For a Sociological Marxism: The Complementary Convergence of Antonio Gramsci and Karl Polanyi

70 Pages·2003·0.36 MB·English

1PM0OI.C1LA1IHRT7A7TIC/EI0CSL0 L3 &B2E U3S2RO9AC2W0IE3O2T5YY2270
For a Sociological Marxism:
The Complementary Convergence of
Antonio Gramsci and Karl Polanyi
MICHAEL BURAWOY
ThepostcommunistagecallsforaSociologicalMarxismthatgivesprideofplaceto
societyalongsidebutdistinctfromstateandeconomy.ThisSociologicalMarxism
canbetracedtothewritingsofGramsciandPolanyi.Hailingfromdifferentsocial
worldsandfollowingdifferentMarxisttraditions,bothconvergedonasimilarcri-
tiqueandtranscendenceofClassicalMarxism.ForGramsciadvancedcapitalismis
markedbytheexpansionofcivilsociety,which,withthestate,actstostabilizeclass
relationsandprovideaterrainforchallengingcapitalism.ForPolanyiexpansionof
themarketthreatenssociety,whichreactsby(re)constitutingitselfasactivesociety,
therebyharboringtheembryoofademocraticsocialism.Thisarticleappropriates
“society”asaMarxistconceptanddeploysittointerprettheriseandfallofcommu-
nistorders,theshiftfrompoliticsofclasstopoliticsofrecognition,thetransition
from colonialism to postcolonialism, and the development of an emergent
transnationalism.
Keywords:Marxism; class; society; hegemony; markets
Formany,thedeathofsocialism,bothinrealityandintheimagination,has
spelledthefinaldeathofMarxism.Nonetheless,Marxismcontinuestoofferthe
mostcomprehensivecritiqueofcapitalismaswellasacompellingguidetofeasi-
Fortheircomments,suggestions,encouragement,andskepticismI’dliketothankGillianHart,
MalcolmFairbrother,Hwa-JenLiu,JohnWalton,SeanO’Riain,andthegroupofstudentsaround
BeverlySilverandGiovanniArrighiatJohnsHopkinsUniversity.I’despeciallyliketothankFred
Blockwhoreadandcommentedonnumerousdrafts,fedmeobscurePolanyitexts,and,fromthe
beginning,encouragedmetowriteandelaboratewhatprovedtobeacritiqueofhisowninterpretation
POLITICS & SOCIETY, Vol. 31 No. 2, June 2003 193-261
DOI:10.1177/0032329203252270
© 2003 Sage Publications
193
194 POLITICS & SOCIETY
blealternatives.Indeed,thelongevityofcapitalismguaranteesthelongevityof
Marxism.Butlongevityalsoimpliesreconstruction.Ascapitalismrebuildsitself
somustMarxism.Itisafterallatheoreticaltraditionthatclaimsideaschangewith
thematerialworldtheyseektograspandtransform.Thus,everyepochfashions
itsownMarxism,elaboratingthattraditiontotackletheproblemsoftheday.In
thisarticleIoffertheoutlinesofaSociologicalMarxismthatemergesfromthe
hithertounexaminedandunexpectedconvergenceofthemid-twentieth-century
writings of Karl Polanyi and Antonio Gramsci. That they both, independently,
convergedontheconceptof“society”fromverydifferentMarxisttraditionssug-
geststheyweregrapplingwithsomethingnovelandimportant.Indeed,itisthe
thesisofSociologicalMarxismthatthedynamismof“society,”primarilylocated
between state and economy, is a key to the durability and transcendence of
advancedcapitalism,justasitsfragilityprovedtobethedownfallofSovietcom-
munism.IshalltrytoshowhowtheelaborationofSociologicalMarxismisalso
welladaptedtothepostcommunistage,onethatisdominatedbyatriumphant
globalcapitalismthatisprovingastonishinglyeffectiveindiscreditinganddis-
solving all alternatives to itself.
I: SOCIOLOGY AND MARXISM
TherelationshipbetweensociologyandMarxismhasalwaysbeensymbiotic.
Classicalsociologyofthelatenineteenthcenturyandearlytwentiethcenturywas,
atleastinpart,aresponsetoMarxismatatimewhensocialismwasaviableand
compelling movement in Europe. Marxism was the specter that haunted the
Fin-de-Siècle intellectual landscape, shaping the terrain upon which Weber,
Durkheim,Simmel,andParetowouldbuildtheirownoriginal,theoreticaledi-
fices.TheRussianRevolutiontookMarxisminentirelynewdirections,andonce
more forcing a reaction from bourgeois social theory. When the world divided
intotwoblocksafterWorldWarTwo,sosociologybecamethedefenderofthe
“freeworld”andanideologicalcounterpointtoMarxism-Leninism.Itwasduring
thisperiod—the1950sand1960s—thatAmericansociologyenjoyeditsgreatest
ascendancy, a new science with a new mission that snuffed out all pockets of
Marxism. Subsequently, in the later 1960s and 1970s, the eruption of society
drovesociologyintoitsowncrisis,whilestimulatingMarxism’srejuvenation.In
the1980ssociologyrecoveredbyborrowingfromMarxism,justastodayMarx-
ism’sescapefromitspostcommunistdoldrumswilldepend,soIargue,onbor-
rowingfromsociology.EachMarxistoffspringhasitsownoriginalityandauton-
omy, irreducible to its parents.
ofPolanyi.Thisarticlebeganwithadisagreementwithmyfriend,colleague,andcollaborator,Erik
Wright,overourjointexplorationofSociologicalMarxism.Inhisinimitableway,Erikhastriedtoset
mestraightwithmanypagesofcriticalcommentaryandquiteafewdiagrams.Ifthingsarestillfuzzy,
thenit’scertainlynothisfault,butitmaynotbemineeither.Finally,I’dliketothanktheRussellSage
Foundation for giving me the peace of mind to rewrite this.
MICHAEL BURAWOY 195
From Confrontation to Rapprochement
Talcott Parsons’s mid-twentieth-century synthesis of sociological thought,
basedontheindependentconvergenceofthewritingsofDurkheim,Pareto,Mar-
shall,andWeber,wasemphaticandtriumphalinitsdismissalofMarx’swritings.1
TotheendofhislifeheregardedMarxiantheoryasananachronisticutilitarianism
whose significance was wholly confined to the nineteenth century.2 Since the
foundationsweresodeeplyflawed,therewasnopointinconsideringtheMarxist
legacy.Structuralfunctionalism,thecodificationofParsonsiantheoryintoames-
sianic science, therefore simply ignored Marxism, and not only its nemesis,
Soviet Marxism, but all other varieties of Marxism as well.
Apart from the ideological enmity of the Cold War, there was a theoretical
basisfortheiropposition—Parsonsiansociology,especiallyTheSocialSystem,3
focused on the lacunae of Soviet Marxism. It concentrated on “society” as an
autonomous, all-embracing, homeostatic self-equilibrating system, whereas
SovietMarxismleftnospacefor“society”initstheoreticalschemeofbaseand
superstructure.Therewas,therefore,nomeetinggroundbetweenthetwo,theone
bereftofeconomyandstate,theotherbereftofsociety.4OntheAmericanside,
theoristsofthe“endofideology”celebratedthestabilizingpowerof“society,”
bulwark of liberal democracy, just as on the Soviet side the planned economy
claimedforitselftheboundlessexpansionoftheproductiveforcesandtheratio-
naldistributionofresources.Bothsideshadtheirdissidents—C.WrightMillsand
BarringtonMooreinfusedtheircriticalhumanismwithclassanalysiswhilethe
BudapestSchoolandKolakowskiturnedHegelandtheearlyMarxagainsttotali-
tariancommunism.Althoughharbingersofthefuture,atthetime(inthe1950s)
thesewerebutminorcurrentsintwooceansofconformityandeuphoria.Both
sides would be in for shock, first sociology, then Marxism.
Just when sociology seemed to have finally buried Marxism, the 1960s and
1970stooktheirrevenge.TheassaultcamenotfromamoribundSovietMarxism
butfromwhereitwasleastexpected,onsociology’sowndoorsteps.Socialmove-
ments—free speech movements, civil rights movements, and antiwar move-
ments—erupted to shatter pax Americana both at home and abroad. They put
“consensus”sociologyontrial,calledintoquestionsociology’sPanglossianview
ofAmericansociety,andrevivedalivingMarxismthatelaboratednewbodiesof
theory—MonthlyReview’stheoriesofmonopolycapitalism,theoriesofunderde-
velopment,thecriticaltheoryoftheFrankfurtSchool,theEnglishsocialhistory
ofclass,Germansystemsanalysis,andthestructuralismofFrenchMarxism.Just
associologyhadfoundnoredeemingfeatureinMarxism,sonowarejuvenated
Marxismtookitsturntodismisssociologytoutcourt.Thedenunciationfromrad-
icalandcriticaltheorywasuncompromising,chargingthat“consensus”wasas
“fabricated” within sociology as it was illusory in society.
PerryAnderson,thenthebrilliantpolemicistandeditorofNewLeftReview,
went even further.5 Not content to attack the enemy without he turned on the
196 POLITICS & SOCIETY
enemywithin,attemptingtopurgeMarxismitselfofallbourgeoiscontamination.
Heexcoriatedthe“WesternMarxism”ofHorkheimerandAdorno,Gramsciand
Lukács,SartreandAlthusserasconsortingwithevil,asdetachedfromthework-
ingclass,andaslackingrevolutionaryvision.Andersoninsistedthatwereturnto
therevolutionaryroadpioneeredbyLeonTrotsky.AsIhavearguedelsewhere,
thereismuchtobegainedfromthereexaminationofTrotsky’swritingsonthe
SovietUnion,buttheyarewoefullyadriftintheworldofadvancedcapitalism.6
Reflecting the Russian and then Soviet world he knew best, Trotsky followed
classicalMarxismindenyingtherealityofsociety—bothintheoryandinprac-
tice.Writteninaburstofrevolutionaryoptimism,Anderson’scritiqueofWestern
Marxismbroughtthedenunciationofbourgeoisthoughttoahead,butbroughtto
aheadthedenunciationtoppledover.AndersonhadstrippedMarxismofthevery
conceptualtoolsitwouldneedtoconfrontthecollapseofcommunismandthe
ascendance of global markets.7
AlvinGouldnerwhocorrectlydiagnosedthecomingcrisisofWesternsociol-
ogyhadprefiguredtheMarxistassault.8Moreover,thecontainmentofthecrisis
broadlyfollowedhisprescription,namelytoincorporatethebestofcriticalMarx-
ism.TheManichean“coldwar”worldinwhichsociologysoughtthenullification
ofMarxismwasnowreplacedbyconstructiveengagementandrapprochement.
Losing confidence in its own battered foundations, losing credibility with the
declineofthewelfarestate,sociologyabsorbedMarxismbackintomanyofits
realms.Ithadlearnedthelessonofthe1960sandrestoredeconomyandstateto
theirrightfulplacesalongsidetheanalysisofsociety.Arevivedeconomicsociol-
ogyattendedtothetransformationanddegradationofwork.Politicalsociology
attended to the character of the capitalist state or the state in capitalist society.
Stratificationbecameconcernedwithquestionsofinequalityandthecentralityof
class.Culturalsociologyfocusedonthepowerofideologicaldomination.Com-
parativehistoricalinquiryreliedheavilyonMarxistsocialhistoryanditstheoryof
history.Attheotherendofthesociologicalscale,ethnographersdrewonMarxist
theories of social reproduction. The grand theorists of the day, Bourdieu,
Foucault,andHabermas,aswellasfeminismandracetheory,werepermeatedby
Marxism.Theclassicswerereinterpreted—DurkheimandWeberbecametheo-
ristsofdomination,criticsofcapitalism,andevenadvocatesofsocialism.Nolon-
gerthecalumniatedother,Marxismwasminedfortreasurestoinvigorateaflag-
gingandfragmentedsociology.Inevitably,absorptionbluntedMarxism’scritical
edge, but it also energized sociology.9
Associologyexiteditscrisis,Marxismentereditsown.The1990switnessed
thedisintegrationofcommunism,theglobalascendancyofmarketfundamental-
ism,andtheretreatofprotestandrevolution.Togethertheyshatteredwhatwas
leftoftheMarxistoptimismofthe1970s.ItisthethesisofthisarticlethatMarx-
ism’s regeneration now depends on the incorporation of sociological ideas. In
otherwords,theaccommodationofMarxismandsociologyshouldgobothways:
MICHAEL BURAWOY 197
justassociologyborrowedMarxism’shistoricalandcomparativevisions,sonow
Marxism must appropriate from sociology the liberative notion of society.
Leavingbehindthethirty-yearconfrontation,orwhatAntonioGramscimightcall
a “War of Movement,” Marxism and sociology have entered a very different
engagement,whatGramsciwouldcalla“WarofPosition.”Ratherthanvanquish-
ingtheother,eachseeksahierarchicalaccordwiththeother—theaccordsdiffer-
ingaccordingtowhoassimilateswhom.ItisthedifferencebetweenMarxistsoci-
ologyandSociologicalMarxism.Thetwoamalgamscan,ofcourse,livesideby
side in a state of mutual invigoration as well as antagonism.
The Genesis of a Sociological Marxism
ThiswouldnotbethefirsttimethatMarxismhassoughttoappropriatesociol-
ogy’scriticalmoments.OnemightarguethatMarxhimselftriedtoincorporate
sociologicalnotionsfromHegelandSaint-Simon,butitwouldbefarfetchedto
sayhehadanelaboratednotionof“society.”AsAlvinGouldneraverssocietyis,
at best, a residual category in the writings of Marx and Engels.10 But he is, of
course,referringtotheirwritingsoncapitalismandnottotheirwritingsoncom-
munism,whichisanaltogetherdifferentmatter.Whetheritbetheovercomingof
alienationintheParisManuscripts,ortherepeatedinsistenceinTheGermanIde-
ologythatonlyincommunitywillindividualscultivatetheirgiftsinalldirections,
orthenotionespousedinTheCommunistManifestoofanassociationwherethe
freedevelopmentofeachistheconditionforthefreedevelopmentofall,orthe
moreconcretevisionofsocialismMarxabstractedfromtheParisCommuneor
hisCritiqueoftheGothaProgram,ortheassociatedproducersreferredtoinCap-
ital,oreventheideaofthewitheringawayofthestatefoundinEngels’sSocial-
ism:UtopianandScientific—inalltheseplacessomenotionofsocietyisfoundat
thecenterofcommunism.WhatMarxandclassicalMarxismfailedtodowasto
undertake the complementary analysis of society under capitalism—a comple-
mentaryanalysisthatmighthaveledtoamorecoherentvisionofcommunism.
This is the project of Sociological Marxism.
WhenMarxismdidharnesssociologytoitsanalysisofcapitalism,paradoxi-
callyitdidsotolamentthelossofsociety!Iamthinkingofthe“WesternMarx-
ists”oftheinterwaryearswhoself-consciouslyassimilatedsociology.Thiswasa
Marxismofdefeatthattookupthedoublechallengeofwhytherehadbeenno
socialistrevolutionintheWestandwhytheRussianRevolutionhaddegenerated
intodictatorship.Inthisdoubleproject,WesternMarxism,mostespeciallythe
FrankfurtSchoolanditsprecursors(Korsch,Lukács),leanedheavilyonthewrit-
ingsofWeberandFreud,appealingnottotheirtheoriesofanautonomoussociety
buttotheirtheoriesofdominationandrationalization—indeed,theirtheoriesof
theeclipseofsociety.Wieldingtheirrenewedarmory,WesternMarxiststurned
againstthemechanicalMarxismoftheSecondInternationalwithitsfrictionless
ride from capitalism to socialism and against the revolutionary dogmatism of
198 POLITICS & SOCIETY
Marxism-Leninism.Befittingthetimes,theFrankfurtSchooldevelopedgloomy
theoriesofthe(ir)rationalityanddurabilityofcapitalism,andpartofthatgloom
came from German sociology.
Still, there was another Western Marxism, which did not succumb to the
despairofthetimebutdrewonaheavydoseofidealistthoughttoestablishthe
foundations of Sociological Marxism. Its two major exponents were Antonio
GramsciandKarlPolanyi,widelyinfluentialbutnonethelessidiosyncraticinthe
seriousnesswithwhichtheytreatedthenotionofsociety.Eventhoughtheytook
very different paths, they exploited the idea of society to retain both socialist
visionandacloseconnectiontotheworkingclass.Butfirstandforemost,“soci-
ety”wasaconceptualinnovationtograspthelongevityofcapitalism,itsfailureto
succumb to the laws that Marx had laid down for it. In this way Sociological
Marxismfinallybeginstograpplewiththemeaningofsociety,somethingsociol-
ogy has singularly failed to do.11
InMarxisthandssocietyisnotageneralnotionthatappliestranshistoricallyto
ancientandmedievalworlds,tribalandcomplexsystems,traditionalandmodern
orders,embracingalltheseparateandfunctionallyindependentinstitutionsthat
togetherformacoherentandboundedwhole.Rather,GramsciandPolanyiendow
theirnotionsofsocietywithhistoricalspecificity.ForGramsci,societyiscivil
society,whichisalwaysunderstoodinitscontradictoryconnectiontothestate.
Civilsocietyreferstothegrowthoftradeunions,politicalparties,masseducation,
andothervoluntaryassociationsandinterestgroups,allofwhichproliferatedin
Europe and the United States toward the end of the nineteenth century. At the
sametime,newformsoftransportation(automobiles,railroad),communication
(postal service, newspapers), and regulation (police) connected people to one
anotheraswellastothestate.Ontheonehand,civilsocietycollaborateswiththe
statetocontainclassstruggle,andontheotherhand,itsautonomyfromthestate
can promote class struggle.
ForPolanyisocietyiswhatIcallactivesociety,whichisalwaysunderstoodin
itscontradictorytensionwiththemarket.12Polanyiisnotalwaysclearaboutwhat
populates active society, but in nineteenth-century England it includes trade
unions, cooperatives, the organization of the factory movement to curtail the
lengthoftheworkingday,theChartistmovementtoextendpoliticalrights,and
rudimentarydevelopmentofpoliticalparties.Ontheonehand,themarkettendsto
destroysociety,butontheotherhand,society(re)actstodefenditselfandtosub-
ordinatethemarket.13Polanyioftenreferstosocietyashavingarealityofitsown,
actingonitsownbehalf,whereasGramsciunderstandscivilsocietyasaterrainof
struggle. For both, however, “society” occupies a specific institutional space
withincapitalismbetweeneconomyandthestate,butwhere“civilsociety”spills
intothestate,“activesociety”interpenetratesthemarket.Forboth,socialismis
thesubordinationofmarketandstatetotheself-regulatingsociety,whatGramsci
calls the regulated society.
MICHAEL BURAWOY 199
Armedwiththisnotionofsociety,SociologicalMarxismdistinguishesitself
fromsociologyinfourways.First,“civilsociety”and“activesociety,”asIhave
alreadyemphasized,arenottimelessnotionsbutspecifichistoricalproductsof
Europeancapitalisminthelatenineteenthcentury.Indeed,“society,”inbothits
manifestations,appearspreciselywiththegenesisofclassicalsociology,punctur-
ingthelatter’suniversalisticclaims.Thisisnottosaywecannottalkof“society”
beforethelatenineteenthcentury,butithasadifferentmeaningandsignificance.
Inthemodernera“society’s”strengthorweakness,itsparticularconfigurationas
wellasrelationtostateandeconomy,hashadfatefulconsequencesforthedevel-
opment of both capitalism and socialism.
Second,societyisnotsomeautonomousrealmsuspendedinafluidofsponta-
neousvalueconsensus.Inspecifyingsocietyasaninstitutionalspace,occupied
bypoliticalparties,masseducation,voluntaryassociations,tradeunions,church,
andeventhefamily,SociologicalMarxismfocusesontherelationsbetweenmar-
ketandsociety(Polanyi)andbetweenstateandsociety(Gramsci).Althoughitis
notthefocusofthewritingsofGramsciandPolanyi,itwouldbewrongtoassume
thatsocietyhasanintegrityandcoherenceofitsown.Ratheritistraversedbycap-
illarypowers,oftenbifurcatedorsegmentedintoracialorethnicsectors,andfrag-
mented into gendered dominations. I will return to this issue in the conclusion.
Third,whereastoday’ssociologyhasappropriatedtherelatednotionsof“civil
society,”“embeddedness”ofmarkets,and“socialcapital”asconditionsforthe
stability and effectiveness of capitalist institutions, for Sociological Marxism,
societyisJanusfaced,ontheonehandactingtostabilizecapitalismbutonthe
otherhandprovidingaterrainfortranscendingcapitalism.Thus,ifGramscistarts
outfromthewaycivilsociety,throughitsconnectiontothestate,organizescon-
sentandconstrictsclassstruggle,Polanyistartsoutfromthewayactivesociety
counteractsthedehumanizingeffectsofthemarketeconomy.Buttheybothend
upaskinghowsocietycanfoundanaltogetherneworderofsocialism—anorder
that subordinates both economy and state to a self-regulating community.
Fourth,SociologicalMarxismdrawsonandexpandssociology’sownantipa-
thytoutilitarianismandtotalitarianism.Itturnssociology’sownuniversalclaims,
itstheoriesofsocialactionandcommunity,intoweaponsofcritique.Thus,Par-
sons’stheoryofthesocialsystemwithitsmarginalizationofpower,itsunderlying
valueconsensus,itscomplementaryrole-expectations,anditshomeostaticself-
regulation,alldesignedtocounterindividualisticandrationalisticdescriptionsof
moderncapitalism,becomes,inMarxisthands,anincisiveindictmentofcapital-
ism.ThesamecanbesaidofsuchcommunitariansasEtzioniandSelznick,whose
putative “communalism” far from being an approximation to actually existing
America (or even its potentialities) becomes its crushing indictment. In
marginalizingmarketsandstates,sociology’sconceptionofsocietybecomesan
embryonicaspirationtosocialism.Inshort,justassociologyhasdomesticated
200 POLITICS & SOCIETY
Marxismbyabsorbingit,soparipassuSociologicalMarxismseekstoharness
sociology to its democratic socialist project!
InthisarticleIshowhowGramsciandPolanyiconvergedonthesameidea
fromverydifferentexperiences,andhowtheirdivergentcriticismsofclassical
Marxismgaverisetocomplementaryperspectivesontheconnectionof“society”
tocapitalism.Ithenbringthetwoperspectivestogethertoshedlightonsuccessive
periodsofcapitalism,onpatternsofcapitalisthegemonyandcounterhegemony,
andonthemultipletrajectoriesofcapitalisminaglobalorder.IntheconclusionI
advance an agenda for a Sociological Marxism in the postcommunist age—an
agendathatthematizessociety:first,inrelationtothepotentialities,failures,and
aftermathsofstatesocialism;second,inrelationtotheriftswithinsocietiesofa
racialcharacter(advancedcapitalismaswellascolonialism);third,inrelationto
theboundariesofsocietywithstate,economy,andhousehold;andfourth,inrela-
tion to the expansion of society beyond the nation-state.
II: BIOGRAPHIES OF SOCIOLOGICAL MARXISM
ItisperhapsstrangetolinkGramsciandPolanyi.Theyarerarelyseenasparal-
lelorevenconnectedthinkers.14Gramsci,afterall,isfirmlylocatedwithinthe
Marxisttradition,preoccupiedwithLenin’squestionsofpoweranddomination,
hisuniquecontributionbeingtobringcultureandideologytothecenterofpoliti-
calanalysis.Subjectingsociologytowitheringcriticism,Gramsci’skinshipwith
DurkheimandWeberiseasilymissed.15Polanyi,bycontrast,isoftenassociated
withWeber’sanalysisofeconomyandadoptsashisownDurkheim’ssignature
tune,the“realityofsociety.”WithWeber,Polanyiinsistsontheplaceofthestate
inforgingandthenregulatingamarketeconomy.Today,PeterEvanstakesthis
Weberian Polanyi further with his concept of “embedded autonomy.”16 With
Durkheim,Polanyiinsistsonthesocialunderpinningsofthemarket,Durkheim’s
celebratednon-contractualelementsofcontract,aswellasnon-contractualsoci-
ety.MarkGranovetterrepresentsthisDurkheimianPolanyiwithhisinsistenceon
social networks as a precondition of market exchange.17 The connection of
PolanyitoGramsciismadeallthemoreunlikelybyPolanyi’sfocusontherealm
ofexchangeratherthanproduction,andbyPolanyi’sfrequentdismissalof“popu-
lar Marxism.”18
We cannot be surprised, therefore, that these two giants of the twentieth-
century social theory are never associated. Nonetheless, closer examination of
theirrespectivecriticismsofsociologyandofMarxismshowstheircommonality.
Each objected to crude “positivism” in the works of sociologists and Marxists
alike.JustasGramscireducedsociologytoacrudecausalatomism,ironlawsof
change,PolanyireducedMarxismtoitsmosteconomisticvariant.19Theirchoice
of“other”againstwhichtodefinethemselveswasnotinsignificant,asweshall
see,butnonethelessthecharacteristicsofthat“other”werequitesimilarinboth
cases,namely,asocialscienceremovedfromlivedexperience,removedfromhis-
MICHAEL BURAWOY 201
tory,removedfromthecollectivewillofclasses,removedfromtheindeterminism
ofpolitics,andremovedfromthesearchforanewintellectualandmoralorder.
This is their shared indictment, equally of vulgar Marxism and positivist
sociology.
InthisarticleIseektoshowjusthowconvergentwastheirthinkingand,atthe
sametime,howtheirdivergencesmakecomplementarycontributions—theone
political and the other economic—to Sociological Marxism. Reaching beyond
thepolemicalbattlesoftheirtimes,whichmakethemlooksuperficiallydifferent,
Ireinserttheirtheoriesbackintotheirpoliticalbiographies.Toooftenthewritings
ofGramsciandPolanyihavebeenravagedlikethecarcassesofdeadbodies—the
mostusefulpartsrippedfromtheirmeaning-givingintegumentandtransplanted
intoailingtheories.Iintendtorestorethesetwobodiesoftheoryintheirtotality
andastheyrelatetooneanother.Thatrequiresexploringtheeconomic,political,
andideologicalcontextthatgavemeaningtotheirparallellifeprojects.Forthese
twofigurestheirengagementwithhistoricalforcesisinseparablefromtheirtheo-
reticaldevelopment.Biographyisthereforenotsomebackgroundfillerbutessen-
tialtograspingtheintegrityoftheirthought.OnlyoncetheirMarxistcommonal-
ityhasbeenestablishedcanweturn,inthenextsection,totheirdifferentplacesin
the Marxist tradition.
Divergent Social Origins
GramsciandPolanyihailedfromoppositeendsofEuropebutalsofromoppo-
site ends of the class structure.20 Their eventual intellectual convergence is a
resoundingconfirmationoftheirownfaithinthehumanabilitytotranscendsocial
origins.Gramsciwasbornin1891,intoalarge,poorruralfamilyinSardinia.His
fatherwasalow-levelbureaucrat,whodisappearedintoprisonwhenGramsciwas
sevenontrumped-upchargesofpettycrime,leavinghismothertolookafterthe
seven young children. Gramsci, the fourth-born, was a hunchback from a very
earlyage.Precludedfromanormalchild’slife,deeplysensitiveabouthismal-
formedbody,heearlyondevotedhimselftobooksandlearning.Butitwasapain-
ful—psychologicallyandphysically—struggletomovefromoneschooltothe
next,repeatedlyinterruptedbypoverty.Finally,bydintofenormousdetermina-
tionheentereduniversityinTurin,andthereheledawretched,tormented,and
often lonely student existence.
Polanyi,bycontrast,bornfiveyearsbeforeGramsciin1886,grewupinapros-
perousupper-middle-class“Jewish”(althoughconvertedtoCalvinism)familyin
Budapest.Hisfather’swealth,madefromaverysuccessfulrailroadbusiness,was
channeledintothebestprivateeducationthatmoneycouldbuy,withitsbevyof
tutors and governesses. Polanyi, the middle child of five, grew up in a distin-
guished and intensely intellectual milieu. His mother ran a salon for leading
Budapestartists,writers,andradicalsofthetime.Cultureandeducationcameto
Polanyionagoldenplatter.HowdifferentfromGramsci!Yetbothwouldendup
202 POLITICS & SOCIETY
with similar socialist commitments—the one developed his intellect in and
through suffering, while the other discovered suffering through the intellect.
PolanyiandGramsciwerebothinfluencedbyelderbrotherswhowerededi-
catedsocialistrevolutionaries,buttheirownfirstpoliticalactionswerenotsocial-
ist.AswastypicalfortheradicalintelligentsiaoftheSouth,Gramscibecamea
Sardiniannationalist,regardingtheNorthasanillegitimatecolonizingpower.It
wasonlyafterhehadsettledintheNorthernindustrialcityofTurinandtheresaw
theburgeoningworkers’movement,whileatthesametimewitnessingtheviolent
repressionmetedouttothestrikingruralminersinSardinia(1913),thathebegan
toseethepowerofclass—thepotentialunityofworkersintheNorthandpeasants
intheSouththatwasnecessarytochallengethegrowingcollusionofNorthern
capitalists with Southern landowners. Abandoning his university studies, he
threwhimselfintotheburgeoningTurinworkers’movement.Fromhispenrushed
eloquentpiecesthatspokeforliberatorygoals,designedtonurtureanembryonic
working-class culture.
Polanyi’s early political activities were also of a nationalist character. He
formedtheGalileiCirclein1908whenhewasstillauniversitystudent,abroad
organization demanding that Hungary cast off its feudal cloak and establish a
thriving,openbourgeoissocietywithaliberalpolityandmoderneducation.The
Galileists,sometwothousandstrongashelaterrecounted,soughtnationalcul-
tural renaissance and mounted literacy campaigns for workers and peasants.
PolanyitookaneagerinterestintheRussianPopulistMovement,leadinghimfor
ashorttimein1914intotheNationalBourgeoisRadicalParty.TheAustro-
Hungarianempiredisintegratedin1919afterdefeatinWorldWarI,andaliberal
regimeassumedpowerinHungary,followedinquicksuccessionbythemorerad-
icalbutshort-livedRepublicofSoviets.Polanyireflectedontheunfoldingevents
fromthesidelines,leavingBudapestforViennainJune1919beforetheSoviet
Republiccollapsedon1August1919.HostiletothenotionoftheDictatorshipof
the Proletariat but realizing the limitations of liberal democracy, he took up a
socialist third way to democratic freedoms.
Socialists against Marxism
IfbothGramsciandPolanyiemergedfromWorldWarIassocialists,Polanyi
moreuncertainlythanGramsci,neitherhadmuchsympathyfortheorthodoxGer-
manMarxismoftheirtime.Theirsocialismwasafarcryfromdeterministiclaws
ofhistory.Theywerebothrhapsodicaboutthehumancapacitytofashionhistory
initsownimage.BothGramsciandPolanyiimbibedtheItalianandGermanide-
alism of their era, although both took their political inspiration from Russia—
PolanyifromthePopulistswiththeirpeasantbase,GramscifromtheBolsheviks
with their proletarian support.
GramsciwasenthralledbytheunfoldingRussianRevolution.Hisfamousarti-
cle, written in 1917, “The Revolution Against Capital” is a paean to the