04.06.2013 Views

Murray N. Rothbard vs. the Philosophers - Ludwig von Mises Institute

Murray N. Rothbard vs. the Philosophers - Ludwig von Mises Institute

Murray N. Rothbard vs. the Philosophers - Ludwig von Mises Institute

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

MURRAY N. ROTHBARD VS. THE PHILOSPHERS: UNPUBLISHED WRITINGS<br />

132 ON HAYEK, MISES, STRAUSS, AND POLYANI<br />

B to exploit A? For make no mistake, when <strong>the</strong> socialist condemns<br />

A for not giving money to B without receiving anything—material<br />

or spiritual—in exchange, he is calling<br />

upon A to be a sacrificial animal for <strong>the</strong> benefit of an<br />

exploiting B.<br />

In his discussion of his beloved primitive tribes, Professor<br />

Polanyi says that <strong>the</strong>y deal with each o<strong>the</strong>r, not on <strong>the</strong><br />

basis of (Ugh!) mutual gain, but on <strong>the</strong> basis of “reciprocity”<br />

and “redistribution.” 81 The “principle of redistribution” is,<br />

of course, this same principle of exploitation. It is <strong>the</strong><br />

“redistribution,” coerced by <strong>the</strong> State or <strong>the</strong> tribe, from <strong>the</strong><br />

producers to <strong>the</strong> parasitic class favored by <strong>the</strong> tribal or<br />

State chiefs.<br />

As for <strong>the</strong> “principle of reciprocity,” Polanyi is certainly<br />

unclear about just what it entails. To some small extent—to<br />

<strong>the</strong> extent that <strong>the</strong> process is rational—this is simply<br />

exchange or barter, smuggled in by <strong>the</strong> conceptual back<br />

door. To <strong>the</strong> extent it is not rational, it is ei<strong>the</strong>r play or<br />

sport—which hardly needs fur<strong>the</strong>r comment—or it is ritual<br />

magic, which has been commented on above. It is apparently<br />

<strong>the</strong> latter part of “reciprocity” that Polanyi extols, for he is<br />

apparently enchanted by <strong>the</strong> “Kula trade” in which one<br />

island gives certain objects to ano<strong>the</strong>r island, and will only<br />

receive similar (or <strong>the</strong> same?) stuff back years or decades<br />

later from some o<strong>the</strong>r island in <strong>the</strong> ring. 82 What Polanyi<br />

81Polanyi, The Great Transformation, p. 63.<br />

82Ibid., p. 65. Kula trading is typical of <strong>the</strong> archipelago of <strong>the</strong><br />

Trobriand Islands, a group of islands arranged in <strong>the</strong> form of a circle<br />

in western Melanesia. Polanyi describes <strong>the</strong>ir form of trading:<br />

Still, it is trade, and large expeditions are undertaken<br />

periodically by natives of this approximately ring-shaped<br />

archipelago in order to carry one kind of valuable object<br />

to peoples living on distant islands situated clockwise,<br />

while o<strong>the</strong>r expeditions are arranged carrying ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />

kind of valuable object to <strong>the</strong> islands of <strong>the</strong> archipelago<br />

lying counterclockwise. In <strong>the</strong> long run, both sets of<br />

objects . . . will move round <strong>the</strong> archipelago, a traject<br />

which may take <strong>the</strong>m up to ten years to complete. (p. 66)

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!