Ok, no offense, but this just awful. Seriously, it makes me even wonder if the guy read Polanyi's book.
He says:
"The reason is that the free market is (1) what men have turned to when they have been allowed freedom of choice, and (2) what men should turn to if they are to enjoy the full stature of men, if they are to satisfy their wants, and mould nature to their purposes. For it is the market that brings us the standard of living of civilization."
This is simply, utterly, and completely false. There is nothing more natural about a market economy than a gift economy, for example. In fact, there are literally limitless ways we could organize an economy, and this is easily found in the countless tribes and cultures studied by anthropologists. Again, historically, markets had to be pushed onto people, and this is a historical fact, whether it fits into your narrative or not. I would like to see the evidence supporting his first claim. The second claim doesn't even make sense here, as it is only the author's opinion.
Someone here doesn't have the remotest understanding of economics or the motivations of human interactions. I may provide some bit of enlightenment should that person become open to the idea that they are wrong in their ideas.
A truly free market economy is based on the basic human rights of property and to freely associate and to contract with each other. It is governed by the Non-Aggression Principle. What this means is that a person owns something and that no one else under any circumstances has any right to what that person owns. What that person does with their property is of no one's else's concern. If that person wishes to trade his property for the property of another person, no one other than those two have any right to any part of that association and contract.
The above is the natural state of the most basic building block of economy. There were many native American tribes that practiced a truly free market economy until the white man came and taught them government.
"I therefore must conclude that this is Polanyi’s sole basic complaint against the free society and the free market: they do not permit him, or any of his friends, or anyone else, to use force to coerce someone else into doing what Polanyi or anyone else wants. "
Here, the author reveals to us that he sees in Polanyi some kind of hidden motive? Or something? That Polanyi wants to destroy the "free market" so that he can control people? That's not a legitimate critique of Polanyi's ideas. I wonder if he even read the book. And we could easily turn this around: private business use the ideology of the "free market" to coerce and control the community: "The government can't tell us not to dump toxic chemicals in the water, that's against the free market! The government can't tell us not to abuse our workers, that's against the free market!" And so on and so on...
First, lets start with that quote in full context:
I mentioned that the free society would permit Polanyi or any who agree with him to abandon the market and find whatever other forms suit them. But one thing and one thing alone the free society would not permit Polanyi to do: to use coercion over the rest of us. It will let him join a commune, but it will not let him force you or me into his commune. This is the sole difference, and I therefore must conclude that this is Polanyi’s sole basic complaint against the free society and the free market: they do not permit him, or any of his friends, or anyone else, to use force to coerce someone else into doing what Polanyi or anyone else wants. It does not permit force and violence, it does not permit dictation, it does not permit theft, it does not permit exploitation. I must conclude that the type of world, which Polanyi would force us back into, is precisely the world of coercion, dictation, and exploitation. And all this in the name of "humanity"? Truly, Polanyi, like his fellow-thinkers, is the "humanitarian with the guillotine." (See Isabel Paterson’s profound work of political theory, The God of the Machine, Putnam’s, 1943).
Now that we have the full context of the quote, lets see about your response. Private Business requires the
VOLUNTARY interaction with the people who desire the things the business is willing to trade them to function. Socialism requires the
MANDITORY compliance with arbitrary rules and the forfeiture of the most basic of human rights, the right to property, for it to function. Socialism/Communism is based entirely on the use of force to violate the property rights of everyone by stealing their property, coercing everyone into compliance, and exploiting them by claiming ownership over the fruits of everyone's labors.
In the third paragraph, the author is arguing that "society" does not exist, that we are only individuals, which shows the author is misusing the concepts of Universal and Particular. Sure, we could say that "fruit" does not exist, that there are only apples and oranges, but these two situations are not the same. "Society" is just a term used to refer to the totality of social relations amongst any group of people who share a culture. Society does exist, societies do exist. Can you honestly say that you are part of no society?
(In Yoda's voice)Make an idiot of yourself, you did.
The only intelligible way of defining society is as: the array of voluntary interpersonal relations. And preeminent amongst such voluntary interrelations is the free market! In short, the market, and the interrelations arising from the market, is society, or at least the bulk and the heart of it. In fact, contrary to Polanyi and other’s statements that sociability and fellowship comes before the market; the truth is virtually the reverse; for it is only because the market and its division of labor permits mutual gain among men, that they can afford to be sociable and friendly, and that amicable relations can ensue. For, in the jungle, in the tribal and caste societies, there is not mutual benefit but warfare for scarce resources!
The author then says, "For, in the jungle, in the tribal and caste societies, there is not mutual benefit but warfare for scarce resources!" which is just blatantly and laughably false.
Ah, yes. I do remember learning about all of the tribal wars fought over highly obscene Your Mama Jokes.
Finally, in the last paragraph, he says that we have political freedoms because of the market. "Polanyi thinks he can preserve the effect (freedom of speech, or industrial civilization), while destroying the cause (the free market, private property rights, etc.)" This, honestly, is just a really stupid assertion and I wonder how he justifies such a claim.
In a socialistic society, people can't freely do things or it doesn't work. People who work hard realize that they get just as much as people who don't so the motivation to achieve greatness is gone. Eventually you end up with an economy like the Soviets which imploded in on it's own vast stupidity. If people are free to do as they wish, it's not exactly socialism is it.
Look, that was just awful. You can do better! Come on...
I have already lost faith in your ability to do better.
