A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

KMAN rightfully observes:
==============
LOL. There are societal consequences to such a "screw you" approach. No
wonder you are a gun nut. Your utopia would obviously be everyone
living in
a self-sustaining dwelling with a giant electrified fence to protect
them
from having to be in contact with other people or even - gasp - where
people
might care about each other.
===============

KMAN, as I type, I'm listening to an interesting CBC radio documentary
about Karl Polanyi. Polanyi's work is witnessing a resurgence as, for
example, "The Great Transformation" (1944) examined free market systems
and natural social reactions against such systems.

An interesting summary from
http://keithrankin.co.nz/nzpr1998_4Polanyi.html

"The social anthropologist understood that humans are fundamentally
cooperative beings, and that human societies naturally seek to form
institutions that confer social and economic protection. Protection
means supporting producers who are a part of one's own society. And
protection means security, including social security.

Unlike protection which is a natural human impulse, the market system
is an artificial construct of the human intellect.

The flaw in this assertion is that "the market system" is somehow
"artificial" merely because it's the product of human intellect. The market
system is entirely human and impulsive. While it is true that humans are
fundamentally cooperative, and that they form institutions that confer
social protection, the "economic protection" argument fails because
"economics" are a part of the "market system," and the market system is an
entirely natural and logical result of basic human instincts.

Primitive humans banded together for mutual protection and survival of the
species. This institution conferred social protection and structure, as well
as a necessary component of the strong defending the weak. But the "market
system" was inherent even then, because infants and children were only
protected because of their potential to become strong and thus of utility to
the group. In primitive societies, defective children were often killed or
exposed because the society knew that they would never be an asset to the
society. Likewise, a member who became crippled would often be ejected
because he could not contribute to the safety and security of the society.
Thus, the disabled and infirm became "consumers" of resources, not
"producers." In marginal survival situations, non-producing consumers cannot
be permitted because the line between societal success and death is quite
fine.

In times of plenty, the society can afford to grant more of the excess to
the non-producing consumer, and produce more non-producing consumers, thus
increasing the overall strength of the clan. It's an energy-based society.
Energy in must equal or exceed energy out, otherwise the least productive
members must suffer through deprivation. They have less "value" to the clan,
and thus they can be denied resources.

So, even in very early primitive societies we see the market system at work.
To be part of the society, you must produce if you are to consume. And you
must produce something more than you consume if the society is to advance
and be prepared for times of privation. Thus, your "value" to the society is
directly related to how much you do, or potentially may, produce. Those who
produce more consume more because of the energy required to produce. The
clan's finest hunter is entitled to a larger share of the kill because it is
in the best interests of the clan to keep the hunter in prime physical
condition, so that he can provide much more than he consumes, for the
benefit of the whole clan. So, it may be than in times of privation, lesser
producers, and consumers (children) may be deliberately denied some, most or
all of their "share" of the kill so that the hunters can remain healthy and
support the more important and valuable members of the society.

Thus, the statement, "It eschews protection and emphasises discipline" Is
simply not true. Discipline is part and parcel of protection. No discipline
in the allocation of energy, no protection for anyone.

The statement, "Competition is about discipline and conformity, not freedom"
is patently false. The very term "competition" implies freedom to compete
for resources against others. This only occurs when a society has either
sufficient excess resources or is in a state of anarchy where the social
bonds created for societal protection have failed.

The statement, "The tyranny of the self-regulating market can only become
the central organising mechanism if it is intentionally imposed on society
by a government with dubious democratic credentials, and can only survive
for any length of time if such a government resists the spontaneous human
impulse towards protection" is blatant anti-capitalist, socialistic claptrap
that defies simple logic.

"Self-regulating markets" are a fundamental and natural outgrowth of our
natural societal instincts combined with an excess of resources. As
resources begin to exceed basic needs, those who produce the resources, once
sated, will naturally begin to question the altruistic requirements of
energy-margin societal pressures and will seek to gain societal or economic
advantage by taking advantage of their superior abilities in energy
gathering.

Once the society has an adequate amount of energy reserves so that basic
energy needs are met, competition for the excess energy naturally follows,
just as competition for scarce energy resources occurs. Humans are
forward-looking creatures, and their intellect causes them to learn from
past privation and save against future privation. Thus, stockpiling of
energy reserves is an inevitable part of human nature.

The concept of "market" implies a concept of individual ownership of energy
resources. Ownership of the fruits of one's labor is a natural instinct as
well. If you expend energy to secure an energy resource, then it is fully
natural to expect to be rewarded for the energy you expended, in excess of
that energy required to secure the resource. This is a natural offshoot of
the necessity of unequal allocation of energy resources to keep prime
producers healthy.

So, we have a natural instinct and special ability to obtain and stockpile
energy resources, and we have a group of consumers who need or desire access
to those stockpiles. That defines a "market system" quite precisely, and
it's all perfectly natural and occurs without any intervention of "central
government" at all.

Economic liberals, contrary to the way they portray themselves, are not
believers in small government. They are not akin to anarchists, as Marx
saw them. Rather they adopt a view of government that differs
fundamentally from that of social democrats. Economic liberals believe,
following Jeremy Bentham, that government means the "ministry of
police" (read Treasury in today's parlance) and not the "ministry of
welfare"

I'd have to have a better idea of how he comes up with his definitions
before I can respond to this, but it sounds suspiciously socialistic to me.


I doubt whether Scott Weiser has ever given thought to "The tyranny of
the self-regulating market can only become the central organising
mechanism if it is intentionally imposed on society by a
government...."?

Oh, I've thought about it. Moreover, I've commented upon it and debunked it.
How about you? Can you provide any cogent argument?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Weiser in commenting on Karl Polanyi states:
==============
The flaw in this assertion is that "the market system" is somehow
"artificial" merely because it's the product of human intellect. The
market
system is entirely human and impulsive. While it is true that humans
are
fundamentally cooperative, and that they form institutions that confer
social protection, the "economic protection" argument fails because
"economics" are a part of the "market system," and the market system is
an
entirely natural and logical result of basic human instincts.
===============

Polanyi's point is that if a polity operates or claims to operate
according to the principles of the free market, then that "free market"
is not so free because, by law, it is imposed on the people. His
contention is that people are by nature, cooperative beings who seek
protection. That is their natural tendency. Thus, if you want to
"force" them out of these natural tendencies, then that's exactly what
it takes - force.

You suggest that market systems are "entirely natural and logical
result of basic human instincts.". I wonder.

Do you think the unemployed in America's rust belt or in the auto
industry would concur? Do they believe that they should be denied what
Polanyi would argue is their natural desire for protection? Surely not.

Right now, Canada and the USA are embroiled in a cross-border trade
dispute havng to do with softwood lumber. In this particular case, the
American government has circled the wagons and done exactly what
Polanyi says people/nations naturally do -- they opted for a protective
stance as opposed to the free market stance.

From my perspective, whether nations adopt and enforce either
protectionism or free enterprise depends on who, within that society
has the power to control the political system.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser in commenting on Karl Polanyi states:
==============
The flaw in this assertion is that "the market system" is somehow
"artificial" merely because it's the product of human intellect. The
market
system is entirely human and impulsive. While it is true that humans
are
fundamentally cooperative, and that they form institutions that confer
social protection, the "economic protection" argument fails because
"economics" are a part of the "market system," and the market system is
an
entirely natural and logical result of basic human instincts.
===============

Polanyi's point is that if a polity operates or claims to operate
according to the principles of the free market, then that "free market"
is not so free because, by law, it is imposed on the people.

He's wrong. Perhaps not universally, but mostly. Only socialist/communist
societies "impose" a market system on people, and the one they impose is
"We'll take everything you produce, decide how to distribute it and decide
how much, if anything, you get back."

His contention is that people are by nature, cooperative beings who seek
protection. That is their natural tendency. Thus, if you want to
"force" them out of these natural tendencies, then that's exactly what
it takes - force.

As I carefully outlined, his premise is flawed because he ignores the fact
that while human beings are cooperative *in part,* they are also selfish in
part, and it is this individual self-interest that creates "markets" as a
natural function of human society. No force is required, and market
economies naturally flow from human nature and an excess of energy
resources.


You suggest that market systems are "entirely natural and logical
result of basic human instincts.". I wonder.

Do you think the unemployed in America's rust belt or in the auto
industry would concur?

Certainly, if they took the time to analyze the issue.

Do they believe that they should be denied what
Polanyi would argue is their natural desire for protection? Surely not.

The flaw in your argument is the presumption that a desire for protection
and a "natural market instinct" are mutually exclusive. They are not. It's a
complex energy dynamic. Natural market instincts may be suppressed during
times of energy stress, but the instinct remains and will re-emerge as soon
as available energy resources begin to exceed basic energy needs.


Right now, Canada and the USA are embroiled in a cross-border trade
dispute havng to do with softwood lumber. In this particular case, the
American government has circled the wagons and done exactly what
Polanyi says people/nations naturally do -- they opted for a protective
stance as opposed to the free market stance.

That has little to do with natural instincts and everything to do with
politics and high-level economic policy. The US response to lumber dumping
by Canada is "protectionist" certainly, but it's not "instinctive." Nor is
the government "forcing" citizens out of a "natural tendency" towards
cooperation. If anything, the government is merely enforcing such natural
tendencies among *clan members.* The dynamics of
interclan/intertribal/international protectionism don't mutually exclude the
dynamics of natural markets.

Polanyi seems to believe, based on what you've posted (which isn't much)
that the natural state of human beings is socialistic egalitarianism where
each member of the clan has no individual self-interest but rather is
absolutely altruistic to the needs of the clan as a whole.

I don't see any evidence that this assertion is anywhere remotely connected
to the truth of human nature, which by observation is clearly almost
diametrically opposed to that model. Human beings are inherently selfish, as
is any organism obeying the prime biological directive of survival, and as a
rule, they only cooperate with others when it is to *their* direct physical
and social benefit to do so. So long as the clan structure and operation
provides greater benefits through group membership than being alone, the
human will seek it out and participate in it. This is the Principle of
Enlightened Self-interest.

But when the clan structure becomes harmful to the individual and his
interests, he will leave the clan and strike out on his own, or seek another
clan structure that better benefits his individual needs.

From my perspective, whether nations adopt and enforce either
protectionism or free enterprise depends on who, within that society
has the power to control the political system.

I think it's much deeper than that. However, it is true that leaders with a
strong power structure able to enforce decisions on the clan can skew the
system markedly. But that's an aberration, not the normal situation.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser