Joseph A. Schumpeter, capitalism, socialism, and democracy

This is a review of "Capitalism, socialism, and democracy", by Joseph A. Schumpeter, New York, Harper Perennial, 1942 (first Harper Colophon edition published 1975). "The public mind has by now so thoroughly grown out of humor with it as to make condemnation of capitalism and all its works a foregone conclusion – almost a requirement of the etiquette of discussion. Whatever his political preference, every writer or speaker hastens to conform to this code and to emphasize his critical attitude, his freedom from ‘complacency’, his belief in the inadequacies of capitalist achievement, his aversion to capitalist and his sympathy with anti-capitalist interests. Any other attitude is voted not only foolish but anti-social and is looked upon as an indication of immoral servitude." We might easily mistake this for a voice weary of contemplating the implications for neo-liberal nostrums of our current global financial crisis were it not for the rather formal, slightly arch, style and the gender exclusive language. It was in fact penned in the depths of World War II by Harvard economist Joseph Schumpeter, who fell off the map only to re-emerge from the 1970s as oil shocks and stagflation in the west presaged the decline of the Keynesian settlement, as east Asian newly industrialising economies were modelling on his insistence that entrepreneurialism, access to credit and trade were the pillars of economic growth, and as innovation became more of a watchword for post-industrial economies in general. The second coming was perhaps affirmed when his work was dubbed by Forbes in 1983 – on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the birth of both men – as of greater explanatory import than Keynes’. (And what of our present resurgent Keynesian moment?)...

My "middle way" media studies

I would argue that the problems that contemporary capitalism gives rise to are not the result of the classic exercise of power and hegemony characteristic of the monopoly phase of capitalism but of the “creative destruction” of such a phase. Schumpeter’s famous phrase is reflective of Lash and Urry’s (1987) notion of “disorganised capitalism” or of Robert Reich’s (2007) claim that large corporations have significantly less power now than three decades ago. The consequence is that there is a need to explore an economic “middle way” in debates about the narrative of the relationship between culture and economy, between the Scylla of total explanatory political economy and the Charybdis of tedium-by-case-study. This involves a Schumpeterian emphasis on entrepreneurial or enterprise economics (Cunningham, Banks, and Potts 2008). Schumpeter, in 1962, in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, argued that Marx had “no adequate theory of enterprise” and failed to “distinguish the entrepreneur from the capitalist” (quoted in McCraw 2007: 349). Schumpeter, his most recent biographer, Thomas McCraw, “told of capitalism in the way most people experience it: as consumer desires aroused by endless advertising; as forcible jolts up and down the social pecking order; as goals reached, shattered, altered, then reached once more as people try, try again.” He knew that “creative destruction fosters economic growth but also that it undercuts cherished human values” (p. 6). Schumpeter’s most recent biographer, Thomas McCraw, says that he elucidated what capitalism “really feels like” (as quoted in McCraw 2007: 349, 6).

Foucault, Weber, neoliberalism and the politics of governmentality

This paper argues that Michel Foucault’s lectures that form The Birth of Biopolitics owe a considerable debt to the thought of Max Weber, particularly in their analysis of how different socio-legal regimes shape distinctive national forms of capitalist economies, and the role that is played by social and economic institutions in the shaping of individual identities. This is in contrast to a common interpretation of Foucault’s account of neoliberalism, which synthesizes his work into neo-Marxist notions of hegemony and capitalist domination. It also identifies Foucault’s approach to neoliberalism as an exploratory one, which considers insights into how a particular relationship between ideas and institutional practices may help in imagining socialist forms of government practice.