I have had occasion many times on this blog to extol the quality of Professor Michael Pettis's work. This is Section 3 of Part One of my 'Weberbuch', a book dedicated to Max Weber, and I am publishing it here as a tribute to Prof. Pettis for his most kind appreciation of my humble efforts. (This is what Pettis had to say:
"Belbruno is too polite to post the address [of his blog], so I will: http://www.eforum21.com/
And while it is not beach-side reading, he exaggerates the difficulty. I strongly recommend it to readers who want to understand economics in the context of the history of economic thought.... His is one of the best blogs out there.") Joseph Schumpeter's Entwicklung: Capitalist Innovation as Development-through-Crisis
Schumpeter is a
contemporary of Weber, but he is also the heir of Mach. Through Weber he is
linked to Nietzsche, but he is already too much under the spell of Machism
fully to comprehend the significance of Nietzsche's radical critique of
bourgeois society through the tracing of the “completion” (Heidegger’s Vollendung) of Western metaphysics into
“science”. Schumpeter looks at capitalism through the "scientific"
prism of Machian empiricism. The task of the "scientist" is not to
look "beyond" or "behind" mere phenomena, it is not to discover
“substances” or “values” behind “events” (Geschehen), but rather to find the
simplest mathematical "con-nection" between them; it is to describe reality, not to explain it: indeed, description
that is mathematically regular is or
amounts to explanation. The task of science is to describe phenomena in the simplest and most
"predictable" manner: simplex
sigillum veri (simplicity is the seal of truth). (A discussion of
Nietzsche’s vehement critique of the ontological assumptions behind Machian and
Newtonian science is in our Nietzschebuch.)
Just as Menger’s theory of marginal utility does not inquire about the “value”
of “utility”, its “substance”, its quidditas,
relegating these matters to the realm of “metaphysics”, but relies instead on
the observable behavior of individuals
to formalize mathematically an Aristotelian logic
of human economic action, so Mach’s philosophy of science does not
question the empirical validity of
Newtonian physics, its ability to predict
real events by con-necting them by means of mathematical equations: what it
questions is instead the cosmology of
the Newtonian system, its reliance on “absolute frames of reference” to explain
the cosmos, the uni-verse or “reality” (the res,
the “thing-iness” of the Kantian “thing-in-itself”, the noumenon that pro-duces the empirical phenomena) that are dis-covered as “the laws of nature”. That is why Schumpeter never goes beyond the
simple "observation" and "analysis" (literally,
retrospective dissection) of the empirical
behaviour of capitalist institutions and adopts uncritically the
Machian presuppositions of his Viennese academic training:
According
to this conception the purely economic plays only a passive role
in
development. Pure economic laws describe a particular behavior of
economic
agents, whose goal is to reach a static equilibrium and to re-establish
such
a state after each disturbance. Pure
economic laws are similar to the
laws of mechanics which tell us how
bodies with mass behave under the
influence of any external
"forces", but which do not describe the nature of
those "forces".
It
shows [471] how the economy responds to changes in those conditions
coming
from the outside. Therefore, in such a conception, pure economics almost
by
definition excludes the phenomenon of a
"development of the economy from
within".
It is the conception that there is an
independent element in technical and
organizational progress, which
carries its law of development in itself and
mainly rests on the progress of our
knowledge. (Schumpeter, ch.7, Theorie)
In the Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, Schumpeter seeks to
enucleate scientifically “the mechanism
of transformation” that can account for “the phenomenon of a ‘development of the economy from within’”, that can elevate the capitalist economy from one “level” or “Gravitationszentrum” (centre of gravity)
to another – from one “equi-librium” to another. Granted that there is a
“system of forces” that at any given time allow “the economic system” to
operate and function, it may then be possible to define for that given moment
in time an “equilibrium state” that does not “explain why” the economic system
is “in equilibrium” but that may yet allow us to identify those “forces” that,
when altered, “caeteris paribus”,
determine a corresponding alteration in other “forces” affecting the “system”.
An “equi-librium” is therefore “a balance of forces” whose nature we do not know but around
which the economic system tends to
gravitate. Equi-librium is literally a “Gleich-gewicht”, an “equal weight”,
a balance of forces around which the
economy gravitates: hence, for
Schumpeter, economic equilibrium is not an eternally fixed mathematical
identity, as it is for Walras, but rather a Gravitations-zentrum,
“a centre of gravity” around which an economic system revolves but one from which this system may well move or
diverge, in a direction that completely
upsets and trans-forms the “balance of forces” and even the nature of the “forces” that determined
the previous “state of equilibrium”, the previous “centre of gravity”!
Unlike
the waves of the ocean, the waves of the economy do not return
to
the same level. They always tend to swing like a pendulum around a certain
level,
but the level itself is not always the
same. It is not just the observable
facts
that
change. The explanatory pattern, i.e.
the ideal type, changes as well.
Let us
grant
that the first problem of economics was: how, based on its entire circumstances
of
life, does a population reach a particular level of the economy? Then [466] the
second
problem is the following: how does an economy make the transition from one
level-which
itself was viewed as the final point and point of equilibrium-to another
level?
This question takes us to the very essence of economic development
[wirtschaftliche Entwicklung].
(Schumpeter, TwE, ch.7, pp465-6)
But by insisting on the existence of a
scientifically ascertainable “centre of gravity” for the capitalist economy and
of its equally scientific “mechanism
of transformation”, Schumpeter ends up oscillating between two untenable
antinomic positions: - on one hand, the scientific
hypothesis of the tendency of the
economic system toward “equilibrium” (hence the notion of “centre of gravity”)
or “circular flow” (Kreislauf); and on the other hand the historical experience of the proneness of the economy to grow and
develop, to change from one “ideal type”
to another – an “experience” that is both “empirical” as well as
“necessary” for the simple reason that an “economy” is and must be subject to
historical transformation, but a transformation that is nevertheless impossible
to formalize as a “mechanism”!
“Equilibrium” is either “static” or it
is not an “equi-librium” at all! For the “system” to change, it must be subject
to “forces” that are not the “mathematical” or “mechanical” ones of
“equilibrium”. In short, “dynamic equilibrium” is a contradiction in terms!
Schumpeter himself rightfully contends as much:
It
follows from the entire outline of our line of reasoning that there is no such
thing
as a dynamic equilibrium. Development, in its deepest character,
constitutes
a disturbance of the existing static equilibrium and shows no
tendency
at all to strive again for that or any other state of equilibrium.
Development
has a tendency to move out of equilibrium. This is quite
different
from what we could call organic development; it leads to quite
different
pathways that lead somewhere else. If the economy does reach a new
state
of equilibrium then this is achieved not by the motive forces of development,
but
rather by a reaction against it. Other forces bring development to an end, and
by so
doing create the first precondition for regaining a new equilibrium.
Actually,
what happens first is that when a new development begins, there is again a new
disturbance
in the equilibrium of the economy. Thus,
development and
equilibrium in the sense that we have
given these terms are therefore opposites,
the one excludes the other.
Neither is the static economy being characterized by a
static
equilibrium, nor is the dynamic economy characterized by a dynamic
equilibrium;
an equilibrium can only exist at all in the one sense mentioned before.
The
equilibrium of the economy is essentially a static one.`19
And not only is “the
equilibrium of the economy… essentially a static
one”, but it is also above all a stagnant
one! Yet we know that one of the vital features of capitalist industry is –
precisely – its ability “to grow”, “to develop”. It follows therefore that
there must be some internal feature
of capitalism that forces it to trans-cresce and that therefore
constitutes its differentia specifica.
Orthodox economic theory, both Classical and Neoclassical, treats the “forces
of development” as “essentially” exogenous
to the capitalist “system” of production:
It is
the conception that there is an independent
element in technical
and
organizational progress, which carries its law of development in
itself
and mainly rests on the progress of our knowledge, (Schumpeter, ibid.)
Here Schumpeter seizes on
the realization that in point of fact there can be no such “independent element in technical and
organizational progress” and that both
of these must be treated as part and parcel of the social relations of production, and not be attributed to “an
independent element”, a purely mechanical
and adventitious factor – “independent” of what Weber styles “capitalist
economic action”. It comes as no surprise, then, that because Schumpeter takes
“the economy” and “economics” as “objects or phenomena of scientific analysis”
that are separate and distinct from
the rest of social reality, including
those “technical and organizational” forces (!), he must then necessarily isolate them from the “trans-formation
mechanism” of the capitalist economy! When Schumpeter looks for a
"trans-formation mechanism" (Veranderungsmechanismus) to explain the
"meta-morphosis" of capitalist industry - its "development,
evolution and growth" (Entwicklung) – he can find it only in a subjective, voluntary factor, something that closely
resembles Weber’s own thesis of the “spirit of capitalism” (der Geist des Kapitalismus) expounded in the
Ethik published in 1904, that is,
only seven years before the publication of Schumpeter’s path-breaking Theorie!
Following Weber’s lead,
Schumpeter finds “the carrier” (Trager) of the “transformation mechanism”, the
“driver” of capitalist Entwicklung,
(the expressions have a curious Hegelian-Marxist ring) in the
"entrepreneurial spirit" (Unternehmer-geist) without
noticing the contra-diction between "mechanism" and
"spirit"! His search immediately contra-dicts
itself – because the “factors of development”, the forces that “trans-form” the
economy, that buffet it from crisis to crisis and therefore “elevate” or
“lower” it from “level” to “level” can quite evidently not themselves constitute a “trans-formation mechanism”! A “mechanism” will always
be “static” because whatever “factors” cause it to develop must be “endogenous” and therefore, by definition,
“re-conducible” to the existing
definition of the system! An endogenous or internal “mechanism of
trans-formation” would always be re-definable in terms of those “equi-librium
conditions” that Schumpeter’s “theory” was supposed to confute and discard!
There can be no freedom in a system of economic analysis or “science”. There can be no “trans-formation”
in a “mechanism”- no internally-generated scientifically measurable “development”
or “growth” from one equilibrium to another. And that is the exact reason why
Schumpeter is unable to com-prehend in his “theory” the “real subsumption” of
the “technical and organizational processes”, which he erroneously relegates to
the Statik or exogenous components of
“the mechanism”, within the social
relations of capitalism itself, within
the “Dynamik” of the “system of needs
and wants” (Weber’s “iron cage”) that “drives” or pro-pels the “modern
industrial work” or “the lifeless machine” of capitalist industry (the
Simmelian “Form”) which in turn is guided
by the capitalistic “rational conduct of business” – the living machine (Simmel’s “Soul”).
One can almost feel the agony of
Schumpeter’s theoretical contortions as he grapples and fumbles with these
complex conceptual matters:
[490]
Economic development is not an organic entity that forms a whole;
it
rather consists of relatively separate partial developments that follow
one
upon the other. Here we build on what has been said in the chapter on
crises.
Accordingly, development of the economy occurs in a wavelike
fashion.
Each of these waves has a life of its own.
With
this we really get closer to reality. In particular, we win a clearer
insight
into that peculiar jumble of conditioning and freedom, which
economic
life shows us. The static circular flow and the static
phenomena
of adaptation are dominated by a logic of things, while it is
completely
irrelevant for the general problem of freedom of will,
nevertheless
in practice - with fixed given social relationships - it leaves
as
good as no maneuvering room for individual freedom of will. This
can
be
demonstrated and yet it was always a point of criticism, since the creative
work
of the individual was so obviously visible. We know now that the
latter
observation is correct. Yet, this observation does not contradict the
theorems
of statics. We can precisely describe the place and function of this
work.
Of course, in development the logic of things is not missing; and
just as
one cannot demonstrate with the static conception the case for
philosophical
determinism, one cannot maintain the case
against it with the dynamic
conception. But despite this we have
shown that an element is present in the
economy, which cannot be explained by
objective conditions and we have put
it in a precise relationship to those
objective conditions.23 (Theorie, ch.7)
By identifying a subjective factor as the historical “carrier” (Trager) of the meta-morphosis of the capitalist
economic system, of the “trans-crescence” of capitalist industry – the
“entrepreneurial spirit” and the “process of innovation” (Innovationsprozess) that
it unleashes “subjectively” (!) on the scientifically and mathematically
definable static equilibrium of the
capitalist economy to move it from one “centre of gravity” to another, to
transport it “like a wave” from one ocean level to another -, Schumpeter is
also validating and sharpening Weber’s original thesis in the Ethik of the “religious ascetic origins
of capitalism” in the “entrepreneurial spirit”.
But the reason for
Schumpeter’s agonising ambi-valence and ambiguity over the dualism of “freedom
and necessity” and his acquiescence in
his own theoretical answer to it can be found once again in Ernst Mach's
philosophy of science. The "empirical observation" of entrepreneurs
in capitalist industry and their empirical connection to the provision of
"finance" by "capitalists" is all that counts: both factors can be
reconciled as parts of “one mechanism"
for the trans-formation of capitalist industry through "innovation"
and "creative destruction". Just
as in marginalist theory the axiomatic
assumption of “utility” (a “metaphysical” notion at best, by Menger’s own
admission, an inscrutable Aristotelian “entelechy”) does not and cannot explain the determination of
“market prices”, and yet the mere proof of a simple mathematical connection between individual prices and the axiomatically assumed marginal utilities
of individuals is sufficient to prove
the mathematical existence of an
economic equilibrium and to found the new “science of Neoclassical Economics”, so now Schumpeter concludes that the
empirical derivation by the "entrepreneur" of a "profit"
from his "innovative leadership", from his "enterprise",
combined with the existence of a pool of financial capital made available by
“capitalists” is sufficient to establish the existence of a “Mechanismus” that trans-forms the capitalist
economy. Indeed, the Unternehmer-Gewinn
(the entrepreneurial profit) is the only "profit" that is worthy of
the name for him. All other "profits", as the subtitle to the Theorie loudly suggests, are simply
"interest" or “rents” charged by "capitalists" for
advancing their "working capital" to the entrepreneur.
In other words,
Schumpeter never even attempts to locate the source of "profits" beyond the mere "innovation
process" of the entrepreneur, beyond the "reward" for his
"enterprise". Schumpeter does not look at the "motive"
behind the activity of the entrepreneur except to allude to a vague Nietzschean
"will to conquer", to the simple "pleasure of success".
Again, this failure is largely due to the fact that, unlike Weber, Schumpeter
does not see the Rationalisierung as
a political process but simply as a
"scientific development", as the supersession of the Enlightenment
notion of "progress", understood in a teleological or moral sense,
and its replacement with the strictly empirical scientific principles of the
Economics applicable to human organisation and industry.
Put differently,
Schumpeter interprets "profits" as a function of and reward for the
"entrepreneurial spirit". Yet he does not even suspect that it may be
"profitability" that makes the "entrepreneurial spirit" a
matter of life or death for every "capitalist", whether an
“entrepreneur” or not!
*********
The timeless
mathematical “scientific” description of the capitalist economy clashes
irremediably here with the living experience
of its existence! This is a leitmotiv
of the period that will preoccupy Wilhelmine culture from Nietzsche to Husserl,
Lukacs and Heidegger – that is to say, the Neo-Kantian dualism of “knowledge”
and “experience”, of “living spirit” and “objective process” or “machine”,
between “Soul” and “Forms”, and between “Forms” and “content”. Weber himself will
mock the evident contra-diction between the scientific
proof of capitalist collapse
proffered in The Communist Manifesto
with its prophecy of the inevitable advent of human socialist freedom – applying thus the Nietzschean
demolition of Western metaphysical transcendentalism and “subjectivity”, of the
Freiheit that Weber’s initial
formulation of the Rationalisierung in
the Ethik and in Roscher und Knies had failed fully to comprehend but that – what is
one of our central theses in this piece – he will begin to tackle seriously
with the articulation of the interaction between the Political and the
Economics in “the triptych” of 1917 to 1919 formed by Parlament und Regierung and the two Munich lectures, in the lecture
on ‘Der Sozialismus’ delivered in June 1918, and then finally with the Vorbermerkungen written in 1920.
The profound, almost absurd in-comprehension of this vital reality –
the overwhelming, conditioning necessity
of the “system of wants and needs” and the social antagonism of the capitalist
wage relation - on the part of Schumpeter, he himself exhibits in this blunt
statement in the Theorie:
The leader personality… never happens as a
response to present or revealed needs.
The
issue is always to obtrude the new, which until recently had been mocked or
rejected
or had just remained unnoticed. Its
acceptance is always a case of
compulsion being exercised on a
reluctant mass, which is not really interested in
the
new, and often does not even know [545] what it is all about….
What
we want to show now becomes obvious. The
development of wants, which we
observe in reality, is a
consequential creation of the economic development that
has already been present. It is not its motor. The fact that the
human economy
has remained constant over centuries
heavily weighs in favor of our argument. ….
The
amplification of needs is a consequence and symptom of development. Insofar as
truly
new needs and desires exist they will not have a practical effect on the
economy,
…new needs and desires as such mean nothing.
But even then, if there were an
original cause in the development of
needs and desires, this would still require
creativity
and energetic activity in
order to create anything new of importance…
It is at this fateful juncture that
Weber takes his distance from Schumpeter, even as he obviously “stands on the
shoulders” of the Austrian’s evolutionary
problematic. For whilst he accepts that “the economy” can never be in
“equilibrium”, Weber correctly rejects the proposition that in any case
“science” could ever explain “rationally” the “trans-crescence” of the economic
system, its “Entwicklung”. Weber rejects dismissively Schumpeter’s thesis that
it is the “entrepreneur” with his “creativity and energetic activity” who is
solely or even chiefly “responsible” for the meta-morphosis of “the system” and
that “new needs and desires as such mean nothing”! To the Nietzschean Weber, this
proposition would smack unacceptably of the jejune “subjectivism” and
“emanationism” of the German Historical School’s Historismus – of the Hegelian “Providence” (Weis-heit) and of the
idolatry of “Freiheit”, the “freedom of
the will” whose dialectical
reconciliation in German Idealism leads to the “freedom from the will” of the Demokratisierung and its “Socialist
utopia”, that triumph of the Individualitat
against which Nietzsche had devoted much of his critical genius with
devastating effect! It is this Individualitat,
the “personality” of the “entrepreneur” that Weber could never entertain
approvingly.
(The concept of ‘freedom’ in German Idealism is
canvassed with supreme mastery from the viewpoint of the negatives Denken by Heidegger in his Schelling’s ‘Essence of Human Freedom’. It is interesting to advert
here to the incomprehension of Weber’s entire theoretical orientation on the
part of those critics – of all persuasions – who wave his concept of “charisma”
as conclusive evidence of a ‘voluntaristic streak’ or ‘subjectivism’ in Weber’s
methodology, and the even greater
incomprehension of those epigones who make “charisma” the central concept
in Weber’s entire sociology! However much these quite erroneous views may be
justified on the basis of the static
typology contained in the Ethik
and in Weber’s later classificatory efforts, it is very wide of the mark when
it comes to his incisive reformulation of the Problematik of capitalism in his later writings. There is no
“charismatic voluntarism” in this methodological stance, no ‘Caesarism’! There
is only a coherent application of Nietzschean immanentist “ontology of thought”
to the phenomenology of the social world. Nor is there any ‘irrationalism’ in
the post-Nietzschean “De-struktion” [Heidegger’s term] of the philosophia perennis and scientism of
the Aufklarung and its German
Idealist apotheosis.)
Not
only does Weber realize with unmatchable acuity that the “creative entrepreneur” is not “responsible” for the phenomenon of capitalist “development”
and the concomitant crises that it
ineluctably inflicts on the “economic system”;
but also and above all else he sees that the “entrepreneur” is “responsible”
instead in a Nietzschean sense diametrically
opposed to the one suggested by Schumpeter! For the entrepreneur can be merely the
“carrier” of a “trans-formation” of the economy that must originate endogenously from its very foundations,
from its “ground” – that is to say, from its “Wants and Provisions”, from its
“system of needs and wants”. But not as a “mechanism
of transformation” such as Schumpeter had sought on the mistaken assumption
that “wants” are “static”! On the contrary, it is the conflict inherent
and intrinsic to the very notion of “want” and of “self-interest” that creates
the “objective con-ditions and circum-stances” that allow the emergence of the
“entrepreneurial spirit”, of his “Will to Power” at the very crest of this surging wave of conflict that transports with
itself the entrepreneur and the rest of the capitalist “economy and
society”!
“The nature of the matter”, the essence
of capitalism and of the Economics, must consist then in the historically novel
and specific manner in which capitalism “organizes” this “conflict”! This
signifies the end of Political Economy
not only
as the market-based mirage entertained by Neoclassical
Theory of a “rigorous science of Economics” devoid of political conflict, but also as the utopia embraced by liberalism
and socialism of a “free public sphere of Politics” devoid of economic antagonism.
The “personality” that truly counts,
the Individualitat that “drives” the
“system”, the “machine” – the “motor” of the “mechanism of transformation” that
Schumpeter was so desperately seeking - is emphatically not the “entrepreneur” with his “creative individuality” causing
the inertia of “the system of needs
and wants” - the “rentier” capitalist, finance capital, “trustified” capitalism,
the “passive” consumer - to change through the Innovationsprozess facilitated by the mechanism of capitalist financial
institutions. A million times “No!” The real “motor”, the
true “spirit” of capitalism (however “soul-less” it may have become now) is exactly
and precisely that “conflict” inherent to “the system of needs and wants”, to
the “iron cage”, that capitalism has “freed”, has “unleashed”, has “vented and
released” by institutionalizing bureaucratically
“the rational organization of free labor”! The most effective way to organize a
society is to utilize its “labor”, intended as “labor force” or “labor power”,
in a manner that responds “rationally” to the politically “free” specification
of their conflicting “needs and wants” by the workers through the market
mechanism (filter, osmosis, synthesis) so that these may be “provided for” most
efficiently.
In regard to this point, Weber can
detect now another major fallacy or oversight in Schumpeter’s limited and
flawed analysis in the fact that the “entrepreneur” may well be the “material
functional carrier” of “trans-formations” to the structure and orientation of
“enterprise”, but that these “trans-formations” occasion profound “shocks” and
“crises” that cannot be limited or confined to “the economy” alone, and that
therefore require a form of mediation and
governance – of “political responsibility”! - that is absolutely inaccessible to the “entrepreneur” or indeed even
to the “bureaucracy”! In fact, it is not merely “the entrepreneurial
function” that loses its “autonomy”, its “individuality” under the iron law of
“socialization”, but it is also that “scientific research” that becomes
increasingly subsumed to the “political needs and wants” of “the system” rather
than be dictated by the narrow needs of industry or the exogeneity of “pure
research”. In other words, there may well be no scientifically ascertainable “mechanism of development” for the
simple reason that scientific activity itself (!) has lost its “autonomy” from
that “rational organization of free
labor” that is capitalist enterprise.
This is the more so, the “freer” that
“free labor” becomes – precisely by reason of its Demokratisierung and the constitution of the proletariat as a class (!) with its own “socialist
democratic” political parties that defies and prongs the state bureaucracy out
of its inertia, out of its myopic
search for “scientific equilibrium”! It is no
accident that the sub-title to Parlament
und Regierung refers specifically to the binary interplay, the antithetical
dualism between “Parteienwesen” (the nature of parties or party system) and
“Beamtentum” (bureaucracy)! To be sure, Schumpeter himself had foreshadowed
this problem during his discussion of his “problematic” in the quotations we
selected above:
In
other words, there is no true economic development, no development
emanating
from the economy itself, but only development that conforms
to
one pattern of imagination or does not conform to it. Yet, in any event
economic
development brings about extraeconomic
effects in the social
realm
that have further repercussions within the economy. This kind of
development
expresses itself everywhere in national life. (Schumpeter, ibidem)
But in pointing to the “personality”
and “leadership” of the entrepreneur, even within the confines of the Innovations-prozess, as the differentia specifica of capitalism,
Schumpeter neglected these essential “extraeconomic
effects” of modern capitalist industry and society that Weber is already
theorizing from the standpoint of political sociology and that Keynes will
start to dress up in economic garb after the Paris Conference of 1919: – (a)
the ineluctable presence of “conflict” in the relationship between market effective demand (or “wants”) and its
“provision” through development and growth; (b) the problematic of
bureaucratic-technical and scientific-technological capitalist organization of
this irreducible and irrepressible conflict; and then (c) the articulation of
the forms of political organization able to mediate the inevitable “dis-equilibria”
and “crises” that “development”
inevitably engenders so as to “govern” these effectively. This is the gigantic
task that Weber would now tackle with his overall “program” or Entwurf of Parlamentarisierung for the effective Regierung of a “re-constructed Germany ”
(neu-geordneten Deutschland).
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=24180
ReplyDeleteClearly Mark Sadowski blow Keynes out of the water here.