2.2 Can capitalism survive?
“Can capitalism survive? No. I do not think it can.” That is how Schumpeter surprisingly starts another part of his book. Schumpeter is often criticized for this provocative statement but as he suggests the answer to this question is not as important as the facts and arguments that led him to the answer.
Schumpeter’s main idea is that capitalism cannot survive. But it will not be because of its failures but because of capitalism economic successes. Those successes “undermines the social institutions which protect it and inevitably creates conditions in which it will not be able to live and which strongly point to socialism as the heir apparent.”
Schumpeter was not the first economist who predicted the fall of …show more content…
Schumpeter believes that socialism could work and says that socialism is probably inevitable for political rather than economic reasons. It inspires people to life as a part of something larger than themselves. Psychic rewards of socialistic system may be worth the price of optimal economic efficiency which is higher in capitalism. For true believers “socialist bread may well taste sweeter to them than capitalist bread simply because it is socialist bread, and it would do so even if they found mice in it.”
People would cooperate in the transition to socialism and it is unlike that it would happen through violent revolution. But this transition could also happen in state of immaturity when socialists are unprepared. Socialistic party would seize power by force and rather make dictatorship than democracy. Socialists would also chase the opponents of the regime. We could see this type of transition in Soviet Union in 1917.
Schumpeter sees socialistic society as system where central authority have control over production. It means that, unlike for capitalism system, production belongs to public sphere and not private. Schumpeter believed that socialism could work with democracy and it could be achieved rather through evolution than
“Can capitalism survive? No. I do not think it can.” That is how Schumpeter surprisingly starts another part of his book. Schumpeter is often criticized for this provocative statement but as he suggests the answer to this question is not as important as the facts and arguments that led him to the answer.
Schumpeter’s main idea is that capitalism cannot survive. But it will not be because of its failures but because of capitalism economic successes. Those successes “undermines the social institutions which protect it and inevitably creates conditions in which it will not be able to live and which strongly point to socialism as the heir apparent.”
Schumpeter was not the first economist who predicted the fall of …show more content…
Schumpeter believes that socialism could work and says that socialism is probably inevitable for political rather than economic reasons. It inspires people to life as a part of something larger than themselves. Psychic rewards of socialistic system may be worth the price of optimal economic efficiency which is higher in capitalism. For true believers “socialist bread may well taste sweeter to them than capitalist bread simply because it is socialist bread, and it would do so even if they found mice in it.”
People would cooperate in the transition to socialism and it is unlike that it would happen through violent revolution. But this transition could also happen in state of immaturity when socialists are unprepared. Socialistic party would seize power by force and rather make dictatorship than democracy. Socialists would also chase the opponents of the regime. We could see this type of transition in Soviet Union in 1917.
Schumpeter sees socialistic society as system where central authority have control over production. It means that, unlike for capitalism system, production belongs to public sphere and not private. Schumpeter believed that socialism could work with democracy and it could be achieved rather through evolution than