Right off the bat, I don't trust him. Marx never said "capitalism is unstable," nor was that what he criticized about capitalism. He described creative destruction and its (frankly obvious) negative consequences before the term was coined. What's more, Schumpeter didn't say creative destruction was what was good about capitalism and in fact agreed with Marx that it would be the system's demise.
Schumpeter was known for his opposition to Marxism and socialism, which he thought would lead to dictatorship, and even criticized Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. "We have nothing to do with these or any other meanings except one that may be most readily introduced by reference to the "historical materialism" of Marx and Engels. According to this doctrine, history is determined by the autonomous evolution of the structure of production: the social and political organization, religions, morals, arts and sciences are mere "ideological superstructures," generated by the economic process. We neither need nor can go into the merits and demerits of this conception as such of which only one feature is relevant to our purpose. This feature is the one that has, through various transformations, developed into the sociology of science of the type associated with the names of Max Scheler and Karl Mannheim. Roughly up to the middle of the 19th century the evolution of "science" had been looked upon as a purely intellectual process-as a sequence of explorations of the empirically given universe or, as we may also put it, as a process of filiation of discoveries or analytic ideas that went on, thought no doubt influencing social history and being influenced by it in many ways, according to a law of its own." Schumpeter, Joseph A. (March 1949). "Science and Ideology". The American Economic Review. 39 (2). American Economic Association: 346-359
"Marx was the economist who discovered ideology for us and who understood its nature. Fifty years before Freud, this was a performance of the first order. But, strange to relate, he was entirely blind to its dangers so far as he himself was concerned. Only other people, the bourgeois economists and the utopian socialists, were victims of ideology. At the same time, the ideological character of his premises and the ideological bias of his argument are everywhere obvious. Even some of his followers (Mehring, for instance) recognized this. And it is not difficult to describe his ideology. He was a bourgeois radical who had broken away from bourgeois radicalism. He was formed by German philosophy and did not feel himself to be a professional economist until the end of the 1840's. But by that time, that is to say, before his serious analytic work had begun, his vision of the capitalist process had become set and his scientific work was to implement, not to correct it. It was not original with him. It pervaded the radical circles of Paris and may be traced back to a number of 18th century writers, such as Linguet.6 History conceived as the struggle between classes that are defined as haves and havenots, with exploitation of the one by the other, ever increasing wealth among ever fewer haves and ever increasing misery and degradation among the havenots, moving with inexorable necessity toward spectacular explosion, this was the vision then conceived with passionate energy and to be worked up, like a raw material is being worked up, by means of the scientific tools of his time. This vision implies a number of statements that will not stand the test of analytic controls. And, in fact, as his analytic work matured, Marx not only elaborated many pieces of scientific analysis that were neutral to that vision but also some that did not agree with it well-for instance, he got over the kind of underconsumption and the kind of overproduction theories of crises which he seems to have accepted at first and traces of which-to puzzle interpreters remained in his writings throughout. Other results of his analysis he introduced by means of the device of retaining the original-ideological-statement as an "absolute" (i.e., abstract) law while admitting the existence of counteracting forces which accounted for deviating phenomena in real life. Some parts of the vision, finally, took refuge in vituperative phraseology that does not affect the scientific elements in an argument. For instance, whether right or wrong, his exploitation theory of "surplus" value was a genuine piece of theoretical analysis. But all the glowing phrases about exploitation could have been attached just as well to other theories, Bohm-Bawerk's among them: imagine Bohm-Bawerk in Marx's skin, what could have been easier for him than to pour out the vials of his wrath on the infernal practice of robbing labor by means of deducting from its product a time discount?" Schumpeter, Joseph A. (March 1949). "Science and Ideology". The American Economic Review. 39 (2). American Economic Association: 346-359
I loved the coughing! I can't really hear them though, they should be coughing louder and closer to the camera!
My favourite part of this TED talk is the early Covid spreading like wildfire lol
Very good talk by Dr Jones, specially liked his take on money! Really good presentation on Schumpeter!
covid rolled out in that room
You know it AHAHHAHAH
Very good presentation. But the all the coughing made some disruption in which I will not call creative
Right off the bat, I don't trust him. Marx never said "capitalism is unstable," nor was that what he criticized about capitalism. He described creative destruction and its (frankly obvious) negative consequences before the term was coined. What's more, Schumpeter didn't say creative destruction was what was good about capitalism and in fact agreed with Marx that it would be the system's demise.
Schumpeter was known for his opposition to Marxism and socialism, which he thought would lead to dictatorship, and even criticized Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.
"We have nothing to do with these or any other meanings except one that may be most readily introduced by reference to the "historical materialism" of Marx and Engels. According to this doctrine, history is determined by the autonomous evolution of the structure of production: the social and political organization, religions, morals, arts and sciences are mere "ideological superstructures," generated by the economic process. We neither need nor can go into the merits and demerits of this conception as such of which only one feature is relevant to our purpose. This feature is the one that has, through various transformations, developed into the sociology of science of the type associated with the names of Max Scheler and Karl Mannheim. Roughly up to the middle of the 19th century the evolution of "science" had been looked upon as a purely intellectual process-as a sequence of explorations of the empirically given universe or, as we may also put it, as a process of filiation of discoveries or analytic ideas that went on, thought no doubt influencing social history and being influenced by it in many ways, according to a law of its own."
Schumpeter, Joseph A. (March 1949). "Science and Ideology". The American Economic Review. 39 (2). American Economic Association: 346-359
"Marx was the economist who discovered ideology for us and who understood its nature. Fifty years before Freud, this was a performance of the first order. But, strange to relate, he was entirely blind to its dangers so far as he himself was concerned. Only other people, the bourgeois economists and the utopian socialists, were victims of ideology. At the same time, the ideological character of his premises and the ideological bias of his argument are everywhere obvious. Even some of his followers (Mehring, for instance) recognized this. And it is not difficult to describe his ideology. He was a bourgeois radical who had broken away from bourgeois radicalism. He was formed by German philosophy and did not feel himself to be a professional economist until the end of the 1840's. But by that time, that is to say, before his serious analytic work had begun, his vision of the capitalist process had become set and his scientific work was to implement, not to correct it. It was not original with him. It pervaded the radical circles of Paris and may be traced back to a number of 18th century writers, such as Linguet.6 History conceived as the struggle between classes that are defined as haves and havenots, with exploitation of the one by the other, ever increasing wealth among ever fewer haves and
ever increasing misery and degradation among the havenots, moving with inexorable necessity toward spectacular explosion, this was the vision then conceived with passionate energy and to be worked up, like a raw material is being worked up, by means of the scientific tools of his time. This vision implies a number of statements that will not stand the test of analytic controls. And, in fact, as his analytic work matured, Marx not only elaborated many pieces of scientific analysis that were neutral to that vision but also some that did not agree with it well-for instance, he got over the kind of underconsumption and the kind of overproduction theories of crises which he seems to have accepted at first and traces of which-to puzzle interpreters remained in his writings throughout. Other results of his analysis he introduced by means of the device of retaining the original-ideological-statement as an "absolute" (i.e., abstract) law while admitting the existence of counteracting forces which accounted for deviating phenomena in real life. Some parts of the vision, finally, took refuge in vituperative phraseology that does not affect the scientific elements in an argument. For instance, whether right or wrong, his exploitation theory of "surplus" value was a genuine piece of theoretical analysis. But all the glowing phrases about exploitation could have been attached just as well to other theories, Bohm-Bawerk's among them: imagine Bohm-Bawerk in Marx's skin, what could have been easier for him than to pour out the vials of his wrath on the infernal practice of robbing labor by means of deducting from its product a time discount?"
Schumpeter, Joseph A. (March 1949). "Science and Ideology". The American Economic Review. 39 (2). American Economic Association: 346-359
I wonder what Schumpeter would have thought about Artificial Intelligence.
Flu season is strong with crowd