Schumpeter's Withschafts-subjekte

of 3
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Discussion of Schumpeterian Hedonistic and Energetic Types
  Schumpeter's Wirthschafts-subjekte     The entrepreneurial Spirit is “ un- ethical” or “ extra -moral” (Nietzsche) in this sense: its “innovation” is also a breaking of the rules, a making of alue !ithout “being value ”# The entrepreneur is an initiator, an “author” possessing a Nietzschean “e$tra-moralit%” ( aussermoralischen   Sinne ), a &ei eggerian “authenticit%” ( Eigentlichkeit  ) ' the recognition of the  Zuhandenheit   of the !orl , of its “mun anit%” - that therefore, in its “resolve” ( Entschlossenheit  ) is able to rise above the “uoti ianit%” (  Alltaglichkeit  ) of “the masses” an their Sartrean mauvaise foi  (ba faith)#  The “State” of euilibrium represents the thics of “formal eualit%”, of eui-valence, i entit% not i*erence: the bourgeois liberal State is bureaucrac% (&egel), Rationalisierung  an Entzauberung  (+eber) ' a “ositivit%” (&ei eggers “presence”) that is shattere b% the negativity   (“creative .estruction”, not “ estructive /reation”) of the ntrepreneur ' !ho represents the %namic creative Individualitat   oppose to the “tranuilit%” of the bo % politic# 0gain, the  polemos  of the state of nature is turne into the “ %namic energ%” ( dynamisch energisch ) of the captain of in ustr%, of lea ership ' against the “ statisch , hedonisch Impuls   der    rationalistischen   !ypus ”, of the “capitalist o!ner”, the banker an 1nancier reliant not on “entrepreneurial pro1t” but on passive “interest”# (See   oseph A# Schumpeter$ ein Sozial%konom z&ischen 'arx und (alras b% &einz .# 2urz, p#34#) The bourgeois liberal State ' the “State” of euilibrium ' is the true political State of capitalism# 5ut the Schumpeterian entrepreneur is not the pro- uct of this “ethical” an “he onistic” State6 /apitalism creates the con- itions, the institutional ingre ients for the emergence of the entrepreneur ' but the entrepreneur must not be confuse !ith an mistaken for a “capitalist”6 The entrepreneur is the antithesis of the “capitalist” ' as !e have sought to emonstrate throughout our stu % of Schmpeter an his “capitalist metaph%sics”# The capitalist seeks the “tranuilit%” of the econom% ' its “eui-librium” on the economic si e# 0n the homologation, the eui-valence of conomic euilibrium an olitical “tranuilit%” is the “social eace” of bourgeois liberal societ% ' its 2antian-&egelian thics# 7t is not capitalism thatin uces “creative estruction”: it is the entrepreneur that oes so against the“he onism” of the capitalist 1nancier, against the “social eace” of the bourgeois liberal State6 These innovations occur whenever the entrepreneur needs them, and if it were not the case that an entrepreneur, in his particular role as an entrepreneur, would already be waiting in order to use any  new invention, then these innovations would never be realized in practice  . It is not the innovations that have created capitalism, but capitalism that has created the innovations needed for its existence.  One could gain the opposite impression only from the fact that we know only of an economyreplete with development, and here, everything takes place so fast and immediately, that we cannot always distinguish between cause and effect….   The process of development itself and its driving  force would in this case also lie somewhere else, particularly in the personality of the entrepreneur  . In the absence of people with such leadership qualities these kinds of innovations would never come alive.[4! #$%  7n other !or s, capitalism has create the con itions for the emergence of the entrepreneur: but the entrepreneur is istinct an separate from “capitalism” an its thical 7 eal of an euilibrate , static an he onistic liberal bourgeois societ%in !hich the capitalist market econom% provi es the un erpinnings for the olitical liberal public sphere of free om of e$pression#  This neat homologation or euivalence of capitalist conom% an bourgeois olitics is absolutel% impossible for Schumpeter because the real essence of capitalism is not “euilibrium” but uite to the contrar% it is “permanent crisis”, it is “creative .estruction” ' con8ict, not “social peace”6 A minority of people  with a sharper intelligence and with a more agileimagination perceive new combinations. … Then there is an even smaller minority—and this one acts . … It is this type [the Entrepreneur] that scorns the hedonicequilibrium  and faces risk without timidity. e does not consider theimplications a failure will inflict upon him! or care whether everyone dependingupon him will lose their keep for old age. … The decisive moment is thereforeenergy and not merely insight#. $%chumpeter! &''&b! ()*+)(, cf. )-)&! )*+(/0ost people tend to their usual daily business and have enough to do at that.0ost of the time such people are on slippery ground and the effort to standstraight e1hausts their energies and suppresses all appetite for further e1ploration. … [2urthermore! t]hey do not have the force and the leisure tothink the matter through. The daily work keeps them down! organi3ation as wellas the influence of their colleagues inflict untearable chains on them. This is themasses. $%chumpeter! &''&b! ()&+)*, cf. )-)&! )&+*/In each sector there are  statically disposed individuals  and there are leaders . %tatically disposed individualsare characteri3ed by essentially doing what they have learnt! by moving within the received boundaries and  by having in a determining way their opinion! dispositions and behaviour influenced by the given data of their sector. 4eaders are characteri3ed by perceiving new things! by changing the received boundaries to their behaviour and by changing the given data of their sector. $%chumpeter! &''&b! (&5, cf. )-)&! 6(&+*/   &s gibt 'irtschaftssub(ekte )deren *erhalten durch den hedonische Impuls definitive charakterisiert ist, 'irtschaftssub(ekte die man als +statisch kat &sochen be-eichnen kann. [Theorie, /%     5% Schumpeters o!n a mission, the trans- crescence  of the capitalist econom% gives rise to profoun l% revolutionar% an unsettling “crises” or “e$traeconomic e*ects” through the “creative estruction” brought about b% the competitive innovation of entrepreneurs that uite simpl%cannot be “governe ” b% them an that therefore reuire e$uisitel% “politico-institutional” intervention on the operation of the market econom% b% capitalist State institutions# 7n other !or s, far from being a self-regulating mechanism at or near an% form of “euilibrium” - !hether “static” or “ %namic” or “evolutionar%” -, the capitalist econom% nee s to be constantl% guided and governed  b% a central political institution such as the mo ern State that necessaril% invali ates the notion of entrepreneurial competition an innovation as  pure scienti)c economic categories 6 Schumpeter theorises the entrepreneurial spirit an the process of innovationin isolation from the political institutions of capitalism, !hich he belittles as the “he onic an static” state of euilibrium# 0s !e sa! earlier in this stu %, the chief ob9ection move b% a$ +eber against Schumpeters theor% !as precisel% that it un ul% neglecte the paramount relation bet!een state bureaucrac% an private capitalist factor% ' both of !hich +eber sa! as aspects of “enterprise” ( *etrieb )# 7n the !or s of /acciari,   7Ecco perche# 8eber parla del  Politiker  ! non dell# Imprenditore. Egli non dimentica l# Imprenditore9 ne aveva gia# ricercato le srcini. 0a! tra il )-'6 e il )-)5! il problema decisivo diviene la  scelta politica  sulla forma e sui tempi del rapporto scien3a:sviluppo! le istituzioni politiche  atte a assumere gli effetti dell# innova3ione. In realta#! nessun  mercato puo# piu# fun3ionare in forma schumpeteriana 7pura;. In termini espliciti9 nessun Imprenditore potrebbe piu# esistere  senza Stato !; $  Pensiero egativo e !azionalizzazione !  pp.)65:-/.[That is why 8eber speaks of the  Politiker  ! not of the Entrepreneur. e does not neglect the Entrepreneur + he had already traced his srcins <in the =rotestant Ethic#>. ?ut for 8eber the decisive problem between )-'6 and )-)5 became that of the  political choice  of the modality and timing of the relationship science:development! of the  political institutions  able to govern the effects of innovation. In reality! no market   could function any longer in pure# %chumpeterian fashion. E1plicitly put9 no entrepreneur can e1ist any longer without the intervention of the State .]  The 1nal point then becomes a uestion: !h%, !hen all is sai an one, must capitalist societ% procee or evolve or evelop or trans- cresce  through crises ; 0n !hat oes that tell us about the nature of “innovation” or “technological progress” an its motivation, that is to sa%, pro1t;
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks