=================== HES POSTING ====================== 
 
   I would like just to make a point that, in my opinion, may be useful to 
settle the terms of the discussion. To put it crudely, the thesis under 
discussion is whether there has been a "great transformation" of a 
non-market society into a market society; if I am not wrong, sometimes this 
problem has been referred to in the course of the discussion as the 
transformation of a non-capitalistic society into a capitalistic one. 
   It should be noted that "market" is not the same as "capital". I think 
that the historical evidence provided by Moser clearly points out that 
markets were already developed in ancient times and that they played a very 
dominant role in the social structure, so that, in this respect, it could 
be 
said that there is no essential difference between 19th century England and 
Ancient Athens (this is what his quotation from Edward Cohen comes to say). 
I agree with him that something similar to the Schumpeter's "Great Gap" has 
ocurred in this field. 
   Moser refers to Aristotle as regarding the growing importance of 'market 
economy' as a new phenomenon (Politics 1258b1ff.). I feel, however, that 
that which Aristotle is looking at is not the market, but capital: exchange 
as such is not affected by the fact the the end of exchange is the 
satisfaction of a need or profit. What concerns Aristotle is the unnatural 
use of money, that is to say, its use not as a means of trade, which is its 
function by nature, but its use as the end of trade (and production), that 
is, the accumulation of money as the end of social economic activities; a 
very similar concern to that which we can find, for example, in 
Boisguillebert. Marx sees in Aristotle the first thinker who has noted the 
existence of a new way of structuring society, and of course, the market, 
namely, the capital ("Das Kapital", volume 1, section 2, chapter 4, note 
6). 
   I do not mean to say that Marx is right in his reading of Aristotle, nor 
in his view of social history as the development of capital; indeed, I 
think 
that his very concept of capital is defective in some important ways. My 
point is that the truth value of Polanyi's thesis depends crucially on what 
we understand capital to be (and, of course, a "capitalistic" society). Of 
course, it is very interesting to know to what extent money was used in 
ancient times or market forces (would "forces of capital" be a more 
accurate 
name?) allow to act, to know how markets were organized, etc., but, as the 
discussion shows, all these differences are of degree, not substantial 
ones, 
and this is what seems to be required by a transformation to be "great". 
 
Kepa M. Ormazabal 
Department of Economic Theory 
University of the Basque Country 
E-mail: [log in to unmask] 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]