Current Sociology

Please welcome our Sociologist of the Month for June 2022, Lim Sang Hun (Graduate School of Public Policy and Civic Engagement, Kyung Hee University, South Korea). His article for Current Sociology, Look Up Rather Than Down: Karl Polanyi’s Fascism and Radical Right-Wing ‘Populism’ is Free Access.

Lim Sang Hun

Could you please tell us about yourself? How did you come to your field of study?

Lim S.H.: Hello. I am Lim Sang Hun from South Korea. (Like other traditional East Asian names, Lim is my family name.) I received a DPhil in Social Policy from Oxford University, and am now teaching social policy and the social economy at the Graduate School of Public Policy and Civic Engagement, Kyung Hee University. I have been studying the involvement of third sector organisations in social policies. This led me to the study of social economy organisations, which are self-organised associations that produce goods and services to meet human needs. Since Karl Polanyi is a prominent figure in studies of the social economy, I began reading his works, including, of course, The Great Transformation, his magnum opus.

What prompted you to research the area of your article, “Look Up Rather Than Down: Karl Polanyi’s Fascism and Radical Right-Wing ‘Populism’”?

Lim S.H.: In fact, my interest in Karl Polanyi’s idea of fascism started from a misunderstanding. I thought that Polanyi also understood fascism as a social protection movement against the internationalisation of the self-regulating market. Therefore, I wanted to learn how Polanyi tackled the so-called ‘progressive’s dilemma’. Although radical right-wing politics is of course unacceptable to progressives, the neoliberal attack on social protection and redistribution is also something they should fight against. So, my question was, how did Polanyi reconcile social protection, which could have inward-looking tendencies, and an outward-looking global market? However, as I read Polanyi’s works again, focusing on his ideas on fascism, I came to realise that Polanyi didn’t view fascism as a social protection movement but as an extreme way to protect the self-regulating market. Moreover, he blamed elites rather than the ‘people’ for the political empowerment of fascism. This led me to explore Polanyi’s ideas on fascism, and eventually to write this article.

What do you see as the key findings of your article?

Lim S.H.: A main finding of this article is that radical right-wing politics should not simply be understood as a populist social protection movement. It should rather be understood as a social Darwinist movement, which, despite its ‘populist’ rhetoric, advocates commodification and exploitation, blaming socially and economically vulnerable groups regardless of their nationality as social burdens. Polanyi clearly argued that fascism was an extreme movement for protecting the self-regulating market, instead of a reactionary social protection movement by the losers of the market economy. Polanyi holds that, since ‘Ricardian England’, economists and capitalists have attempted to organise the whole society for the purpose of enabling the self-regulating market, even believing it to be a law of nature. They have tried to alienate people from economic and social policymaking, which could intervene in this natural law. That’s why fascism arises when there is a face-off situation between democratic movements and those who feel threatened by them. Fascism was a radical measure for protecting the capitalistic market economy by destroying democracy. This reminds us that radical right-wing parties have mostly blamed welfare recipients and supported neoliberal reforms. They attack not only foreigners but also their own nationals who receive welfare benefits.

What are the wider social implications of your research in the current social climate? How do you think things will change in the future?

Lim S.H.: Polanyi’s understanding of fascism reminds us of elites’ responsibility for the rise of radical right-wing politics. We casually use the term ‘radical right-wing “populism”’. It gives the impression that ‘the people’ – who are usually described as less educated working-class members or the self-employed – are responsible for the rise of radical right-wing politics. But Polanyi’s analysis of fascism is a wake-up call. It redirects our attention to upper- and middle-class supporters of right-wing politicians and policies, which enables the actual empowerment of radical right-wing politics. Therefore, in order to prevent its empowerment, we should find a way of detaching not only the working- and lower-middle classes, but also the upper- and upper-middle classes from resorting to radical right-wing politics. For this, we can consider developing a universalistic welfare system, which appeals not only to the working class but also to the income-rich but asset-poor upper-middle class.

Do you have any links to images, documents or other pieces of research which build on or add to the article? Or a suggested reading list?

Lim S.H.: Among the many books and articles I have referred to for writing this article, I would like to mention those that helped me to get started on this research. Roger Griffin’s 2018 book Fascism was helpful to learn various concepts and types of fascism. Barry Eichengreen’s 2018 book The Populist Temptation helped me to think about the similarities and differences between inter-war fascism and current radical right-wing politics. Gareth Dale’s biographies of Karl Polanyi helped me to ‘decipher’ The Great Transformation and Polanyi’s other works. Jacob Hacker’s and Paul Pierson’s articles on ‘pluto-populism’ were helpful to build up my ideas on elites’ responsibility for the rise of current radical right-wing politics, while Thomas Piketty’s 2014 book Capital in the 21st Century and Lee Cheol Sung, Hwang In Hyee & Lim Hyunji’s 2018 article on social policy preferences in Korea (written in Korean) inspired me to think about the possibility of income-rich but asset-poor upper-middle class professionals’ participation in social protection alliances.