simple: Jeremy Corbyn’s economic policy is based on and orientated towards Polanyi. However, this is not the only reason why conservative media like The Economist have covered Polanyi (‘The great transformation: Corbynomics would change Britain – but not in the way most people think’, 17 May 2018); long before Corbyn, political scientist Adrian Pabst had apodictically established in an article in the left-of-centre Guardian that Polanyi, not Keynes, was ‘the only economist to grasp the real limitations of capitalism and socialism’ (9 November 2008). The Guardian states in an editorial: ‘Corbynomics has been framed in such moral (Polanyian, A.T.) terms – and that is a very good thing’ – what is lacking is the courage to produce concrete examples (27 May 2018).
More recently, UK-based economist Ann Pettifor, co-initiator of Jubilee 2000, an organisation demanding debt relief for the poorest countries, gave the German left-leaning daily paper taz an interview in which she explained the current political situation with reference to Polanyi:
‘Trump certainly represents a substantial part of society. He represents the fearful, people who have been unsettled by the economic crisis. The banks were bailed out, while the ordinary population was subjected to austerity and told they had to make sacrifices. Wages today are still lower than they were before the crisis. Ordinary people lost their houses, they see their jobs being threatened by competition from China, and the banks in Washington are doing better than ever before. As Karl Polanyi already explained as early as the 1930s, people will vote for a strong man if they feel that they need to be protected. It is a reaction to an unregulated economy. The strong man promises to build a wall on the border with Mexico and fight against the Chinese. In France, we are witnessing the revolt of a similar segment of disadvantaged citizens (…) The election of an authoritarian leader does not solve the problems of the population, it aggravates them. This is what people will discover. In both the US and Great Britain, pensions have largely been privatised, money is managed by shadow banks who use it for speculation. What exactly is it that they do with pensions? No one knows, there is no transparency. Nor any kind of oversight. Mister Blackrock manages six billion dollars’ worth of such funds. What do we know about Blackrock?’ (taz, 12 January 2019)
In the United States, Polanyi’s position is equally unchallenged. The New York Times cites his work and includes his magnum opus in a list of the most important books written in emigration, alongside those of Hannah Arendt, Theodor W. Adorno and Thomas Mann (1 February 2017); or it quotes from it, as does Pankaj Mishra in an article about Indian prime minister Modi (14 November 2016).