The reason for this is Karl Polyani attacks the one thing Marxist and Neo-Liberal economics have in common, the concept that EVERYONE does what is in their own best economic self interest. This is the base for Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" (Which Marx stated his concept of Communism is the direct result of what Adam Smith was advocating in "Wealth of Nations", i.e. "Wealth of Nations" is the book from which Neo-Liberal and Marxist economics derived from).
Karl Polyani points out the unacceptable fact to both groups that people are communal animals and when given a choose between their own best interest AND the best interest of the group they belong to, most people will opt for the latter (i.e. betterment of the Group) as opposed to the former (betterment of themselves). It is ANTI-Human to prefer one self over the group (And to get around this Marx emphasized class, while Neo-Liberal economists emphasis that the rich are smarter then the poor that is why they have the money).
Now, Karl Polyani stated clearly that Self Regulated Markets always existed and always will exist. but he then stated that such markets were NOT how most Societies were organized and the nature of such markets meant there was constant tension between such Self Regulated Markets AND how other parts of the Society worked. As long as such self regulated markets were small, they could not dominate society as a whole and society as a whole survived for self regulated markets were to small to come into conflict with the concept of Community. The problem occurred as Self Regulated Markets started to become the norm, society changed to accommodate the expansion of the Self Regulated Markets, but at the cost of the concept of Community.
Given that a Self Regulated Market is based NOT on the concept of the community but personal self interest, personal self interest will sooner or later become the norm for any society that permits Self Regulated Markets to become how most interactions between members occur. In such situation the concept of Community comes under attack, and people being communal animals by nature will fight back (Thus the rise of Anti-Capitalist movements in the 1800s and 1900s, from Labor Unions, to government regulations of business, to Communism).
Karl Polyani basically saw this interaction between these two concepts of how society is to be organized and saw that the Self Regulated Market HAD to consistently attack more and more elements of the Concept of Community to survive. On the other hand the concept that people are communal animals will constantly come up and oppose such expansion. Thus the Market Economy will sooner or later hit a brick wall of opposition and at that point will have to retreat or fight (and given that fighting is by nature a COMMUNAL action, sooner or later the Community concept will prevail).
This concept, that it is the innate human concept to be a member of a group, that the Market Economy must defeat to survive, but any such defeat means the end of any concept of human interaction (the base of ANY Society) is the conflict Karl Polyani was pointing out.
In effect Karl Polyani is hated for he shows the whole concept of the Market Economy is based on quicksand NOT rock and that anything built on that quicksand will sooner or later collapse is something both Marxists AND Neo-Liberals economics can not accept. To accept that concept means both of their economic views have no solid base for the only solid base for any human society is the concept of community not economic self interest.
= new reply since forum marked as read
