Schumpeter: Profit, Innovation and Class Antagonism
Surely, nothing can be more plain than the proposition that innovation, as conceived by us, is at
the center of practically all the phenomena, difficulties, and problems of
economic life in capitalist society and that they, as well as the extreme
sensitiveness of capitalism to disturbance, would be absent if productive
resources flowed every year through substantially the same channels toward
substantially the same goals, or were prevented from doing so only by external
influences, [Business Cycles, p.83]
The non sequitur in Schumpeter’s proposition above could indeed not be
“more plain”: for, as he himself contends in this same work, the primary motivation
for innovation is “profit”, not innovation:
Motivation [for
innovation] is supplied by the prospect
of profit in our sense which does not, be it remembered, presuppose either
an actual or an expected rise in prices and expenditure,” [BC 133].)
Furthermore, Schumpeter neglects
the obvious fact that profit as a monetary entity, or even as a given rate
of profit, is not the central objective of capitalist enterprise. Rather, the
central objective of capitalist enterprise is the accumulation of capital, which
is the limitless pursuit of profit. It ought to follow therefore that
profit is the reason for innovation and is also thereby “at the center of practically all the phenomena, difficulties, and problems
of economic life in capitalist society”.
Schumpeter’s attempt to theorise
the Innovationsprozess by isolating
the role of entrepreneurial innovation - whose motivation is to realize
profit from active enterprise - from that of capitalist finance, whose
aim is to collect interest and rent, appears
at first to be entirely artificial because the functions of capital in seeking
either profit or interest and rent are really moments of the one process, which is that of profitable investment,
for the simple reason that interest and rent
are paid out of profits (!) and cannot therefore be distinguished except as
different tactical moments of the overall
capitalist goal of accumulation.
Yet, it is precisely this tactical distinction between what appear to be relatively insignificant moments of the operation of the
capitalist economy that is absolutely crucial to understanding and appreciating
the overriding importance of Schumpeter’s contribution not just to economic
theory but indeed to social theory – something that his critics have strenuously
denied, preferring to concentrate instead on his apparent “failure to integrate
theory and history, economics and sociology” (Moira). That this crucial
juncture of the moments of capitalist
investment, innovation as distinct from profit, profit as
distinct from interest and rent, and enterprise as
distinct from finance – that this essential chasm at the heart of capitalism
was absolutely paramount to Schumpeter can be gleaned from his elaboration of
his thesis:
But in the
sphere of business, innovation is the pillar of interest, both because
the profit it yields to the successful entrepreneur is the typical reason
for a readiness to pay interest—for looking upon present dollars as a
means of getting more dollars in the future—and because, as we
have seen, borrowing is, in the situation of an entrepreneur, the typical
means of getting those present dollars, (BC 125).
Even a child would know that what
Schumpeter surely ought to have said is that it is profit, not innovation (!),
that is “the pillar of interest”, - because profit is what must be realized by
a capitalist borrower before interest can be paid to the lender! From the
standpoint of either Classical or Neo-classical economic theory, it would seem
that, had Schumpeter written instead that “innovation is the pillar of profit”,
he would quickly have noticed his error – because the purpose of the innovator
is to pursue profit even before an innovation comes into existence. In the
economic sphere (rather than, say, in the artistic one), innovation is only a
means to an end – profit; it is not an end in itself! Most important,
innovation is essential to capitalist enterprise for the related though distinct
reasons that capitalists need innovation to counter workers’ antagonism in the process
of production (valourization), and they need it to defeat other capitalists in
the process of market competition (realization). As such, innovation can only
play an instrumental role in a capitalist economy that cannot yield it the
aetiological, causational and motivational role that Schumpeter seeks to assign
to it. Therefore, the functions of the
entrepreneur and of the capitalist cannot be as distinct as Schumpeter contends
or would wish.
This critical
point was perspicuously articulated by one of Schumpeter’s most genial pupils,
Paul Sweezy, in his The Present As
History. Sweezy correctly focuses on the problem of profit and accumulation
as motivations for the innovation process which we will examine in greater
detail toward the end of this essay. If there is one thing that must be said
about Marx’s critique of capitalism with complete certainty is that capitalists
must innovate methods of production
to reduce wage costs because of workers’ antagonism over the wage relation. It
is therefore quite ludicrous for Schumpeter to insist as he did on this point
to differentiate his theory from - and indeed even to claim to surpass - that
of Marx! But Sweezy’s failure to challenge Schumpeter’s antinomies between
entrepreneurial subjectivity in the innovative pursuit of profit and the
“scientific” status of this pursuit – and therefore of capitalist accumulation
- only serves to expose the limitations of his own “underconsumptionist”
approach based on the spurious scientistic
foundations of the Marxian labour theory of value which ultimately relies on a quantifiable notion of “surplus value”.
Innovation is the subjective aspect
of capitalist command or “entrepreneurial Act” over living labour that causes
the economic system objectively to be jolted out of its equilibrium position
and thereby makes profit economically possible. Sweezy does not capture this
“disturbing act” (Storungen) because he understands “competition” in a “formal”
sense but not in its “subjective” implications. Formally, competition between
capitalists need not result in innovation – it could be just expanded
reproduction (the mechanical reinvestment of profits) or price and other forms
of competition that lead to the evaporation of profits. But innovation, as
Schumpeter validly emphasizes, is a separate action requiring “leadership”. Here is once more in the economic
sphere that Weberian leitender Geist that Schumpeter transmutes into the
Unternehmer-geist. Sweezy does not capture this political aspect
of Schumpeter’s theory and relies instead on Marx’s “utilitarian automatism” in
that “surplus value is automatically
reinvested” in Marx’s schema of expanded reproduction as a result of its being
a quantity, that is, the amount of “socially necessary labour” over
and above what is needed to reproduce the labour force! In the Marxian
analysis, surplus value is “theft of labour time” – which is why there is no
need for innovation!
It is clear here that the essence of
Schumpeter’s hypothesis is what all bourgeois economic analysis before him and
ever since has failed to grasp. What Schumpeter is concentrating on here is not
the quantum of “wealth” or “profit”
that may well be the “ultimate” aim of capitalist enterprise: No! What
Schumpeter is doing is shift the focus of his theorization of capitalism from
the “utilitarian/hedonistic” ultimate ends, from the “gain” or “profit”, to the
very essence of profit and competition, to their “procedural” or “operational”
implementation that overflows unavoidably into the political sphere, turning
therefore from mere “profit” or “ownership” or “welfare” into social power!
In other words, it is impossible to account for innovation without introducing
politics or imperfect competition in the concept of pure competition itself as
a necessary or logical aspect of its ec-sistence!
True it is, Schumpeter is saying,
that everyone in society, capitalist or worker, aims at increasing wealth in
the form of greater “ownership” of material possessions, be this in the form of
profit or interest or rent. And true it is that throughout history this would
involve some form of competition between economic agents. But the cardinal
point about the capitalist economy and society is that market competition has replaced
or subsumed to itself all other forms of social power without, for that fact,
subtracting itself from social power. In other words, competition as an
operational or procedural reality in capitalism must go beyond the confines of
its hedonistic or utilitarian content – the acquisition of
wealth - and pro-duce (literally,
bring forth) and invest the political institutions that can keep it alive, to
the point where this pursuit becomes an un-eudaemonic sacrifice (cf. Weber in
the Bemerkungen to the Protestant Ethic) – a veritable Schopenhauerian
Entsagung (ascetic renunciation)! And this also runs contrary to the
Classical and Neoclassical approaches to economic theory founded respectively
on capitalist accumulation and on equilibrium welfare maximization, both of
which treat economic activity as pure market exchange. (In Classical Political
Economy, living labour is seen as a commodity like any other, available for
exchange with the wage being its market price.)
There are two aspects to the notion
of profit that need examination,
then. The first aspect of profit is that it leads to greater utility or welfare
and this can arise from pure exchange in conditions of pure competition albeit
only temporarily or provisionally. An economic theory that focuses merely on
this utilitarian/hedonistic aspect of
profit will not include innovation in its account of profitable economic
activity, first because profit-seeking is more consistent with the goal of
consumption than with investment as an end in itself; and second because profit
can be defined as the gain derived from exchange independently of production or else as arising from a given
production function, as in Marx’s schema of expanded reproduction where surplus
value is re-invested “automatically”. The other aspect of profit is that the
implementation of means to it, the profit-making
side of profit, requires the breach of conditions of perfect competition,
because where competition is perfect it will be impossible to make a profit except
through exchange, therefore only in provisional and temporary form as part of
the adjustment necessary for equilibrium prices to be determined, as in
Walrasian tatonnement, but not indefinitely as required by the notion
and reality of “capitalist accumulation”.
Let us
visualize an entrepreneur who, in a perfect competitive society, carries
out an innovation which consists in producing a commodity already in
common use at a total cost per unit lower than that of any existing firm
because his new method uses a smaller amount of some or all factors per unit of
product. In this case, he will buy the producers' goods he needs at the
prevailing prices which are adjusted to the conditions under which
"old" firms work, and he will sell his product at the prevailing
price adjusted to the costs of those "old" firms. It follows that his receipts will exceed his
costs. The difference we shall call Entrepreneurs' Profit, or simply Profit. It
is the premium put upon successful innovation in capitalist society and is temporary by nature: it will vanish in
the subsequent process of
competition and adaptation. There is no tendency toward equalization of
these temporary premia. Although we have thus deduced profit only for one
particular case of innovation and only for conditions of perfect competition,
the argument can readily be extended to cover all other cases and conditions. (Business Cycles, [1939] p.104)
The
entrepreneur is the subjective factor that can switch on the mechanism of pure
equilibrium theory – he is the “impure” external force (Bobbio, Da Hobbes,
circa p.65) that gives “content” or “soul” to the “pure” internal form (Kant,
Simmel). The Schumpeterian entrepreneur is like a sculptor that works the brute
inert matter of a stone and by so doing brings it to life.
Marx never pursued this logico-theoretical line of inquiry,
preferring instead to pursue the purely historical
path of political antagonism. Indeed, the reason why Schumpeter stressed (with
the intellectual decency that characterized him) the unique “unity” of economic
and sociological analysis in Marx’s critique of economic theory was precisely
the fact that Marx’s definition of political antagonism contained already or
pre-supposed the convergence of human interests that would lead to its supersession!
No such “utilitarian/hedonistic” convergence (recall Marx’s doctoral thesis on
Epicurus) is possible in the negatives
Denken to which Schumpeter belonged and that runs from Hobbes to Hayek
going through Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Weber, Heidegger and the Austrian
School!
The point to stress is that although
Schumpeter’s thesis is certainly encompassed by Marx’s theory of political
antagonism of the wage relation, Schumpeter’s originality lies in deriving or
inferring this conclusion from the very axiomatic conditions of “pure
competition” in both Classical and Neoclassical economic theory – something
that even Marx failed to do given that (a) he did not question or examine internally the concept of competition
itself, (b) he probably entertained the thought of both competition and
equilibrium as internally consistent and valid concepts, and (c) he always
strenuously upheld the notion of “objective science” if not technology as
separate from or exogenous to capitalist social relations of production, at
least epistemologically. Schumpeter - difficile
dictu! - actually challenges all these points from within the bourgeois
standpoint by making explicit both the “instrumentality” of his “science” and
of its apories.
Schumpeter’s distinction between
innovation and profit as distinct from mere interest and rent, between
entrepreneur and capitalist, between leadership and ownership, is valid only
for economic theories that do not allow for political antagonism and also for
theories like the Marxian that, although they allow for antagonism, do not
address it explicitly as a necessary requirement of the ec-sistence of the concept of pure competition. Schumpeter’s
advance on Marx is to show the logical necessity of innovation out of the profit-seeking assumptions of pure
competition! Marx certainly failed to notice and to enucleate this essential theoretical point.
It is leadership
rather than ownership that matters. The failure to see this and, as a
consequence, to visualize clearly entrepreneurial activity as a distinct function sui generis is the common fault of both the economic and the sociological
analysis of both the classics and of Karl Marx, (BC, pp.102.)
Schumpeter writes [in History of Economic Analysis] also that
“[for Marx,] accumulated capital invests
itself in a wholly automatic manner”. As we saw in the note above,
Schumpeter is quite simply as wrong on Marx on this point as is humanly
possible to be. Hollander and Sweezy rightly dispute Schumpeter’s view too, but
on totally spurious grounds. Of course, if we define capital as a “quantity”, a
“surplus”, as does Sweezy [cf. his The
Theory of Capitalist Development], then the generation and reinvestment of
this surplus and profit becomes “wholly automatic” for capital even though the
ultimate motivation for seeking this “surplus” may be social power, as Sweezy
allows. What we are showing here is that capital, and therefore value, as
Marx amply demonstrated, is not a quantity but a social relation, which
requires innovation, and therefore entrepreneurial capitalists, for capitalist
social relations of production to be kept antagonistically alive. To the
extent that Marx believed that [a] surplus value is a quantity and therefore
innovation is about the relative share of production going to capitalists and
workers and [b] that science and technology are exogenous to capitalist relations
of production, and insofar as Marx did not derive the necessity of innovation
and leadership from a conceptual critique of the notion of pure market competition,
then Schumpeter’s charge is quite founded.
Blaug echoes Schumpeter on this criticism of Marx. Both
are quoted in N. Hollander, The Economics
of Karl Marx at p.410. Hollander concentrates instead on Marx’s allowance
for “uncertainty” for the necessity of leadership in deciding the direction of
investment at least in the early stages of capitalism [pp.410ff]. Both
Hollander and Blaug, however, completely miss the point that we are making
here: It is not “uncertainty” that engenders “leadership”; it is conflict as
political antagonism – among capitalists, for Schumpeter, and between
capitalists and workers for Marx. But antagonism here does not mean, as it does
even for Sweezy, conflict over “the surplus” or “surplus value”; it is not a
struggle over quantum because value in capitalism is not a quantity
and only its monetary form, profit, is quantifiable! Blaug upbraids Marx for
overlooking Schumpeter’s pioneering distinction which, for him, explains the
“technical dynamism of capitalism”. Here Blaug has truly put the cart before
the horse and then got himself into the most vicious of vicious circles: the
entrepreneur is defined as “the agent
of technically dynamic economic change”; ergo,
capitalist technical dynamism cannot be explained unless there is an entrepreneur!
But if the entrepreneur is an agent sui
generis, in what historically and conceptually specific way must he be
connected with capitalism? Why not have “feudal entrepreneurs” instead?
Of course, because leadership and ownership are different moments
of capitalist industry, we should speak not of “entrepreneurs” and
“capitalists” as does Schumpeter, but rather of “capitalist entrepreneurs” and
“capitalist financiers”. The fact remains that capitalist financiers only
entrust capital with capitalist entrepreneurs if the latter have “skin in the
game”. In some ways, capitalist entrepreneurs bear far greater personal risks
than do capitalist financiers who are able “to socialize” their losses.
Consequently, “risk” or uncertainty cannot be the true source and rationale of
Schumpeter’s distinction, regardless of what he claims [at pp.103-4 of BC, just
after the passage quoted above].
No comments:
Post a Comment