The Contempt of Freedom: The Russian Experiment and After

122 Pages·1940·7.214 MB·English

by  Michael Polanyi

THE CONTEMPT OF
FREEDOM
THE RUSSIAN EXPERIMENT
AND AFTER
DY
M. POLANYI
LONDON:
WATTS & CO.,
S &: 6 JOHNSON'S COU.R'l', FLEE'l' S'l'REE'r, E,C,4
P1irst publislwit i-n tliiu fu1·111 J/i /f)
Printed and Publlshed ln Great Britain by C, A, Waltl &. Ca, 1.lm!ml,
5 &. 6 John•on'a Court, Pleet Street, LonJon, S,C,4
PREFACE
rrumirn cssa,yR n,rr. notoH ta.ken down during n,
short but dociRivo span of history : the five
years between H)35 and Hl40. In tl1ose ym1rs
the ideas of liberty, which at the end of tho period
wore to divide t,ho world in a, struggle of lifo ,md
tlcn,th, wore, Jcft almo::;t uncultivated. ~rho pro
gL'Cssivo mindi:; were so fo::ici1mtod by tho proHpccts
of tho rovolut;iun in H,uRKia, th,it they Juul little
interest left for the fotn of 1,mditiotml liberties. Tn
fact, they were inclined to look at these with con
tempt, to co+id9r them ns incffo ctmil 0,nd hollow
phrn,scs corn pa,rou wit,h the solid realities of tho
11A
coming soofal rcvolut,ion. Tho most · enterprising
and generous minds of the period looked at Indivi
dualism with suspfoion, a,s at a Acreon sholtol'ing
vested interests agiiinst fundamental change on
colleo.tivist lines. Attompts to protect liberty
agaim1t CollocUviKm woro mot with scorn nnd
dorision by tho intellectual advance guard of the
time. ProgrcsH hud booome antagonistic to liborty,
disregarding itli claimA, and bitterly exposing its
limitations to contempt and ridicule.
Only now tha,t the peril of freedom hn,s become
deadly has its value again been recognized ; the
V
progressives who ma.de light of it baforo ha.vo now
joined the masses who r,~llfod to itR clefenoo. But
the consequences of tho tmgio 1:1eparn.t,ion of progrosA
a.nd liberty a.ro yot with u1-1. 'rho mtuKo of froorlom
ha.s yet to rely on popular tmclit,ion mul pn.t.riotiHm :
it laoks the dynamic, the vitn,l, promi1-10 of n ~ron,t
future of social redresM ; it liuikM n. ~ohMcmt phil
osophy comprehending tho u.outo cont.om_por1iry
experience of the colloctiviNt revolutfoni. in tho l<lMt:
of the evilH of unomploymmit and povorty io tho
West. But no one 011,n lon,d tho poopfoK of thi11
planet who does not leo.ct thorn to progroSR; and
Liberty, therefore, oo.nnot bo tnwod unlolffl it ngn.in
becomes a progressive idon,. ~l'huao who b&ve
returned to its defence must now givo it all their
hea.rts and their gifted minds, to make it ag11,in a
conquering faith. Only this oa.n banish tho anxiety
of the struggle and make its suffering endurable;
a.nd only this oa.n rally to their duties everywhere
the foroes of humanity which rightly owe allegiance
to the oa.use of Liberty.
Looking back on these essa.ys with this in mind,
l am of course a.wa.re of their i:nsignifioa.nce. But
I know that they were a.t the time of their publioa
.tion -heard by some friends as one of the few stre.y
~ opposing the prevailing progressive obseasions.
They ma.y be to-da.y of use to some who wish to
~ti.race· their steps a.nd re-examine the oouree they
lx&Je pursued. Therefore I decided to re-publish
.....N . documents of the time-without matierial
Mr. Colin Clark has given a detailed criticism
of parts of my essay "U.S.S.R. Economics, etc.,"
in a little book which appeared last year (A
Oritiqiie of Russian Statistics, 1!)30). However, after
careful analysis of Mr. Clark's points which I had
an opportunity to discuss with him by correspond
ence, I feel now tho,t his re-examination of my work
leads mainly to a confirmation of its principal results.
I have preferred, therefore, not to correct, but only
to point out, such mistakes u,s Mr. Clark has noted,
and to diRcuss in detail only ouo point of his
criticism, in which I do not quite agree with him.
My thanks are due to tho " l\fonchostor School" for
permission to reprint tho :first, third and fourth of
thoAe esRays; the second, "Collectivist Planning,"
was given as a, lecture to tho South Phtco Ethical
Society in April, 1040.
To the friends who helped mo I send, by this little
book, 11 mo1:1im,ge of thanks.
Manchester, June 3, l!J:10.
vii
OON~L 1DNTS
1
l'Allll
rrm: HHatT::l AND .Du1r11<::-. ()!,' HarnNC11 (l!l:l!)) l
Cou.,1i:0T1v1t-1•r P1,ANN1N1: (ltl,H)). "J7
1:1w1'H ANl> P1wl'A< i ,, NuA ( 1n :w) n<I
ix
Rl01rl1R AND l>l_TTll<JN OF RC11~NOE (193!l)
r111io t•ontnniinn is H1111111I Orn.I, rnintl i:-1 n mnl,1,<'l' of dt1p:J'C1(\;
only it, it-1 n, miN1 nk11 1o IIKO 111<• ohviou:,;rn•Hs of ihiK pm,it.ion
t,o c·n.~t, doubt. OIi t ht1 hi)!h(•J' d(•gt'('('i'l,-·-Bt11'll1U'd HoRnnquot,
11h/'(!() mu,plfl'N Oil th,· N11,fur1• <(( th1• :l/ i:1/(t,
IN Uw yonr:-1 following Uio World 0rhihi of 1929-:l:l
a mov<mw11ti grew up in ·rn11~la11d, nrnl to 1·.mmo
oxt011t, nhm in Uw U11ifotl 1-il.n.1,t•:-i allll l<,mnM, putting
forwn,rd it dnim fo,· l,hti t'(\conHidtwa,tkm of tho pm-ii~
Lion of i-wintlt'(' in t.l1t1 ligh1, of Mar:dRt, t>hilmmphy.
Mom roumit ly. ii, H(\t'lllH to mo, t,hh; mnv(lment,, whilo
furt,ll<'r gu.t,lwri11g in hr<1u.dt,h, it, udopt,ing a loss
ort',hodox a,U,il,udo. If, iH t.t·yi11g t,o win t,ho support
n,lt-10 of non-Ho<'i1diHl,H, mainly hy m.nphnsizing that
no roHt,d(it,ion of t.l1<, frcotlmn of H<:imwo hi inton<lod.
1'h(I n,hk, 11.11d pow(irful tn~iiU1m of 'Prof<.1:-1Hor Bernn.l 1
r<'pro:-mnt,H t,hii-t 1Lt.ut,rnfo. Whilo ho omph1itiC'.ally
advow1,i;c:; Hocdn,liruu. lw doo1:1 not suggost that
soiontil-1ts HhouM join iilio Pnrtiy, but only that they
support t,ho 'Popuhu· 1,ront (p. 404). His ruling
1
passion iH n, pmf\l\md restmtment of defayR in the
achiovomout, of pkmitudo, hc1ilth and enlighten
1
ment, to which, ht, bdiovcs, !!Oionco ovon now holda
tho door opm1. 'J'o 11,ttiiin thoHo ho demands a
reorgani:imtiou of H(.1fonco on tho bitsis of :Marxist
philrnmphy. '11hroughout, ho iH guided by the doc
trine : " ~rho mmlo of prodm1tion of the material
means of lifo detormine1-1, in general, the social,
1 '1.1lui k~ocial Ji\mr.t1:on of i':fo·i.r.nr.e,. l3y J. D, Bernal,
+
Hout,fo<.lgi~. J>p, xvi 482. 1~8. Ud.
political, and intollectm~l 1)roccsses of life. .lt i::1 not
the consciousness of human beings that dotormine1s
their existence, but, on the contrary, it is their soci,~l
existence that determines their consciousncAs. '' 1
He wants science to be re-organized so t,ha,t it, rna.v
consciously, and hence, in his view, more ofl.foitint,ly,
fulfil its social functions as outlined by .Mal'x in t,hit'l
quotation. This, he assortfi, Hhonltl not intorfero
with the freedom of science. lu fact,, he profosHcs
that the very essence of scienoo is tho Bpirit, of freo
inquiry (p. 410); that science mu1-1t be n,hlo m1cl
willing to defend its theses nga,inAt all comoril,
not excluding but encourn,ging criticA of nll kim!i-1
(p. 278); that we should guiwd n,gn,hrnt t,ho pm:i1-1iblo
risk of restricting the freedom of science or limiUng
its imaginative possibilities (p. 261 ).
My pw-pose in this essn.y is to examine hrfofly tit(}
Marxist claims, and those of Profo1-1Aor Honml in
particular, for a radical roconsitlcmtion n.n(l
r(1-
adjustment of the duties of Aciouco, a,nd tho 1u-11-1w·
ances, accompanying those ola.hmi, t,hat t,hoy will not
impair the vital rights of science.
SCIENCE : Punm AN.D Arru11m
The main points at issue aro com.pdsod in t,he
relationship of pure and applied soicneo; I will
therefore deal with this relationship in somo clotaiil.
In Marxism a distinction botwoon p1tre ,1r,·ienr.e,
1
which seeks to find truth for its own 1:1u.ko, un<l t,he
application of science to 1>ractical purposes is not
admitted, because aU intellectual processes are
assumed to be equally determined by tho mode of
1 Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Pol·&tical
Economy (Preface). ·
2·
procluCJtion of t-,he mn.tcrial means of life. The
orthodox Marxist doctrine is correctly expressed by
Dr. R,uhcma.nn, in Appm1dix VII of Professor
J~ernal's book : " 'l'ho view prevailing in tho Soviet
Uuion as to tho r1ocial fu1wi,io11 of science is roughly
as follow1:1 : Jn the U.S.S.R, as in n,11 other cow~tiies,
:;wionce is tho prochwt of ooonomic conditions of
:;ooioty, and it11 sooin,I fmwtion i.<1 to benefit tho ruling
ohtsscs of so<Jioty." ('J'hcHo clasRcs in U.S.S.H,. are
1:1t1id to comptiRo tho vu.st majority of the people.)
Ho contimms : " Jn spito of this oonRoiouR iuter
dopcudcmcc of 1.-1cienco n,nd ill(Iustry plenty of work is
hoing done in tho Sovfot lahomtorios which would in
Wosttirn 1-0uropo ho formed ' pure scimwo.' .But this
tol'm i1.-1 not 1•cq11 ir(1d in tlw U .S.S. H,., as it is u11-
nooci;i;1try t,o jm'lt;i(y rnu·imiity 1•c,gm:ding tho lttWR of,
Nnturo with Uw holp of idonlistio dootl'iucs."
'.l'h<1 M.arxil;i, po1-1it,ion witH mado oi;11odally clear to
mo by it talk wiU1 Buduu'in in J O:Ui. Ho ox:pli.inocl
thltt the dist.itwt,ion hotwem puro 1tncl applied Rciorwo
nmtlo iu cmpit11,li1-1t c1<mnt-,1fos wa::,i due only to tho
inner oonfliot of a typo of souioty which deprived
soiontistti of tho eonsciousnoAs of tl1eir social funotion11,
thus <',roating in thom tho illusion of pure science.
Accordingly, Buelui.rin 11ni<l, tho distinction between
pure and n.ppJfou. sei.olltle wits inapplfoablo in the
U.S.S. R. In his viow this implied no limitation on
the f1·eedom of rosou.roh ; stdentii;ta could folJow their
intorosts freely in tl10 U.S.S.R, but owing to the
complete intornal lui.rrnouy of Socialist society they
would, in actun.l fatit, inevitiibly be led to linos of
:research wbich would benefit tho current Five Years'
Plan. And accordingly comprehensive plaiming of
a,11 research wa.s to be regarded merely a.a a oonsoious
3
confirmation of the pre-existing harmony of scientific
and social aims.
Before discussing the position of Profes~or Bernal,
which, although perhaps less intransigent in form
than 'these orthodox Marxist statements, docs not
differ from them in effect, I will try to restn,to in som.o
detail the liberal view-widely hold, I boliovc
concerning the distinction between pure n.ud 11.ppliod
science, and concerning the rel:l,tion of 1:1cfonco 1t.n<l
society. To the Liberal scieuco roprosouts in tho
first place a body of valid iden.s. The origin of thoh·
validity can be observed most clearly in tho nmjlll'
branches of science, such as mathomn,tics, phyHirn-1,
chemistry, biology. Each now addition to thcHo
branches is the product of a coutinuccl application of
certain methods of thought u.ucl obsorv1ttion which
are characteristic of the branch in qucHtion. 'l1ho
results obtained are incorporu.totl into 1tcooptocl
knowledge only after they have passo(l tho ~tttndnrd
tests of recognized experts. Thuei thu mot;hodH hy
which a branch of science makes its now ituqniNition~
ensure its own standards of validity. ~rho motho<lH
of science also ensure that overy new u.ddition to
knowledge should enlarge the organism of idoaa to
which it accedes. New findings, even though vi\li<l,
are not considered interesting to scfonco unless they
are related to some of the fundamental ideas which
govern its various branches, and can bo shown to
confirm, expand, or modify to some extent the1;10
guiding principles. It is, in fa.ct, precisely in this
sense that the Liberal regards science a.a a body
of valid ideas. Science consists of a.utonomous
branches, ruled by their severs.I systems of ideas ;
ea.ch of these is continupusly producing now minor
4:·