Class Struggle or Embedded Markets? Marx, Polanyi and the Meanings and Possibilities of Social Transformation

Abstract

Marx and Polanyi both held that socialism, in one form or another, was a preferable and possible alternative to capitalism. Their ideas are seen to offer theoretical tools to understand the tensions and contradictions of capitalism, and to inform ways to overcome them. This paper discusses Polanyi's work from a Marxist perspective in order to illuminate his strengths and weaknesses. Its main focus is to discuss Polanyi's juxtaposing of commodification against exploitation, in diagnosing the problems of capitalist expansion. We suggest that by juxtaposing these two moments, Polanyi not only misses out on a crucial arena of capitalist activity (exploitation), but also undermines his own explication of processes of commodification. This has deleterious consequences for his understanding of the prevalence of poverty under capitalism. It also means that his vision of social transformation and of socialism is profoundly different, and potentially antithetical, to that of Marx. We suggest that for Polanyi's conception of de-commodification to gain greater traction it needs to be combined with Marx's analysis of exploitation and class struggle.

Keywords:

• Marx
• Polanyi
• historical materialism
• institutionalism
• commodification
• exploitation

Notes on contributors

Ben Selwyn is a senior lecturer in International Relations and Development Studies, Department of International Relations, University of Sussex, UK. He is author of Workers, State and Development in Brazil: Powers of Labour, Chains of Value (Manchester University Press, 2012).

Satoshi Miyamura is a lecturer in the Economy of Japan, Department of Economics, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. His research interests are in political economy of development, economics of labour and institutions; India and Japan. Recent publications include ‘Emerging Consensus on Labour Market Institutions and Implications for Developing Countries: From the Debates in India’ (Forum for Social Economics, Vol. 41, No. 1 (May 2012)), and ‘Diversity of Labour Market Institutions in Indian Industry: A Comparison of Mumbai and Kolkata’ (Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Vol. 54, No. 1 (January–March 2011)).

Notes

We thank Sandra Halperin, David Blaney, Earl Gammon, Knud Erik Jorgensen and two anonymous reviewers for very stimulating comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimers apply.

1. Article accessed November 2012 at http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/09/jon-cruddas-building-new-jerusalem?page=1

2. For a critical appraisal of the GPN conception of ‘social upgrading’ and the ILO's Decent Work agenda see Selwyn (2013).