Epub Joseph Schumpeter ß ß Capitalism Socialism and Democracy eBook Ö Capitalism

Capitalism Socialism and Democracy remains one of the greatest works of social theory written this century When it first appeared the New English Weekly predicted that 'for the next five to ten years it will cetainly remain a work with which no one who professes any degree of information on sociology or economics can afford to be unacuainted' Fifty years on this prediction seems a little understatedWhy has the work endured so well? Schumpeter's contention that the seeds of capitalism's decline were internal and his eual and opposite hostility to centralist socialism have perplexed engaged and infuriated readers since the book's publication By refusing to become an advocate for either position Schumpeter was able both to make his own great and original contribution and to clear the way for a balanced consideration of the most important social movements of his and our time


10 thoughts on “Capitalism Socialism and Democracy

  1. says:

    Introduction Capitalism Socialism and Democracy Prefaces and Comments on Later DevelopmentsPreface to the First Edition 1942Preface to the Second Edition 1946Preface to the Third Edition 1949The March into SocialismNotesIndex


  2. says:

    CommentIn the end it will be seen that the greatest enemy of capitalism was always democracy ie the will of the people Once the people turn anti capitalistic under the influence of a disaffected intelligencia there is absolutely nothing that can stand against them Schumpeter at one and the same time believes that Capitalism is the most adeuate description of economic reality and that it is doomed How is this possible? But it is exactly as the Savior of the Christians said so long ago 'Man does not live by bread alone' Capitalism provides bread but lacks drama romance myth; that is why economic 'irrelevancies' and 'irrationalities' like say Communism and Christianity can never be entirely won over or destroyed What Capitalism cannot deliver will be discovered or created somewhere else Eventually one of these discoveries or creations will end the Capitalist era


  3. says:

    Schumpeter is best remembered for having coined the term creative destruction a process well understood today whereby entire industries and the jobs that go with them are continually rendered obsolete as new products new technologies new ways to make money emerge Schumpeter speculates about the possibility of a democratic socialist utopia but he unconvincingly discounts the reality of human acuisitiveness and the desire for upward mobility Further he naïvely discounted the authoritarian nature of the Russian experiment of his day suggesting that the degree of coercion in the soviet model would be relaxed as conditions improved which they did not The book is colored very much by the widespread debate of his day WW2 era as to whether capitalism or socialism would prevail Lost in the titanic struggle between those two competing ideologies is democracy which as it turns out today cannot truly survive under either regime With the benefit of hindsight I'm perhaps being unfair in judging the book on its merits since Schumpeter could not have foreseen the calamitous outcome of the Soviet planned economy Nor could he have foreseen today's dilemma in America where a few billionaires have become so powerful that they are able to subvert the democratic process ref Dark Money by Jane Meyer It seems to me that Schumpeter was no democrat An interesting work from an historical perspective but certainly neither prophetic nor very useful in addressing the issues of our day when democracy has failed to take root in much of the world and is at risk almost everywhere that it has been instituted


  4. says:

    This is a classic of economics and of entrepreneurship that lots of people have read in their undergraduate economics or business classes It is worth reading to get the full perspective of Schumpeter's view of how the economy works This is perhaps the most articulate statement on the role of of creative destruction and innovation as critical to the success of capitalism It is also also very cynical of Marxist approaches to economics Strangely enough the section on socialism suggests that socialism may be the coming reality for Europe and America and in this Schumpeter was accurate for Europe and America This is perhaps that he is writing at a time when free market capitalism had not acuitted itself well and government intervention seemed increasingly worthwhile This seems at odds with his emphasis on innovation and entrepreneurship and does create somewhat of a tension that is not well resolved in the book Schumpeter's thinking on innovation and entrepreneurship has fared better over time than his positive views on socialism although I am still not sure of his real tone


  5. says:

    In the wake of the Second World War Joseph Schumpeter wrote an exceptionally intriguing book that everyone capitalist or socialist in persuasion should read and will probably enjoy reading Heavily inspired by Marx and especially his theory of history as much a sociological as an economic text and broad ranging in its analysis of the relationship between capital and society it's a difficult book to pin down and clearly the product of a remarkable thinkerThe uestion which all prophetic works beg is why Schumpeter's vision hasn't come to life Rather than paving the way for a humane socialism we have been left with an especially cruel form of neoliberal capitalismI'd also like to uestion his views on the role of intellectuals And his rather narrow view of what socialism is But hey as I said I sought out Schumpeter to provoke myself out of the dogmatic slumbers that I periodically feel myself falling into and he made a than decent intellectual sparring partner


  6. says:

    It shows how democracy is a vast conspiracy elections are fraudulent individual votes are useless and human nature is corrupt


  7. says:

    Schumpeter was a fascinating character and his essays and books are fascinating to read They seem to elude easy categorization This particular book evinces an almost Hegelian dialectical method whereby socialism and capitalism are seen as two sides of the same modernist coin The section on capitalism contains the analysis of creative destruction which is justifiably well known But that only takes up a few pages whereas the rest is devoted to a historical analysis of the conditions under which socialism seems to arise as a viable almost inevitable successor to itAlthough a bourgeois economist out of the three things he covers capitalism seems to be the least important at least for the argument he wants to make And as he allows the market society to take the back seat he allows the promise of socialism to bear its full weight as the next stage in the evolution The sections on socialism rely on a notion of socialism that seems very curious to us today He seems to think there are no fundamental problems with organizing a society through a central planning board Partially outdated partially all over the place partially just crazy the book is nonetheless a fascinating read since Schumpeter is such a uniue thinker even though the book's value as a lasting contribution outside of the tremendously important notion of creative destruction which seems to have achieved a life of its own to the field of economics is dubiousThe chapter on democracy I should say contains a brilliant and almost entirely distinct analysis on democracy which is almost Machiavellian in its exposé of the power hungry nature of politics It bears very little immediate relevance for his further argument on the relationship between capitalism and socialism but it provides very definite proof of the occasional genius of Schumpeter At 400 pages it is too long There is almost no reason to read the whole book The gist of his historical argument for the inevitability of the transition from capitalism to socialism can be gained by skimming through a couple of the central chapters His charitable analysis of the positive potential of centralized socialism as a method of efficient economic management has been completely disproved both theoretically and empirically which unfortunately makes the middle part of the book almost valueless aside from its occasionally brilliant observations The last 100 pages that deal with the history of socialist parties is entirely superfluous I admit to skipping it So I would say the book could be condensed to about a 100 150 pages without losing anythingAs such I cannot entirely recommend reading the book unless you are interested in the history of state socialism as a cause célèbre among intellectuals I would however recommend reading the sections on creative destruction and his brilliantly caustic and spot on analysis of democracy


  8. says:

    Schumpeter lived a very well Schumpeterian lifestyle battered up and down and around the world by the winds of economic turmoil He argues that this undulating dynamism is in fact the defining attribute of capitalism and the reason it has been so undeniably successful at achieving economic growth Unlike most economists he defends capitalism warts and all He fully recognizes that we have never lived in anything like a perfectly competitive efficient market and goes on to say that we wouldn't even want to in the first place He explicitly defends monopoly and speculation and honestly makes a surprisingly good case Where he begins to lose me is in his defense of depressions; he seems to think that a depression is a necessary corrective for the excesses of the boom an attitude that Krugman aptly dubbed sado monetarism No a depression is a mistake an error that can be corrected relatively easily by sound policyAnd then near the end of the book he goes completely off the deep end going on a long rant about how it is obvious that rich people are superior beings and anyone who would doubt this is foolish or evil To be fair he would never have met Paris Hilton or Donald Trump In his long discussion of socialism he actually he seems to think that the tyranny of Mao and Stalin were essential—even laudable—because there is simply no other way of keeping the masses in line It was so sickening I had to simply give up on the book at that point


  9. says:

    I am finished with this book finally and I think I have read a glimpse into Marx a little I have read Marx's Communist Manifesto before believe it or not and it was one of the first books on economics I've read Well that state of mind was very similar to many others in the early 20th century as they read the pamphleteering of various political party interests This work discounts some of the radical notions but retains some of the core tenets of Marxist communism A thorough look at some of the finer kinds of socialism is a little wanting but their history is not He will simply lump all forms of older socialism like Fourierism into 'Orthodox socialism' Every shape and kind of socialism is in here St Simon Plato everyone You could hardly think of a type of society not mentioned This is a must read for the political theorist As an economist though I am lukewarm I think that his analysis of economic conditions is interesting at times but choppily made I have just started Morgenstern's book on accuracy in economic investigations so I am no pro but I don't think you should ever 'roughly' compute figures while dropping entire numbers off of both sides of the eventual estimate For instance if you're going to have a liberal or conservative estimate that's fine but I can think of at least one time whilst in Part II where the unbelievably atrocious statistical estimates occur that he just leaves off entire numbers on both sides so that the answer is both conservative and liberal I mean that's just not right nor is it accurate Now to speak of his economic terminology If he isn't a good uantitative economist surely he must be a good ualitative one? Wrong I was first struck with difficulty when he wasn't including 'wages to employees' in his term 'prime cost' I assumed it was because he hadn't read Keynes yet I was right I still think he should have defined that particular term before he used it in the footnote The issue I have starts at the last chapter as you can imagine It seems he finally did his homework and read Keynes' General Theory of Employment Interest and Money and while I did not enjoy many of Keynes' conclusions or his solutions to those conclusions either I must admit I am at once struck with how he grossly misinterpreted him At some point in the book he essentially euates consumption with saving This would be the same as saying consumption investment under the Keynesian system because savings and investment are used interchangeably throughout So either he didn't read the book or just didn't understand it He also failed to use any of its important concepts like marginality or elasticity and just decided to drone on and on incorrectly about Keynes But That was one chapter He kept himself within the sphere of history of political science and political philosophy mostly the entire time so I cannot complain with his ability to deftly explain these concepts in a way which was coeval with some of the greater political scientists like Tocueville or Burke the latter of whom is specifically referenced at least three times This was a good read overall by what can only be described as an 'Austrian socialist' A socialist because he believed in socialism and wasn't a Marxist and an Austrian because he didn't understand the uantitative side of economics 45 stars though because he's a way better read than Hayek


  10. says:

    It is a great read especially for those interested in the political economy It is Schumpeter’s best book which is famous for popularising his acclaimed theory on capitalism creative destruction Definitely not a light read it took me forever to finish But it was worth the read I must confess it is a difficult read even for those with an economics background or those who have read Hegel’s dialectics or Karl Marx’s interpretation of history through dialectic materialism as these theories or their interpretation features uite a lot By and large Schumpeter agrees with Karl Marx that socialism will ultimately follow after capitalism but they differ fundamentally on how that will come about Karl Marx believed that socialism would come at the behest of the proletariat through revolutions whereas Schumpeter believes that capitalism by its very nature of creative destruction it will cause its own destruction