Can Capitalism Survive? | Byun Sang-jin

Preface to the First Edition
Preface to the Second Edition

Part 1: Marx's Doctrine
Preface
Chapter 1: Marx the Prophet
Chapter 2: Marx the Sociologist
Chapter 3: Marx the Economist
Chapter 4: Master Marx

Part 2: Can Capitalism Survive?
Preface
Chapter 5 Growth Rate of Total Production
Chapter 6: Plausible Capitalism
Chapter 7: The Process of Creative Destruction
Chapter 8 Exclusive Execution
Chapter 9: Hunting Prohibited Season
Chapter 10: The Extinction of Investment Opportunities
Chapter 11: Capitalist Civilization
Chapter 12: The Walls Are Shattered
1.
The uselessness of the entrepreneurial function
2.
Destruction of the advocacy class
3.
Destruction of the institutional framework of capitalist society
Chapter 13: The Growing Enemy
1.
The social atmosphere of capitalism
2.
Sociology of Intellectuals
Chapter 14 Dismantling

Part 3: Can Socialism Work?
Chapter 15 Preparation
Chapter 16: The Blueprint for Socialism
Chapter 17: Comparison of Blueprints
1.
Preliminary points
2.
Discussion on comparative efficiency
3.
Arguments for the Superiority of the Socialist Blueprint
Chapter 18: Human Elements
warning
1.
Historical relativity of discussion
2.
Demigod, half-human, and archangel
3.
The problem of bureaucratic management
4.
Savings and discipline
5.
Discipline by Authority in Socialism - Lessons from Russia
Chapter 19 Mutations
1.
Two distinct problems
2.
Socialization in a mature state
3.
Socialization in an immature state
4.
Socialist policies before the enactment of the law - the British example

Part 4 Socialism and Democracy
Chapter 20: Background of the Problem
1.
dictatorship of the proletariat
2.
The history of socialist parties
3.
thought experiment
4.
The Quest for Justice
Chapter 21: Classical Democracy
1.
Public good and the will of the people
2.
The will of the people and individual will
3.
Humanity in Politics
4.
The reason for the survival of classical doctrine
Chapter 22 Another Theory of Democracy
1.
Competition for political leadership
2.
Application of the principle
Chapter 23 Conclusion
1.
Some implications of the above analysis
2.
Conditions for the success of democratic methods
3.
Democracy in a socialist order

Part 5: Historical Sketches of the Socialist Parties
Preface
Chapter 24: Childhood
Chapter 25: The Situation Marx Faced
Chapter 26: 1875 to 1914
1.
The development of Britain and the spirit of Fabianism
2.
Sweden and Russia
3.
American socialist groups
4.
Analysis of syndicalism in France
5.
Political parties and revisionism in Germany, socialists in Austria
6.
Second International
Chapter 27: From World War I to World War II
1.
“A colossal waste”
2.
The Impact of World War I on the Opportunities of European Socialist Parties
3.
Communism and Russian elements
4.
Aren't you managing capitalism?
5.
World War II and the Future of Socialist Parties
Chapter 28: The Consequences of World War II
1.
Britain and Orthodox Socialism
2.
America's economic possibilities
3.
Russian imperialism and communism

Commentary on subsequent developments
Preface to the Third British Edition (1949)
March towards Socialism

Schumpeter Chronology
Translator's Note
Search/Details
Search/Name

A book by American theoretical economist Joseph Schumpeter that examines the nature and prospects of capitalism and socialism.

Here he criticizes Marx's theory and foresees the fate of capitalism and socialism.

It also analyzes the various contradictions of democracy with deep insight from a political and social perspective.


Schumpeter was a world-renowned theoretical economist of the first half of the 20th century.
This book is the culmination of his 40 years of contemplation on economic and social issues.
Here, he analyzes the critique of Marx's theory, the fate of capitalism, and the various contradictions of democracy with broad and deep insight from a political and social perspective, going beyond the scope of pure economics.
His prophetic theories on socialism and capitalism have had a profound influence on numerous modern economic theorists.


Economic evolution is the mother of socialist revolution.
Austrian economist and socialist Otto Neurath lamented that “socialists had hitherto only criticized capitalism, so when the socialist revolution took place after World War I, socialization committees had to be convened to discuss the basic principles, and instead of producing a single program, only lengthy discussions unfolded, revealing all sorts of inconsistencies.”
To dispel such long-winded arguments, Schumpeter argued that the socialist revolution could succeed only after the rationalism promoted by capitalism socialized things and the human spirit, and he explained in detail the prerequisites for the success of socialism in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1942).
He argued that the revolution for socialism must be an economic revolution, never a political revolution, and he viewed the economic revolution as an evolutionary process that requires a long period of time.
In other words, he saw economic evolution as the mother of socialist revolution.

Humans are forced to rationalize their actions due to the necessity of surviving with limited resources.
Schumpeter believed that the economy develops from a normal economic form that does not develop as a result of rationalization, to a dynamic economic form that develops through the implementation of innovation by entrepreneurs, and finally to a large-scale economic form centered around large corporations.
He saw that in the final stage, innovation became the collaborative work of organized research teams rather than the work of a single, brilliant entrepreneur.
In other words, the entrepreneur's innovation work is socialized.
It was also observed that large corporate organizations tend to become bureaucratic.
He saw that this huge corporate organization could easily be run by someone else.
He saw the emergence of megacorporations as a major, if not the only, route to socialism.
In addition, it was believed that the human mind would gradually become socialized as these things changed.


Will Capitalism Survive?
Schumpeter argued that this advancement of socialization would increase the possibility of socialism.
Just as the main players in the process of transformation from feudalism to capitalism were the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, while the proletariat remained in the background, in the process of transformation from capitalism to socialism, entrepreneurs and bureaucrats played the main roles, and the proletariat played no role.
In other words, according to him, what destroys capitalism is not class struggle, but rationalism waiting at the door of capitalism.
By seeing it this way, he developed the paradoxical argument that capitalism would die not through its own failures but through its own successes, giving way to socialism.


Schumpeter believed that rationalism would destroy the supporters of capitalism inherited from the feudal era and undermine its very foundations.
It was also predicted that the expansion of political democracy would increase the desire for economic democracy.
As these needs increased, a greater portion of the social product would be diverted to uses other than those for which it was produced, and this would destroy the bourgeoisie's incentive to produce and save.
He believed that the decline of the bourgeoisie's motivation for economic activity would mean the decline of capitalist civilization, which was based on the bourgeoisie's value system.
This atrophy of the capitalist value system was accelerated by intellectuals with vested interests in the criticism fostered by capitalism's own logic, and it was predicted that this would even lead to a situation where the bourgeoisie would be educated by them rather than educate them.
Schumpeter emphasized the role of the bourgeoisie, which must defend capitalism, by arguing that the economic system that forms the basis of capitalist civilization is stable, but that capitalism will die due to a psychoneurotic illness that has developed in the superstructure that supports capitalism.


Why Socialist Countries Collapsed
Schumpeter believed that the socialism that emerged in some areas immediately after World War I or after World War II was not actually managing a socialist economy.
He saw the economy managed by the Bolsheviks as a Tsarist economy, not a socialist economy.
We can view the economies managed by the socialist countries of the former Eastern Bloc, North Korea, and China before its opening as pre-capitalist or peasant economies, rather than socialist economies.
Some scholars see the collapse of these socialist countries in the 1980s as a refutation of Schumpeter's theory of socialism.
However, this collapse can be seen as proving the validity of his theory rather than disproving it.
The adoption of a capitalist market economy by these countries may be the first step toward their desired (perhaps delusional) socialism.
It may take more than a century for them to take their next step.


Democracy is a means, not an end.
Schumpeter developed a new theory of democracy by examining the relationship between socialist order and democracy.
He refused to define democracy as 'rule by the people'.
Because I saw that the concept of the people and the concept of governance could not be precisely defined.
He also did not accept the definition of democracy as rule by representatives.
Because only individuals can delegate or be represented by representatives, not the people.
He viewed parliament as an organ of government, not a body representing the people.

Schumpeter refutes the 18th-century theory of democracy that in a democratic system, the ‘will of the people’ would converge on the ‘public good.’
Because there would be no public good or people's will that could be rationally determined.
After developing this argument, he presented the argument that democracy should be defined as a 'method'.
In other words, he presented the concept of democracy as a means, not an end in itself.
In other words, “democratic methods are institutional devices for reaching political decisions.
Within this apparatus, individuals acquire the power to decide through a competitive struggle for the people's votes." He proposed the concept of democracy as elite rule, arguing that "democracy can be defined as the rule of politicians, not the rule of the people, because groups act almost entirely by accepting leadership."
His theory of democracy greatly opened up new horizons for democratic theory in political science.