Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
CAPITALISM: A COMMENTARY
ON FRED BLOCK
Nina Bandelj
ABSTRACT
also dangerously reinforce the rightist views that markets are benevolent,
and enable anyone who tries to get ahead. I also want to point to the
vagueness hidden in the concept of political economy, proposed as an
alternative by Block, which does not distinguish between particular types of
social organization of the economy beyond broadly characterizing that
political choices dictate economic arrangements. From this perspective,
socialism and capitalism are both types of political economies, as they are
both sets of institutional arrangements about economic production, dis-
tribution, consumption, and exchange that result from political choices on
how economy should be governed. But no one will argue that socialism
and capitalism are not crucially distinct. We need to retain the qualifier
‘‘capitalist’’ in the ‘‘capitalist political economy’’ to denote that the vast
majority of the contemporary economic systems are heavily privatized, and
296 NINA BANDELJ
Marx has a clear view of the direction of history through different stages
that all have to deal with their inherent contradictions, Polanyi’s perspective
more closely approximates a cyclical movement, with politics dictating the
type of economic system on the one hand, and the societal reaction
potentially changing the existent system on the other, as captured in the
notion of a ‘‘double movement.’’ Polanyi also puts more emphasis on the
power of the state as a change agent, rather than on class dynamics
that stands as a central revolutionary force in the Marxist account. This is
consistent with Polanyi’s view that state can play a crucial role in protecting
society from market forces, rather than, to use a famous quote from Marx,
functions as ‘‘but a committee for managing the common affairs of the
whole bourgeoisie.’’ Block summarizes the key tenets of the Polanyian
framework, including that ‘‘market economies are always and everywhere
A Polanyian Analysis of Capitalism: A Commentary on Fred Block 297
embedded,’’ that ‘‘market society and the contemporary world economy are
shaped by an ongoing double movement,’’ and that ‘‘political contestation
at multiple levels – local, regional, national, and supranational – shapes
the economic paths that are available to societies at any given moment.’’
All in all, the Marxist analysis retains economy as a sphere analytically
separate from society and state, while the Polanyian approach insists on
co-constitution between economy and society.
Given Block’s rightful reputation as the authoritative interpreter of
Polanyi’s work, it comes as a surprise that in discussing these tenets Block
does not mention Polanyi’s central notion of fictitious commodities of
labor, land, and money. Polanyi argued that land, labor, and money are not
commodities in the same sense as these things are produced by firms to be
sold on the market. For one, it is a fiction that land, labor, and money are
inherently produced with the intention to be supplied for sale on the market,
thus state action is needed to constitute them as commodities, in the push
to create a market system. In another sense, it is also illusory that land,
labor, and money can be easily multiplied should demand increases, as could
other ‘‘proper’’ commodities. In fact, state action is needed to constrain
their full-blown commodification and prevent the complete exhaustion
and consequent destruction of these resources, and this represents the
‘‘countermovement’’ in the Polanyian double movement logic.
Focusing on the commodification of labor, land, and money is not only
central for understanding the logic of the double movement, but also
important for drawing comparisons between Marx and Polanyi. For
Polanyi, commodification of labor is central to his arguments about the
rise of market society. For Marx, the necessity of the proletariat to sell
their labor as a commodity is the crux of Marxist capitalism. While Marxist
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.
and Marxist analyses share some common concerns, even if they diverge on
identifying the source of these concerns. This is important for the discussion
of the relevance of the concept of capitalism. As much as the Marxist
version of capitalism is defined by its historical materialist teleology, it is
also characterized by the focus on the need to sell labor on the market and
consequent social inequality. One could argue that the use of the term
market society instead of capitalism masks this inherent inequality between
market participants, albeit inequality that transcends just class lines.
A case in point is the much more frequent use of the word ‘‘market’’
rather than ‘‘capitalism’’ to characterize the transformation of the economic
systems after the fall of communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe.1
Block’s point on how the word capitalism fell out of favor in the United
States because it was too closely associated with the communist left is
telling. One wonders whether in describing the transformations after the fall
of communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe, the word capitalism
was eschewed because it smacked too much of the opposite of socialism.
‘‘Market transition’’ and ‘‘democratic transition’’ were more palatable
descriptions of the systemic transformations than ‘‘transition to capital-
ism.’’ But the systems put in place in Central and Eastern Europe after
dismantling command economy are nothing but capitalist if capitalism
denotes an economic system based on private property rights in which
economic activity, including the production, distribution, consumption, and
exchange, is basically determined through market operation where private
actors can exchange their property rights with other private actors for
material gain. Differences between owners and non-owners are endemic to
the capitalist system, and they bring with them significant inequalities.
While it is true that the classifications of owners and non-owners are more
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.
identity.’’
This brings us back to the commonalities between Polanyi and Marx that
I discussed earlier. The countervailing forces of workers’ fear and capitalists’
greed can be well imagined in a Polanyian analysis, even if class conflict is
not at the crux of a Polanyian political economy. Nevertheless, attention to
class inequality is not completely foreign to a Polanyian perspective, given
that labor is one central fictitious commodity. In fact, to understand the
countermovement better, one may need to theorize the political action that
happens outside of the state purview more forcefully than Polanyi does. In
my reading of Polanyi, the emergence of the countermovement is rather
under-theorized; it seems to appear quite spontaneously and it is confined to
state institutions. A Marxist analysis gives us potential insights into how
labor becomes a political actor, even if the result is not a proletarian
A Polanyian Analysis of Capitalism: A Commentary on Fred Block 301
revolution, nor is labor the only civil society actor that participates in the
countermovement dynamic.
In sum, Block makes a persuasive and important argument for an analysis
of political economy that considers society and economy as densely inter-
twined and not as separate spheres, and I am fully on board with this. Still,
I think that such an analysis should call historically particular kinds of
political economy by their rightful name. That name is capitalism if the
system is based on private property rights and market competition for
material gain. In my reading, a Polanyian analysis, which treats capitalism
as an institutional order, has great promise. It would be worthwhile to
advance a Polanyian theory of capitalism along these lines.
NOTES
1. Doing a simple search in Sociological Abstracts with the words ‘‘capitalism’’ or
‘‘market’’ or ‘‘democracy’’ in the title, and ‘‘Central and Eastern Europe’’ in
keywords, yields nearly twice as many articles with the word market and 60% more
articles with the word democracy than those with the word capitalism in the title.
2. It should be noted that in his other work Block (2003) does discuss the Marxist
influences on Polanyi more explicitly.
REFERENCES
Bandelj, N. (2008). From communists to foreign capitalists: The social foundations of foreign
direct investment in postsocialist Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bandelj, N. (2009). The global economy as instituted process: The case of central and Eastern
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.
Krippner, G., & Alvarez, A. (2007). Embeddedness and the intellectual projects of economic
sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 219–240.
Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time.
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Streeck, W. (2010a). Institutions in history: Bringing capitalism back in. In G. Morgan,
J. Campbell, C. Crouch, O. K. Pedersen & R. Whitley (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
comparative institutional analysis (pp. 659–686). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Streeck, W. (2010b). Taking capitalism seriously: Towards an institutionalist approach to
contemporary political economy. Socio-Economic Review, 1–31.
Zelizer, V. (2005). The purchase of intimacy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Zelizer, V. (2012). How I became a relational economic sociologist and what does that mean?
Politics & Society, 40, 145–174.
Copyright © ${Date}. ${Publisher}. All rights reserved.