07/09
KPI Description
| Title | Karl Polanyi: Notes – “Origins of Institutions”, 1934-1946.[1] |
| Author | Polanyi, Karl |
| Description | File consists of hand-written and typed notes mainly in English with some in German and French. The notes are titled “Origins of Institutions” and were taken during Karl Polanyi’s stay in England. |
| URI | http://hdl.handle.net/10694/1041 |
| Date | 2013-02-20 |
Contents
- “Table of Contents: Volume X) IJ” - Reading list for “Origin of Institutions” (1946), 1-3
- Notes, 4-9
- Index to Notes: Volume L, 10-11
- George W. Southgate, “Markets and Fairs” [article], 12-15
- (Folder IJ I a) Thurnwald's Die menschliche Gesellschaft vol I III IV, 16-30 + 32-70
- Reading list (Summer 1947), 31
- (Folder IJ 3 k) Dictionary (Weber, Thurnwald), 71-75
- (Folder IJ 3 d) Ant. Interest Hildebrand, Schrober, 76-83
- (Folder IJ 3 e) Miscellaneous (Guild, Caste; State, classe, city; External causation; Meyer; Eberling), 84-99
- (Folder IJ 3 f) Max Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 100-126
Excerpts
[9] Industrial Revolution [...] Why Marxist? Ashley, Ashdeacon, Cunnigham, Schmoller Levasseur and Toynbee – not one of them sounds Marxian. True there were others like Sombart, Mantoux, Brentano, Hasbach.
(Toynbee founder of the Toynbee Hall)
Or the group of Maitlan, Manus and Guerke, or Brunner, Lamprecht, Below and Dopsch – nut none of which sound Marxist. Excepting of course Marx and Engels one of which as we know did not deny that he was a Marxist.
[17] Notes on Thurnwald, Die Menschliche Gesellschaft
[20] “Polygamy became an advantage...”
[60] Why? Max Weber answered …
[71] Dictionary Weber - Thurnwald
[97] Morris Ginsberg: Recent tendencies in sociology
On Max Weber
Alf. Kierkandt
F. Tönnies
L. von Wiese
R. Thurnwald
H. Freyer: Soziologie als Wirklichkeitswissenschaft
K. Mannheim : Wissenschaft 1930 ------> Fr. v. Wieser
Why not ? Sep. Weber
[112] Sociological terms in economics
MW deals with the {sozeil} on 3 levels:[2]
(a) gen. soc. terms
(b)
(c)
M. Weber’s definitions for collective apparent process are vague on the crucial point. If market motives are the essentially “economic” what in the {veisme} of gainful they certainly are – then the economical be the production of material goods, for the two are {enlivef} different. In effect, if the first definition is mainted there exist no specifically economic objects[3] - if the latter is {achieved} to, then there exist {tnuf} objects, but no specific motives to them. The first position was consistently maintained by Menger, Robbins, etc.; the second is by myself.
[113] Notes 10 - M. Weber
Scarcity drops: substantive definition
[…]
Pol: