We are in the midst of yet another “great transformation” — but the future it heralds couldn’t be farther from the democratic, co-operative international order he envisioned
From the linked article published on the "UnHerd" website: "...the human economy had always been “embedded” in society ..." (I believe Fazi was referring to the pre-capitalist era) My position, as an independent economics thinker for twenty years, is that it has also still been like that, which is already implied by the use of the word "human" in "human economy." Humans are always social, right? So, yes, it is a human economy and the humanity is still embedded during the first (or "developmental") stage of capitalism. I believe that there is a problem with our understanding of this aspect of capitalism and economics. Indeed, musn't all of economics necessarily be social? The idea that what I call the "social part" or the "social element" of life is also part of capitalistic life is an indication that this has to be there. I say it exists for the entire "developing" period in any case. That includes the twentieth century (or up until perhaps the eighties or nineties) but that is now ending, or perhaps it is over already. (I am not part of the work force, even as an intellectual.) At any rate, the basic thing I repeat over and over is that for that entire developmental period of capitalism, or the more lively, human part of capitalism, with all its horrible attendant problems and dysfunctions, the entire system depended and could not have existed without this aspect of social cooperation. What the persons of the society did was that they denied this, which is ideological. But if the "social factor" was not there the system could never have existed or functioned. This human or social aspect never (up until now) was entirely non-existent. Persons just said it was.
The mistake, therefore, or I should say the error, as I am asking about what the truth is, not what the ideology says, ---the mistake is to deny the social element, to say it isn't there, which is what persons did. It is there. Social embeddedness if you will. It had to be there. People need that to function. It is going to be there, in capitalism, as in life.
I say that the idea that capitalism is only individualistic or only self-interest is incorrect. That would be psychotic and completely untenable, so it is a matter of ideology, of how apparently all of humanity could say these things for so long. So you see, there are innumerable social aspects, but we were all trained to not see that. One only needs to inquire to start seeing them. Once you start seeing it, you can go through example after example. It never ends. Capitalism is social all over the place BUT SOCIETY HAD TO LIE ABOUT IT.
The extreme danger the world is in now is the result of not understanding that the social part of capitalism is there; it has always existed and is only being completed destroy as I write. This is the great crisis we face. In this 'Woke' era we still do not understand that there needs to be a social aspect in the economics of life. How can that "human" part of economics be maintained? Only through regulation. A new sort of capitalistic regulation regime must follow the blinkered ideology and self-interest period. With persons such as M. Friedman, there was no chance of this happening.
I have had these ideas since becoming a private or an "independent" scholar. The ideas come at the beginning. The genesis of my work was a new understanding that "social capitalism" was possible, under a specific reform idea I had. Then, after a year or two it finally occurred to me that even without my specific reform idea (something about distributing the capitalistic wealth to poor countries) capitalism had always had the "social" part to it. I invite persons to comment, on my various economics (section: ECONO) writings, over on my newsletter. (I have long been a big fan of the Polyani book as well, b.t.w..)
I totally agree with what you said about Polyani. I am trying to write about some of my own contributions to economic theory, on my newsletter. I read the book, and I found it one of the best books on economics, with all kinds of different things between those two covers. I was never that clear on his main thesis. I just like books that seem very decent and good, and, like Schumpeter's C, S & Dem., I like Polyani's book. He looks at several obscure British writers of the 1830s who were saying, about the newly emerging "market society," what the heck is going on?
Yes, but Polanyi also defined Money as NOT commodity (like Labour and Land).
Wrong understanding of money is main dogma of contemporary globalism with dramatic impact on decision making system. It should be addressed, don't you think?
Ah..never mind. I saw that there was a link to the full article and I was able to see it! All is good! Thank you, and a good article at that!
I am a paid subscriber but can't see entire article. Please advise. Thanks
Give me your email
From the linked article published on the "UnHerd" website: "...the human economy had always been “embedded” in society ..." (I believe Fazi was referring to the pre-capitalist era) My position, as an independent economics thinker for twenty years, is that it has also still been like that, which is already implied by the use of the word "human" in "human economy." Humans are always social, right? So, yes, it is a human economy and the humanity is still embedded during the first (or "developmental") stage of capitalism. I believe that there is a problem with our understanding of this aspect of capitalism and economics. Indeed, musn't all of economics necessarily be social? The idea that what I call the "social part" or the "social element" of life is also part of capitalistic life is an indication that this has to be there. I say it exists for the entire "developing" period in any case. That includes the twentieth century (or up until perhaps the eighties or nineties) but that is now ending, or perhaps it is over already. (I am not part of the work force, even as an intellectual.) At any rate, the basic thing I repeat over and over is that for that entire developmental period of capitalism, or the more lively, human part of capitalism, with all its horrible attendant problems and dysfunctions, the entire system depended and could not have existed without this aspect of social cooperation. What the persons of the society did was that they denied this, which is ideological. But if the "social factor" was not there the system could never have existed or functioned. This human or social aspect never (up until now) was entirely non-existent. Persons just said it was.
The mistake, therefore, or I should say the error, as I am asking about what the truth is, not what the ideology says, ---the mistake is to deny the social element, to say it isn't there, which is what persons did. It is there. Social embeddedness if you will. It had to be there. People need that to function. It is going to be there, in capitalism, as in life.
I say that the idea that capitalism is only individualistic or only self-interest is incorrect. That would be psychotic and completely untenable, so it is a matter of ideology, of how apparently all of humanity could say these things for so long. So you see, there are innumerable social aspects, but we were all trained to not see that. One only needs to inquire to start seeing them. Once you start seeing it, you can go through example after example. It never ends. Capitalism is social all over the place BUT SOCIETY HAD TO LIE ABOUT IT.
The extreme danger the world is in now is the result of not understanding that the social part of capitalism is there; it has always existed and is only being completed destroy as I write. This is the great crisis we face. In this 'Woke' era we still do not understand that there needs to be a social aspect in the economics of life. How can that "human" part of economics be maintained? Only through regulation. A new sort of capitalistic regulation regime must follow the blinkered ideology and self-interest period. With persons such as M. Friedman, there was no chance of this happening.
I have had these ideas since becoming a private or an "independent" scholar. The ideas come at the beginning. The genesis of my work was a new understanding that "social capitalism" was possible, under a specific reform idea I had. Then, after a year or two it finally occurred to me that even without my specific reform idea (something about distributing the capitalistic wealth to poor countries) capitalism had always had the "social" part to it. I invite persons to comment, on my various economics (section: ECONO) writings, over on my newsletter. (I have long been a big fan of the Polyani book as well, b.t.w..)
I totally agree with what you said about Polyani. I am trying to write about some of my own contributions to economic theory, on my newsletter. I read the book, and I found it one of the best books on economics, with all kinds of different things between those two covers. I was never that clear on his main thesis. I just like books that seem very decent and good, and, like Schumpeter's C, S & Dem., I like Polyani's book. He looks at several obscure British writers of the 1830s who were saying, about the newly emerging "market society," what the heck is going on?
Yes, but Polanyi also defined Money as NOT commodity (like Labour and Land).
Wrong understanding of money is main dogma of contemporary globalism with dramatic impact on decision making system. It should be addressed, don't you think?
Blaž Kavčič