Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy

Joseph Schumpeter

4.03 · Rating details · 2,283 ratings · 102 reviews

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 unacquainted.' Fifty years on, this predi ...more

Get A Copy

Paperback, 460 pages

Published August 30th 2006 by Routledge (first published 1942)

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith

The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money by John Maynard Keynes

The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek

Best Economics Books

367 books — 500 voters

The Concept of the Political by Carl Schmitt

Politics

356 books — 469 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 4.03 ·

Rating details

· 2,283 ratings · 102 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy

Feb 20, 2015 E. G. rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction, philosophy-psychology-sociology, 4-star, own, austria-hungary-slovakia-czech

Introduction

--Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy

Prefaces and Comments on Later Developments:
Preface to the First Edition, 1942
Preface to the Second Edition, 1946
Preface to the Third Edition, 1949
The March into Socialism

Notes
Index

flag 26 likes · Like · see review

Jan 03, 2011 Joe rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: conservative, economics, marxism, political-thought, history, sociology

Comment:

In the end it will be seen that the greatest enemy of capitalism was always democracy, i.e. 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 adequate 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 ...more

flag 24 likes · Like · see review

Jun 14, 2016 Jim Puskas rated it it was ok

Shelves: human-relations, sociology

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 acquisitiveness and the desire for upward mobility. Further, he naïvely discounted the authoritarian ...more

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Apr 10, 2011 Marks54 rated it really liked it

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 ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Mar 14, 2013 Andrew added it

Shelves: economics

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 thinker.

The question-- which all propheti ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Jan 04, 2012 Eric Baldwin added it

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

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Feb 09, 2013 Otto Lehto rated it liked it

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 unde 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 it.

Although 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 unique 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 dubious.

The 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 anything.

As 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. ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Dec 06, 2014 Patrick rated it it was ok

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' ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jun 22, 2019 Tyler rated it really liked it

I am finished with this book finally and I think I have read a glimpse into Marx a little more. 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 more radical notions but retains some of the core tenets of Marxist communism. A thorough look a I am finished with this book finally and I think I have read a glimpse into Marx a little more. 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 more radical notions but retains some of the core tenets of Marxist communism. A thorough look at some of the more 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 quantitative economist, surely he must be a good qualitative 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 equates 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 Tocqueville 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 quantitative side of economics. 4/5 stars though, because he's a way better read than Hayek. ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Oct 13, 2017 Whitlaw Tanyanyiwa Mugwiji rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction

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 theori ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Oct 20, 2018 O rated it liked it · review of another edition

Having heard of Schumpeter mostly from conservative authors, and this book in particular for the introduction of the idea of “creative destruction”, I was tempted to read “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy” after also finding out that in it, someone affiliated with the Austrian School was anticipating an upcoming end of capitalism.

The book has five major parts: Marx, capitalism, socialism, and democracy, plus a brief history of socialist parties. Having only negligible familiarity with Marx’s Having heard of Schumpeter mostly from conservative authors, and this book in particular for the introduction of the idea of “creative destruction”, I was tempted to read “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy” after also finding out that in it, someone affiliated with the Austrian School was anticipating an upcoming end of capitalism.

The book has five major parts: Marx, capitalism, socialism, and democracy, plus a brief history of socialist parties. Having only negligible familiarity with Marx’s work, and that from secondary sources, the first part was—to me—irrelevant, but I guess serves as an introduction and disclaimer of sorts.

The second part about capitalism, on the other hand, assuming some familiarity with classical economics, appears very interesting and I assume to a large extent still original to most readers: the near-universal absence of perfect competition, the desirability of mono- and oligopolies for economic growth and efficiency, the dissipation of attentive proprietors through diluted ownership, the intellectuals’ critique of capitalism and bourgeoisie as their sole raison d’être and their solicitation of all non-bourgeois elements of society, the gradual irrelevance of entrepreneurship, and the “automation” and on-demand production of research and innovation. All these are to Schumpeter signs of a mature capitalist economy that is ripe for harvest by socialism.

The third part about future socialism describes, according to Schumpeter, the only viable implementation of socialism. It is defined as the management of the means of production by a central authority according to rational/utilitarian economic principles. There is deliberately no speculation on elements that are not immediately relevant to the mechanics of production—most importantly—politics. Hence Schumpeter describes an economy that operates in the mode of “big business” with the bourgeois managerial class, and their excesses, having being replaced by bureaucrats of a socialist persuasion. The success of such an endeavour is argued to depend on the maturity of the capitalist economy it succeeds. Centralized control of the economy could be feasible, since there is no need of the new managerial bureaucracy taking over a mature capitalist economy to be constantly adapting production to the creative destruction of a developing and dynamic economy. The bottom line being that Schumpeter’s socialism and mature capitalism differ mainly on the make-up of the managerial class which in both cases presides over a static economy.

The fourth part is about representative democracy both historically and in Schumpeter’s socialism. Hastily he makes away both with the “will-of-the-people” tropes and the “bill-of-rights” overwhelmingly concomitant with democracy, to define democracy as: “the institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote”. He credits the bourgeois class with limiting the economic power of the political authorities (à la laissez-faire liberalism) and argues that a similar organization is possible in a socialist economy with a well-developed managerial bureaucracy independent of political authority, and a liberal dose of curtailment of human rights. Human rights, of the fair trial and free speech type, being sine qua non to the economic self-interest of the bourgeois class but not that much in socialism.

The final part describes the history and speculates on the future of socialist parties, their policies and idiosyncrasies according to the particularities of the respective economic and political development of their countries. Sweden for example, being a country with an advanced capitalist economy, placing socialists in positions of power gradually and democratically, juxtaposed to the history of the Bolsheviks.

The thesis of the book, in summary, is that a hypothetical mature capitalism differs from Schumpeter’s socialism in its economic organization only in appearances but not at all in function. At a state of maturity the economic engine of capitalism has reached near-peak efficiency but also a static equilibrium. There is nothing more to be gained by maintaining the status-quo, but, crucially, also nothing (or very little) to be lost in economic terms by transitioning to socialism.

Although the book is not technical, Schumpeter assumes an economically literate audience, which might be the reason he generally glosses over and hand-waves important parts of his arguments. In his defense, explaining the workings and arguing the merits of two economic systems and one political system in a couple hundred pages is no easy task. So, the book reads like a hurried sketch of his thoughts on these matters.

Especially the speculative parts about socialism very much resemble wishful thinking. Schumpeter raises potential objections to and criticisms of his statements, only to do away with them with mere affirmations and assertions. Though being aware of the work of Hayek and von Mises he barely mentions their arguments. This makes the book very demanding to the reader, who has to reconstruct Schumpeter’s line of arguments if he is to be convinced of anything—and that only if he has the ability, knowledge and time.

Adding to these a peculiar and convoluted syntax and style (multitude of secondary clauses; pronouns with no clear reference; excessive footnotes etc.) makes the book a very dry and demanding read.

Despite this, it is full of original thoughts, unusual opinions and less known facts, even if not always well argued, presented or supported. For example: the bourgeoisie cannot produce a successful ruling class and has often allied with the scions of nobility or other authoritarians who are better at government (Schumpeter’s “protective strata”); the motivational role of “the family” in bourgeois activities; the ability of individuals like Gladstone to single-handedly win elections (the Midlothian Campaign) etc.

What might be of value to modern readers with classical or marxist notions of capitalism (and ownership, the bourgeoisie etc.) is the description of mature capitalism. There, even innovation and creative destruction can be decreed to the R&D department. Even the haute bourgeoisie owns only a small percentage in individual companies to be actively involved and interested in their affairs, which are left to a multitude of disinterested managerial bureaucracies. Investment opportunities are vanishing and interest rates declining. Oligopolies are providing for the masses with an unprecedented efficiency, while the intellectuals agitate a working class (white and blue collar) that is increasingly disenchanted both with capitalism and democracy… To what extent are these true today? If they are true, does this imply stasis and equilibrium? And if yes, is socialism a desirable and feasible way out? ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Dec 08, 2016 Stevenglinert rated it it was amazing

Schumpeter must have been a really shitty human being to hang out with. And his dating profile must have been intolerable to even read. Schumpeter does a better take-down of socialism and Marx than Hayek or Von Mises, but never gets into any libertarian sounding nonsense and his shtick about capitalism is the best pitch I've heard for it in awhile. Also for a book about economics, it's written in like, the most bitchy tone.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Sep 08, 2011 Curtis rated it it was amazing

Excellent. An Austrian economist I can read and agree with most of the time. One of the best analysts since Weber.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Sep 24, 2020 Jan Notzon rated it liked it

WHEW! I'm sure this is a wonderful, scholarly piece. For dilettantes like myself, however, it was an incredible slog!

For those with a PhD in Economics, some sort of advanced degree in political philosophy and an encyclopedic knowledge of 19th and 20th century European and US history, I'm sure you would find it most interesting, even enlightening.

For those dilettantes like myself, however, I would suggest Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics". Sowell has a unique ability to make the most esoteric th ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Apr 16, 2018 Buck rated it really liked it

For someone who criticizes others for being prolix, he sure can ramble. Visionary economic foresight though.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Sep 15, 2020 Adam rated it really liked it

Shelves: ebook, abandoned, economics

I only read the first part about Marx, as part of my project reading Marx and reactions to him.

In many ways, Schumpeter approaches Marx in a way very similar to Bohm-Bawerk's Marx and the Close of His System. He treats him as a titan in the history of economic thought, someone with a genuine interest in economic history and theory who read thoroughly and thought deeply, with an often brilliant mind. He also considers his ideas decisively wrong and sets out to sharply, ruthlessly demonstrate tha I only read the first part about Marx, as part of my project reading Marx and reactions to him.

In many ways, Schumpeter approaches Marx in a way very similar to Bohm-Bawerk's Marx and the Close of His System. He treats him as a titan in the history of economic thought, someone with a genuine interest in economic history and theory who read thoroughly and thought deeply, with an often brilliant mind. He also considers his ideas decisively wrong and sets out to sharply, ruthlessly demonstrate that. The biggest difference is that while B-B limits his scope to the narrow empirical validity of Marx's incarnation of the LTV and the model of profit rates he derives from it, Schumpeter tackles Marx as a complete thinker, taking seriously the protestation that his ideas are carefully fitted together and can't be adequately critiqued as independent units. There are a few remarks here on Marx's followers as economic thinkers (usually brutal ones made by very pointed contrasts with the man himself), as political activists (judgment suspended!) and as what you might anachronistically think of as "posters"--people who use Marx's words not to understand society but simply to win arguments. But mostly it's narrowly focused on Marx's work, discussed relative to Schumpeter's own positions on the economy and social science.

Schumpeter starts with social science. He claims that Marx's broad approach--to use material conditions and economic mechanisms to understand history--is brilliant and crucial, and that his focus on social class as a variable that skews economics is important and often overlooked by economists of his day. But he sees Marx's specific claims about how social classes came to be and how exclusively they explain social dynamics are wildly overstated. "Primitive accumulation," Schumpeter argues, is not sufficient to explain why some people are capitalists and the rest are not, because it provides no mechanism by which some people "primitively accumulated" and other people were "primitively accumulated" from. Schumpeter joins Marx in sneering at the "bourgeois nursery tale" that says the rich became rich through pure meritocratic hard work and wise choices, but simply finds no way to reason around the conclusion that some individual differences must be relevant here, even if they amount to "who is the best at stealing." And if individual differences can be responsible for primitive accumulation, why can't they also be responsible for social mobility in general, after the age of PA? Or where Marx claims that class struggle is the exclusive driver of human history, Schumpter points out that most social relations in history seem much better (or at least as well) characterized as cooperative than antagonistic. It all boils down to the accusation that Marx's obsession with class conflict prevents him and his followers from keeping an open mind about the complexity of their subject matter.

For better or worse, the thing that made this such a joy for me to read was the fact that Schumpeter constantly echoes my own reactions to Marx and the Marxist reading I've been doing. He notes, for instance, that Marx has constructed his analysis in such a way that "socialism, which in reality has nothing to do with the presence or absence of social classes, became, by definition, the only possible kind of classless society." His points on the LTV itself are the standard critiques: that it fails to predict prices but pretending it secretly measures some hidden, more important variable, is untenable, that you can't reduce one kind of labor to another, that the conditions that make it true are a narrow special case of economic circumstances, and that if we have a theory that is both simpler and more general, we ought to embrace it. He makes the same point I did that if the "special case" notion is even mostly true, then marginalism was already implicit in the LTV and can't be rejected by Marxists anyway, but that the LTV is "dead and buried" but can't be called "wrong." He also points that the marginal value theory causes "the whole difficulty" that prompted most of Marx's convoluted analytical apparatus to exist to simply "vanish."

His discussion of surplus value is quite interesting. He claims that Marx designed this theory to accomplish a very specific political purpose: to make the exploitation of workers by capitalists universally and thus completely independent from the specifics of any given situation. Whether a worker felt taken advantage of by their employer (or vice versa!) was thus irrelevant. He didn't want to rely on special cases that would strike activists as obviously unjust--strong bargaining power, cheating, theft, etc. It had to be inherent. So he constructed an objective analysis of the economy in which this was the case. Schumpeter's paragraph on this bears quoting in full:

"Let us admire, in passing, the pedagogics of it: however special and removed from its ordinary sense the meaning might be which the word Exploitation now acquires, however doubtful the support which it derives from the Natural Law and the philosophies of the schoolmen and the writers of the Enlightenment, it is received into the pale of scientific argument after all and thus serves the purpose of comforting the disciple marching on to fight his battles."

It captures so perfectly the fundamental issue that makes this conversation so annoying to this day. Marx *intentionally* crossed two wires, and did so with such subtlety that most Leftists, even if they aren't Marxists, still view them as inextricable.

He never makes directly the point that to me seemed most damning about surplus value (that the separate negotiation of wages by day and hour is contradictory to his premises), but he does point out that Marx treats labor as a commodity but provides no mechanism to assure that labor is "produced according to rational cost calculations" as he assumes all commodities are, and that at perfect market equilibrium (an assumption of the surplus value theorem) surplus value is actually impossible, which I guess gets close to the same point. This undertheorized point leads directly to Marx's worst prediction: that increasing exploitation would decrease the standard of living of the working class. Surplus value can exist before equilibrium arrives, but understanding profits this way "strips them of the specifically Marxian connotation." He adds that Marx's lack of an "adequate theory of enterprise" "accounts for many mistakes."

He does make what I take to be more or less the same argument (about wages by hour/day) in a footnote, though. He points out that Marx absolutely wrecks Nassau Senior for arguing that capitalists only make profit in the last hour of the working day, etc, but that Marx's own case is transparently identical, a contradiction Marx never seems aware of.

It sometimes feels like Marx's modern followers lean almost entirely on the idea that Marx's analysis leads necessarily to capitalist crises, while neo-classical economics is constantly taken off guard by them. The continued occurrence of such crises thus "proves" Marx's theory is superior. But per Schumpeter, Marx had no theory of the business cycle at all! The presumption that even if Marx's basic theory is dubious in some way, the most macro-scale implications could validate them was always dubious, but Schumpeter doesn't think Marx even made such a connection in the first place. I never got far enough in Capital to judge this for myself but Schumpeter is being pretty generous and careful to Marx otherwise so I can't imagine he's wildly off here. Either way it's funny.

He concludes by addressing the proposition that "the whole is more than the sum of its parts"--that Marx could be right even after being wrong about so much. I guess it's nice of him to try but it's not at all surprising the verdict is mostly negative. Marx unites "political facts and economic theorems" but combines them with such violence that "neither of them can breathe." His analysis solves complex problems "only by emasculating them." His theory acquires its continued appeal not from any explanatory power but by presuming to "teach humanity the hidden meaning of its struggles." In reference to the notion that historical facts, personal experience, or modern crises prove Marx right, he notes that such evidence has the virtue "of being superficially known to everyone and of being thoroughly understood by very few." It is, in short, a framework for understanding economics and politics that obscures more than it illuminates. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jun 14, 2013 Sean Rosenthal rated it really liked it

Shelves: economics, non-fiction

Interesting Quotes:

"The...process of industrial mutation...incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure FROM WITHIN, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. This process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism...The problem that is usually...visualized is how capitalism administers existing structures, whereas the relevant problem is how it creates and destroys them."

-Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy

"There are ultima ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jan 03, 2015 Edward Tse rated it really liked it

Shelves: economics

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Aug 30, 2011 Dan rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: social-science, history, philosophy

A tough book, but a vitally important book for understanding the subtle relationships between capitalism, socialism and democracy, especially in its explanation of how capitalism works through 'creative destruction'. Originally published in 1942, 1947 and 1950, this book still has wide applications for today, especially those sections dealing with entrepreneurship, central planning, and democratic processes. But beware, the points Schumpeter makes in this book are extremely subtle, and one canno ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jun 05, 2014 Nick rated it it was amazing

Famous for two things, creative destruction and the theory of democratic elitism. Most of the work is about socialism, its history and why he thought it would triumph over capitalism. His democratic elitism, which I used for a paper, is a lot like Woodrow Wilson's idea of presidential leadership, of the will of the people being incoherent and contradictory, and the necessity of elites to present coherent visions of leadership through open competition.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Aug 08, 2014 Ethan Jacobs rated it really liked it · review of another edition

- His writing style is a little tough to engage with at times, but his astute and eye-opening analysis of the progression of capitalism certainly made this book worth reading. The ouline of socialism with its somewhat arduous details, while necessary to appeal to his audience, was a bit... dull. I guess that the reality of a potentially effective socialism just isn't very romantic. All in all, worth the read.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Dec 11, 2017 Mehmed Gokcel rated it really liked it

I got to read selective parts of this book and thought the analysis of Marxist thought was incredibly insightful and Schumpeter's prediction of capitalism's end compellingly argued. Particularly his analysis of Democracy as a mode of self-determination both politically and economically leads to the argument that it is inseparable from socialism. He is not a fan of this outcome, but is inclined to give credit to the power of this motive in determining systems of governing and economics.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jan 12, 2011 David rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Recommends it for: Eggheads

The man can turn a phrase. Very enjoyable, though the economics content is rather minimal beyond Chapter 8. After wrestling with the question over the past few months, I have to disagree with McCraw's thesis that this was a satire. And with that, the logic on the end of capitalism seems weak. Most of my colleagues loved reading this, but certainly not all.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Apr 25, 2012 M rated it it was amazing

Shelves: 2012, non-fiction, ppe, extracts-articles

Chapters 21 and 22. I do really like his two conceptions of democracy. Perhaps a little too pessimistic when it comes to the stupidity of the population, especially in political matter. Chapter 22 was great, and I think the role of leadership in a democracy is too often overlooked. Conception of democracy as the power struggle between the political elite very interesting.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jun 28, 2014 Vitaly Repin rated it it was amazing

Great book.

I think that this is "must read" book for everybody who is interested in the perspectives of capitalism and socialism and their connections with democracy. The book was published in the middle of XX century but it is still very valid for our time.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jun 03, 2013 Radwa rated it really liked it

Shelves: study

I didn't read the whole book; i enjoyed what i read, although the language was quiet difficult for me. . .

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Oct 15, 2014 Philip Chaston rated it really liked it

An interesting exploration of how Schumpeter tried to reconcile socialism and democracy. Like Marx, the trends he identified did not last ten years. He thought they might outlive the C20th.

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jan 18, 2016 Neil Rempel rated it really liked it · review of another edition

A hard book, will need to reread it in the future....slower!

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Dec 05, 2019 Tom rated it really liked it

Interesting. I was vaguely familiar with Schumpeter as a famous economist (he has a column named after him in The Economist) who talked about creative destruction, and picked this up to get some exposure to his though on that and the titular topics.

There's quite a bit more to his ideas around creative destruction than the sort of obvious "progress sometimes hurts" that the phrase sometimes reduces to. He makes a convincing case that capitalism at any given point in time, for areas where progress Interesting. I was vaguely familiar with Schumpeter as a famous economist (he has a column named after him in The Economist) who talked about creative destruction, and picked this up to get some exposure to his though on that and the titular topics.

There's quite a bit more to his ideas around creative destruction than the sort of obvious "progress sometimes hurts" that the phrase sometimes reduces to. He makes a convincing case that capitalism at any given point in time, for areas where progress is being made, is not well-described by textbook economic models of either perfect competition or monopoly. Businesses are not competing with peers so much as they are competing with the startup coming to supplant them. Along with this, he is relatively unconcerned by any kind of monopoly or antitrust issue; he observes that practices that may seem anti-competitive in the short run (e.g. certain pricing policies) may simultaneously result in faster growth and better outcomes in the long run. He views this process of creative destruction broadly construed, driven by "great man" entrepreneurs, as core to capitalism's success.

Then as industries become well-established, creative destruction slows, and bureaucratic management takes over, there starts being relatively little difference between bureaucratic management on behalf of stockholders and bureaucratic management on behalf of some public agency. He figures that in the long run (as material progress is exhausted) this happens across the economy, and the absence of an entrepreneurial class or compelling benefits therefrom will tend to result in a drift towards socialism. This is arguably a pretty good explanation of most of Europe for the last 50 years or so and a plausible case for the US in the next century.

He spends a fair amount of effort defining and distinguishing different flavors of socialism and democracy, and to cram a lot of subtlety into a few misleading clauses, he concludes socialism has no fundamental relationship with democracy but does tend towards totalitarianism by consolidating power. He paints interesting pictures of different conceivable socialist systems and how they might run, making the point that the same type of people will be needed to e.g. run factories regardless of who employs them, and the factory manager will have a higher value of time (and thus for maximum efficiency, ought to have different resources and services at his disposal) than a random worker, regardless of whether he reports to the government or a corporation. So one can imagine a transition to socialism where huge bureaucratized business morph into huge bureaucratized government, and everyone basically stays in the same jobs and with similar net take-home pay, although profits of the corporation revert to the government rather than stockholders (and there is no need for taxation of the workers or corporation, whose gross compensation is just reduced by whatever taxation previously was). He views big, mature businesses as a sort of natural jumping off point into socialism.

He has a fun bit about unemployed and unemployable intellectuals as a byproduct of capitalism. The idea is that capitalism promotes a set of rationalist attitudes (rooted in cost-benefit analysis), in turn leading people to pursue more higher education. They are also wealthier and better able to afford it. However, as more and more people get sucked up into universities, average potential drops, and a corresponding number of liberal arts jobs need not appear. So capitalism will tend to produce a class of under-employed "intellectuals" who have received enough education that they scorn manual labor, but are not objectively good for much in any other context. They end up with a sense of entitlement, a bit of a rhetorical toolkit, and plenty of time on their hands, which they proceed to spend agitating for ideas that (given these types' background) can only tend towards socialism. This theory suggests capitalism will inevitably create its own opposition and seems to have plenty of explanatory power e.g. for Twitter.

Schumpeter spends quite a bit of time discussing Marxian theories of history and economics, in what seems like a reasonably objective and scrupulously fair-minded fashion. Raised my opinion of Marx's caliber and gave me a more in-depth concept of his thought, without making me sympathetic to his it. He also goes over the history of socialist and communist ideas and practice for the century to 1942, an interesting topic. ...more

flag Like · see review

Jul 17, 2018 Eugene Kernes rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: economics

This book is an artful explanation of Marxism, capitalism, socialism, and democracy. Always starting from the concepts intended purpose, the way the concept was meant to be. Followed by the criticism of the concept and the way the realities of the world interact with it. Schumpeter shows a critical eye towards everything he tries to explain.

Schumpeter can be described as eclectic, while at the same time point to how eclectic Marx was. Sociology and economics made Marx seem like a prophet. The e This book is an artful explanation of Marxism, capitalism, socialism, and democracy. Always starting from the concepts intended purpose, the way the concept was meant to be. Followed by the criticism of the concept and the way the realities of the world interact with it. Schumpeter shows a critical eye towards everything he tries to explain.

Schumpeter can be described as eclectic, while at the same time point to how eclectic Marx was. Sociology and economics made Marx seem like a prophet. The exploitation of the worker by the capitalist is central stage in Marx while Schumpeter points out that this requires a watertight division between those groups of people to last throughout their descendants. Exploitation occurs when the worker does obtain the full value of their work, but Schumpeter explains that labor theory of value cannot work without perfect competition, while exploitation does not work with perfect competition. What seems to be underplayed, or rather contradictory, in Marx are cycles of capitalist innovation, the turmoil of economic progress.

Capitalism cannot survive because the social institutions that give capitalism life are in jeopardy in the capitalistic process. This is where the famous phrase, creative destruction, is born. A process that phases out old technology or poorly managed capital and initiates new technology and ventures. The whole economic structure is changed with creative destruction as over time the resources that are utilized to their best opportunities phase out those which are inferior. This process leads to economic development at the cost of some hardship such as unemployment for those who use the inferior process or resources. Schumpeter argues that as long as the process continuously increases economic development, the social agitation is acceptable. Only when social agitation, such as unemployment, interferes with economic development is it unacceptable. Economic development can continue ad infinitum for new wants are borne from higher livings standards. But the costs to some inspire negative responses from intellectuals, creating a social environment which forces policies that try to remove the capitalistic process.

Socialism means that production is vested in a central authority. A state or some board makes all of the decisions on behalf of the population. Schumpeter believes that a board can organize itself in a way as to set all prices and quantities needed for the society. The board will have to set prices which will create no unused goods. The benefit of socialism is that the individual energy would be spent on other pursuits rather than on a source of income for food. Socialism can be democratic or not, but as history shows that it can survive via controlling peoples’ freedoms of speech and removing agitators of the system.

Democracy is just one of the political processes to make decisions, and it may not be the best process for every decision. History has shown that many decisions made by a democratic procedure led to the persecution of many people. Democracy is a method which elects people to represent the people. For people to vote for the appropriate person, information has to be independent which reality shows that almost always the effective information is adulterated or selective. Good candidates for democratic election may not be good administrations or those skillful in undertaking the tasks for national success. The democratic system may actually remove from the elections the people who can best lead the nation. Schumpeter makes the case that the needed or merited government may not be the one chosen by the people.

A fairly decently written book, but not meant as an introductory book. In many, if not all, parts of the book, the reader cannot tell Schumpeter’s true intention, his actual view on the subject. The introductory chapter is quite accurate when expressing that much of Schumpeter’s writing happens between the lines. This style is helpful at times as it shows Schumpeter’s understanding of the subject from varied perspectives, while also costly as at times as it creates a mass of confusion. ...more

flag Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend It | Stats | Recent Status Updates

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Genres

Economics

433 users

Politics

186 users

Philosophy

98 users

Nonfiction

84 users

History

49 users

Sociology

39 users

Politics > Political Science

25 users

Business

21 users

Classics

14 users

Social Science

10 users

See top shelves…

About Joseph Schumpeter

Joseph Schumpeter

165 followers

Joseph Alois Schumpeter was an Austrian American economist and political scientist. He briefly served as Finance Minister of Austria in 1919. One of the most influential economists of the 20th century, Schumpeter popularized the term "creative destruction" in economics.

Books by Joseph Schumpeter

Can Capitalism Survive? Creative Destruction and the Future of the Global Economy

Essays: On Entrepreneurs, Innovations, Business Cycles and the Evolution of Capitalism

Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process. Vol 1-Vol 2

More…

News & Interviews

Goodreads Members Suggest: Favorite Very Quick Reads

Did you set an extremely ambitious Reading Challenge goal back in January? And has this, uh, unprecedented year gotten completely in the way of...

Trivia About Capitalism, Socia...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from Capitalism, Socia...

“Geniuses and prophets do not usually excel in professional learning, and their originality, if any, is often due precisely to the fact that they do not.” — 34 likes

“In one important sense, Marxism is a religion. To the believer it presents, first, a system of ultimate ends that embody the meaning of life and are absolute standards by which to judge events and actions; and, secondly, a guide to those ends which implies a plan of salvation and the indication of the evil from which mankind, or a chosen section of mankind, is to be saved.” — 10 likes

More quotes…

See a Problem?

Preview — Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy by Joseph Schumpeter

Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Joseph Schumpeter

Books by Joseph Schumpeter

News & Interviews

Trivia About Capitalism, Socia...

Quotes from Capitalism, Socia...

See a Problem?

Preview — Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy by Joseph Schumpeter

Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Joseph Schumpeter

Books by Joseph Schumpeter

News & Interviews

Trivia About Capitalism, Socia...

Quotes from Capitalism, Socia...

new topic
Discuss This Book