|
|
| (15 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{English to type}} {{English to re-read}} | | == KPI Description == |
| | {|class="wikitable" |
| | | Title |
| | | Correspondence: Karl Polanyi – Michael Polanyi (“Misi”), 1943-1961 |
| | |- |
| | | Author |
| | | Karl Polanyi, Michael Polanyi ("Misi") |
| | |- |
| | | Description |
| | | File consists of hand-written and typed letters from Karl Polanyi to his brother Michael. The correspondence is mainly in English, with one letter in Hungarian. |
| | |- |
| | | URI |
| | | [http://hdl.handle.net/10694/239 http://hdl.handle.net/10694/239] |
| | |- |
| | | Document Date |
| | | 1943-1961 |
| | |} |
|
| |
|
| Correspondence between Michael and Karl.
| | == Contents == |
| | | {|class="wikitable" |
| == [[To Michael (13 October 1943)]] ==
| | ! |
| | | ! P. |
| == To Michael, 25 October 1943 ==
| | |- |
| <div style="font-family:Garamond;">Dear Misi - The very feel of life is {riffrend} with your letters widening the scene of thought and keeping it warn with the touch of friendship.
| | | [[To Michael (13 October 1943)]] |
| My visiting {toby}, I am afraid, is {linring lommlepemerate arlia} sensible. It always happens when my heart is causing trouble. But it is ___ ___ I have got quite ___ to it. When your birthday letter arrived this morning – we had both forgotten the occasion – it was like a brotherly hug.
| | | 1-2 |
| | | |- |
| I saw Cole yesterday. He had arranged for a long {muristurbed} chat, and his sensitive poetic personality filed the atmosphere with a peculiar quiet which we (Ilona) enjoyed intensively. Of course we agree very much in __ general outlook, and the reasons which make me feel hopeful about the {wved} (although he delights in the liberal glown of the M.G. or N.S. type}
| | | [[To Michael (25 October 1943)]] |
| | | | 3-7 |
| It ____ not be easy to sum up what I believe to be his impression of my work. (For this also to come up, in the last hour of our stay.) Maybe a number of points seemed {{Page |n°=4}} both interesting …
| | |- |
| …economy as an episode; the comparative novelty of individual fear of hunger or an organizing {jailor} in industry; the Speenhamland origins of classical economics; some more interesting than plausible (the identity of the “initial” and the “final” problems of model economy; in others words: that the misvalued problems of the 1820's explain the crisis of the 1920’s); many more, I suppose merely plausible, without being specially interesting. He appeared completely at home in the details of 1780-1830 industrial history. Only at one point did I feel did he bring up facts {moved} cause me to qualify my statements, – fortunately, not on an essential point. He seemed, I felt, enthusiastic about my return to institutionalism and keenly looking toward to any thing that {anew} make academic scholarship sit up. Ye he might be dissatisfied with the awful sweep of my statements made sometimes on evidence if a most general nature, and even extremely dissatisfied with some of my lines of argument, for all I know. [...]
| | | [[To Michael (13 October 1943)]] |
| | | | 8-9<ref>[Second times]</ref> |
| {{Page |n°=5}} You are of course quite right that in your instances the term <u>society</u> is useless and should be substituted by the “individuals in question”. Confe Bentham and Spencer, Fr. Wieser on foreign trade, similarly Haberler and Mises, all round. There is here no society, – questions as to its continued existence are meaningless. But then you showed not have proceeded to speak of “countries”, not have referred to “tariffs” (which simply involve removal from country to country.
| | |- |
| | | | [[To Michael (3 November 1945)]] |
| […]
| | | 10 |
| | | |- |
| {{Page |n°=7}} Th Schumpeter! His book is of little interest. He is an apologia for a life twne of crypto-Marxism, with the silliest reasons imaginable given for his expectancies that capitalism is now gwing to dissolve, and that is H V M !
| | | [[To Michael (July 1949)]] |
| However, his explanation of the justification of monopolies is excellent, & entirely on my views.
| | | 19 |
| | | |- |
| I am engage in clearing up one small corner of the field: how to relativise again the economic concern, and subordinate it to those greater concerns that are looming ahead. We have absolutized the economy and are helpless when called upon to handle it as a mere tool, a secondary concern.
| | | [[To Michael (25 February 1952)]] |
| </div>
| | | 20 |
| | | |- |
| == To Michael, 13 October 1943 (2) ==
| | | [[To Michael (23 February 1956)]] |
| {{Page |n°=8}}
| | | 21 |
| | | |- |
| == To Michael, 3 November 1945 ==
| | | [[To Michael (29 February 1956)]] |
| {{Page |n°=10}}
| | | 23 |
| | | |- |
| == To Michael, July 1949 ==
| | | [[From Michael (15 October 1956)]] |
| {{Page |n°=19}}
| | | 24 |
| | | |- |
| == To Michael, 25 February 1952 ==
| | | [[To Michael (21 January 1957)]] |
| {{Page |n°=20}}
| | | 28 |
| | | |- |
| == To Michael, 23 February 1956 ==
| | | [[To Michael (5 January 1958)]] |
| {{Page |n°=21}}
| | | 31-32 |
| | | |- |
| == To Michael, 29 February 1956 ==
| | | [[To Michael (21 October 1959)]] |
| <div style="font-family:Garamond;">
| | | 34-36 |
| {{Page |n°=23}} Your “M. of M.” is ingenious, precise and, in my view, correct. A conjuncture of <u>the</u> two passions of the modern age: science and morality makes Marxist dialectics auto-reinforcing. However, your formula merely shows why it can be so. In other words, you describe the double aspect of <u>all</u> effective faiths, not the specific effect of the Marxist one. Your problem has been to my knowledge solved by the Princeton (theologian Jewish), Taubes, author of Abendländische Eschatologie.
| | |- |
| </div>
| | | [[To Michael (2 January 1960)]] |
| | | | 37 |
| == To Michael, 29 February 1956 ==
| | |- |
| {{Page |n°=23}}
| | | [[To Michael (14 January 1961)]] |
| | | | 38 |
| == From Michael, 15 October 1956 ==
| | |- |
| {{Page |n°=24}}
| | | [[To Michael (4 March 1961)]] |
| | | | 39 |
| == To Michael, 21 January 1957 ==
| | |- |
| {{Page |n°=28}}
| | | [[To Michael (8 April 1961]] |
| | | | 42 |
| == To Michael, 5 January 1958 ==
| | |- |
| <ref>This is a copy, the original is in the MPP.</ref>
| | | [[Letter to Michael (Without date (1))|To Michael (Without date (1)]] |
| {{Page |n°=31}} My dear brother -
| | | 44 |
| | | |- |
| A 17 page letter (plus enclosure) mailed beginning of December and addressed to you[r] university address must have got lost – what a pity. I was elaborating on my old discussion with Mises, on the “young Hegel” (G. Lukacs, 1948<ref>''Der junge Hegel - Über die Beziehungen von Dialektik und Ökonomie'', 1948.</ref>); the early Marx (“New Reasoner” n°2) and similar topicalities. Also I warmed you off your Lenin myth concerning Marx's 1875 'Critique of the Gotha Programme'. It was translated by P. Struve into Russian about 1893 or 94 and became focal to Lenin's early work on the Program of the Russian Soc.-Dem. Party, which he drafted in prison, starting with 1895.
| | | [[To Michael (Without date (2)]] |
| | | | 48 |
| Thanks for the Norman Cohen book. He makes out a case for the very late start of social revolutionary movements under the aegis of popular milleninism. This is both new and important (ca. 1380 A.D., pages 209, 213 ff.)
| | |- |
| | | | [[To Michael (Without date (3)]] |
| Interest in Ilona's is on the increase. W. Auden is undertaking to look the position in the U.S.; the Canadians are well started; a selection of some half-dozen show pieces are supposed to be published soon in a literary periodical.
| | | 49-50 |
| […]
| | |- |
| Maybe I have been overfeeding on Hegel these days, which has made unduly partial to Marx.
| | | [[To Michael (Without date (4)]] |
| | | | 51 |
| {{Page |n°=32}} …
| | |} |
| | |
| Please do write soon again -
| |
| | |
| P.S. on Lenin. You may be of course right (newly published letters or something - in scholarship everything is possible) but expresly looked up 'State & Revolution' and found the jibes against bourgeois scholars unrelated to this matter. Or did you simply rely on a 'reliable informant'? In that case he did you a bad turn, so it looks to me.
| |
| | |
| On the Mises conundrum there’s a very interesting comment in Maurice Dobb’s Introduction to the <u>second</u> edition of his own monograph on USSR economy. He gives valid reasons why good economics (i.e. of his own non-Marxian sort) do <u>not</u> apply to the Soviet economy! <span style="font-family:Garamond;">(He had bean called to account by the C.P. for his neo-classical economics. He insisted on keeping to it, and proceeded to explain <u>why</u> it would not fit Russian conditions anyway. This important paper has been overlooked, I am afraid.) (Incidentally, his econ. history of capitalism ondition is ______ous).</span>
| |
| | |
| == To Michael, 21 October 1959 ==
| |
| {{Page |n°=34}} <span style="font:Garamond;">Misi dear,</span>
| |
| | |
| Your withdrawal to Merton brought us a letter (Ilona's) of the kind that helps life all round. There were those years when I – my confused self – had you living beside me, a young saint; there was some selflessness store inside me, but all it produced …
| |
| | |
| But the Hungarian have my affection.
| |
| | |
| {{Page |n°=35}} I remember the depths from which they rose: A Magyar-Jewish mongrel, not deserving to be fully accepted as morally civilized, bearing the 'stamp' of the ethically defective, victime of the backyards standards of a church and aristocracy, whose heart (?) was elsewhere. A nobility, fitted with false pride, but without self-respect, linked to the West by a half-assimilated Jewry, not truly Western, and yet hindered in melting into the Magyar stock, in joining together the healthy ingredients of both into a mixture pregnant with possibilities of a great Eastern European people. (The Galilei was the only approximation of an entelechy of Russia's revolutionary Jewish emancipation.) And yet the Magyar stock too was denaturalized by the hothouse brood of a second-class foreign intelligentsia which pre-digested the valuable Western experiences Hungary required to nourish its peasant stock's rich undergrowth. (Maybe the throne was the
| |
| | |
| == To Michael, 2 January 1960 ==
| |
| {{Page |n°=37}}
| |
| | |
| == To Michael, 14 January 1961 ==
| |
| {{Page |n°=38}}
| |
| | |
| == To Michael, 4 March 1961 ==
| |
| {{Page |n°=39}}
| |
| | |
| == To Michael, 8 April 1961 ==
| |
| {{Page |n°=42}}
| |
| | |
| == [[Letter to Michael, Without date (1)|To Michael without date (1)]] ==
| |
| {{Page |n°=44}}
| |
| | |
| == To Michael without date (2) ==
| |
| {{Page |n°=48}}
| |
| | |
| == To Michael without date (3) ==
| |
| {{Page |n°=49}}
| |
| | |
| == To Michael without date (4) ==
| |
| {{Page |n°=51}}
| |
| | |
| == Notes and references ==
| |
| | |
| <references />
| |