Pope Francis and Karl Polanyi

Alberto Rabilotta

22/01/2014

Opinión

^-A ⁺A

At the end of the 1920s, the economist Karl Polanyi wrote that “it is necessary to transcend the individual Christian ethic, to recognize the reality of society, the ultimate and insuperable nature of society, and to acquire consciousness of this insuperable character” (1).

In a recent article (2) the theologian and philosopher Leonardo Boff underlines some of the positions of Pope Francis in the Pontifical Exhortation and notes that there is a “perceptible affinity” with the thought of Karl Polanyi. In effect, reading what the Pope has written, and knowing something of the work of Polanyi, whether by accident or by design, this affinity exists.

Polanyi, considered as an economist, anthropologist or economic historian, made the most lucid and profound analysis of the phases of economic liberalism in industrial capitalism during the 19th and 20th centuries. He unraveled both the mechanism and the objectives of liberalism, of the self-regulating markets that demanded that the State dismantle any kind of social protection, regulation of monopolies or banking systems, the redistribution of monopoly wealth through social programmes, that legislation and regulation that were enacted due to social struggles and policies in order to protect workers from abusive exploitation, and to place the State and its powers at the exclusive service of economic interests, as well as limiting what may have existed as democracy. This analysis is still valid and enables us to undertake a profound critique of what we call today “neoliberal globalization”, that is, the present-day system of self-regulating markets.

This Hungarian economist devoted a great part of his attention to the disastrous political and social consequences of economic liberalism, among which the dissolution of those social bonds that make individuals part of society, and in passing gave us the most complete and realistic account of the rise of fascism in many countries as a consequence of the crises produced by economic liberalism, as well as the social response that in other countries led to the creation of the Welfare State, that is, of state intervention in the economy.

In Polanyi we find the description of a system that in order to subject society to the service of egoistic economic interests, in a situation of servitude and with all the social destruction and human misery that comes with this, are called upon to impose a tyranny of the market.

In effect, what Francis notes in his critique of the neoliberal system, both in its social dimension and as political or economic reality, including its impact on the system of international relations – war and military intervention – has many “perceivable affinities” with the critique that Polanyi elaborated in his 1944 book, “The Great Transformation”, and in other writings (Essais de Karl Polanyi, Éditions du Seuil).

Whether he has read Polanyi or not, what is important is that what we have to date known of the thought of this Pope, as Boff notes, goes beyond the simple reiteration of the Social Doctrine of the Church of Leo XIII, the Encyclical Rerum novarum of 1891.

A Pope aware of neoliberal reality?

The radical critique that Francis makes of the economic, social and political reality of neoliberalism is important because it raises the bar of the present social and political debate, from which it necessarily comes, and because with its clear and concise message tables the theme at a level comprehensible for the Catholic and non-Catholic masses. As John Cassidy wrote in the New Yorker, the moral critique that Francis makes of neoliberal capitalism is something “incendiary” in the United States, and goes beyond the critiques heard from the orators of Occupy Wall Street.

An important aspect, which explains both the critique of neoliberalism as well as the importance that Francis gives to a “conversion” of the Catholic Church itself, is that the Church, as is the case with political parties (and in particular those that really represent or try to represent the interests of the majorities), can only have an effective impact in societies with solid communitarian and labour ties. The social dissolution of an individualism of the “sauve qui peut” kind is only favourable for the cultivation of fascist ideas.

Elaborating on an analysis of the U.S. sociologist, Richard Sennett, for whom neoliberalism erodes the very capacity to imagine a real adhesion to “modern society”, because it dismantles and disables people for the practice of cooperation, and makes us lose the capacity to “deal with difficult differences” in a complex society, and the Maltese anthropologist Ranier Fsadni, in an article in The Times of Malta (03/05/2012) maintained that this disability is produced by three conditions: 1) The growing inequality between social classes that reduces the “common ground” of social contact, a factor that explains the emergence of “tribal politics”; 2) the changes in the world of work because of the division and organization of work, increasingly insecure, part time and outside the community, and—we should add—unemployment and social exclusion; 3) the “violent reaction” or cultural counter-blow to this reality, whose symptoms are the votes gained by ultra-right parties, that proclaim solidarity and protectionism, but only for those who demonstrate the conditions for belonging to the “tribe”.

Again we find ourselves very much in line with Polanyi: “Planning, regulation and control, which they wanted to see banned as dangers to freedom, were then employed by the confessed enemies of freedom to abolish it altogether. Yet the victory of fascism was made practically unavoidable by the liberals’ obstruction of any reform involving planning, regulation or control. Freedom’s utter frustration in fascism is, indeed, the inevitable result of the liberal philosophy, which claims that power and compulsion are evil, that freedom demands their absence from a human community. No such thing is possible; in a complex society this becomes apparent. This leaves no alternative but either to remain faithful to an illusionary idea of freedom and deny the reality of society, or to accept that reality and reject the idea of freedom. The first is the liberal’s conclusion; the latter the fascist’s. No other seems possible.” (3)

And Francis, aware of the realities involved, tells us (4) that “In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people's pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else's responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.” (Exhortation, 54). And because of this, ". . . we can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth. It requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality. I am far from proposing an irresponsible populism, but the economy can no longer turn to remedies that are a new poison, such as attempting to increase profits by reducing the work force and thereby adding to the ranks of the excluded." (Exhortation, n. 204).

Or, as Polanyi writes, “. . . the true criticism of market society is not that it was based on economics – in a sense, every and any society must be based on it – but that its economy was based on self-interest. Such an organization of economic life is entirely unnatural, in the strictly empirical sense of exceptional (page 257 of the work cited).

The Pope and international relations

An aspect that seems important to me and which forms part of the critique of the neoliberal system, is the interest that the Pope manifested in his letter to the G20 urging the re-establishment of multilateralism based on respect for sovereignties. This was seen by some, among them the CBS correspondent in London, Mark Phillips, as a “support for Putin and a criticism of Obama”, and in effect this letter arrived as a point of inflexion in the aggressive policy of Washington towards Syria, and probably opened the way for a policy change with respect to Iran.

We know, through the experience of the “first globalization” (1870 to 1914), a period of liberalization and accumulation of wealth that led to the “Great (or long) Depression”, from 1873 to 1896, that in imperialist systems dominated by economic liberalism these profound crises unleash wars, conflicts and colonial conquests. During this period European and Japanese powers doubled the extension of the territories and populations of their colonial possessions. This period was marked by important migrations, a product of unemployment, misery and social dislocations in many European countries, leading to an inter-imperialist war, as was the First World War (5), and we also know that the attempt to revive laissez-faire in the postwar period and to maintain the rigid monetary system, as Polanyi analyzed the situation, led to destructive monetary and financial crises, deflationary spirals and the massive unemployment that characterized the whole period of the Great Depression of the 1930s, creating the conditions for the expansion of Nazi Germany and the Second World War.

For this reason the letter that Pope Francis sent to the head of the G20, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and of which the press agencies cited only a few lines, is important in order to understand the role that he intends to play in international relations, as Chief of the Vatican State.

In the first part of this letter the Pope refers to the theme of the meeting and reminds the G20 countries that “In today’s highly interdependent context, a global financial framework with its own just and clear rules is required in order to achieve a more equitable and fraternal world, in which it is possible to overcome hunger, ensure decent employment and housing for all, as well as essential healthcare.”

He adds that “From this standpoint, it is clear that, for the world’s peoples, armed conflicts are always a deliberate negation of international harmony, and create profound divisions and deep wounds which require many years to heal. Wars are a concrete refusal to pursue the great economic and social goals that the international community has set itself, as seen, for example, in the Millennium Development Goals. Unfortunately, the many armed conflicts which continue to afflict the world today present us daily with dramatic images of misery, hunger, illness and death. Without peace, there can be no form of economic development. Violence never begets peace, the necessary condition for development.”

In the second part of this letter Pope Francis indicates that the G20 “. . . does not have international security as its principal purpose. Nevertheless, the meeting will surely not forget the situation in the Middle East and particularly in Syria. It is regrettable that, one-sided interests have prevailed and in fact hindered the search for a solution that would have avoided the senseless massacre now unfolding. The leaders of the G20 cannot remain indifferent to the dramatic situation of the beloved Syrian people which has lasted far too long, and even risks bringing greater suffering to a region bitterly tested by strife and needful of peace. (6)

His attention to the situation in Syria and the calls for an end to the killings and the persecution of religious minorities in the Middle East and other regions, as well as the meeting that the Pontifical Academy of Science held on January 13 (7), indicate that this Pope regards international politics as extremely important, that he looks for the re-establishment of a multilateralism that prevents wars and allows for a solution to conflicts and problems through dialogue and negotiation based on respect of the interests of those involved. This is a key element at a time when the aggressive neo-liberal policies of a chaotic and decadent imperial system fail to recognize the national sovereignty of peoples or attempt to destabilize those governments that struggle to reduce or to escape from neo-liberal domination in order to create their own social and economic development policies.

(Translated from Spanish by Jordan Bishop)

La Vérdiere, Francia.

1.- This citation is from the text that Ilona Duczynska Polanyi wrote in 1970 to recall the life and the evolution of ideas of her husband Karl Polanyi, and appears in the French edition (Éditions Gallimard, 1983), page 11: “Dans ce texte, il mat en forme l’idée qu’il faut transcender l’éthique individuelle chrétienne, reconnaître la réalité de la société, la nature ultime et indépassable de la société et prendre conscience de ce caractère indépassable ».

2.- El Papa Francisco y la economía política de la exclusión, Leonardo Boff, http://alainet.org/active/70130

3.- K. Polanyi, The Great Transformation, Boston, Beacon, 2001, pp. 265-266.

4.- Exhortación pontifical Evangelii Gaudium http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_sp.html#Econom%C3%ADa_y_distribuci%C3%B3n_del_ingreso

5.- Michel Huberman y Christopher M. Meissner: Evidence from the first Great Wave of Globalization, 1870-1914 http://www.international.ucla.edu/media/files/Huberman.pdf y Guillaume Daudin, Matthias Morys y Kevin H. O’Rourke: Globalization, 1870-1914; http://dev3.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/1/1679/papers/Daudin-Morys-O%27Rourke-Chapter.pdf

6.- Letter of Pope Francis to the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/letters/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130904_putin-g20_sp.html#

7.- The document for the convocation of this conference, in which a number of experts, representatives of diverse religions and Russian diplomats, indicated that the call of Washington to the effect that Syrian President Bashar al Assad should renounce his office “placed the United States in an effective opposition” to the intentions of the United Nations, early in 2012, to organize a dialogue between the Syrian government and the rebels, and that “Russia argued that the U.S. insistence on the immediate resignation of Al Assad was an impediment to Peace. In this, perhaps Russia was right.” Also, President Putin is responsible for convincing President Barack Obama “not to carry out plans for military attacks on Syria” in September of 2012, as a response to attacks with chemical weapons against civilians that were thought to have been made by forces loyal to Assad.” Ver http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/277/0/tony-blair-to-address-vatican-summit-pushing-for-syria-ceasefire

https://www.alainet.org/en/articulo/82548