JOVANA
Explore Library Glossary Getting Started Three Levels Fields How it works Mission
Join the mission
Back to the library
經濟學 1942

資本主義、社會主義與民主

約瑟夫·熊彼特

資本主義靠不斷摧毀自己的舊物而生長。

Choose your version
In depth · the introduction

大多數經濟學問的是:一個市場如何把已有的東西分配下去。熊彼特卻問了一個更奇怪的問題:那些新東西,究竟從何而來——又有什麼,必須先死去,才能給它們騰出位置?

核心想法

熊彼特說,關於資本主義最深的真相,不是平衡,而是動盪。新產品、新機器、做生意的新方式不斷到來,把舊的一切抹去——煤氣燈、馬車、街角的錄影帶店。他把這叫作「創造性破壞」,並說它是「資本主義的本質事實」。一個經濟,與其說是一台平穩的機器,不如說是一片定期燃燒、好讓新生長扎根的森林。

這重新定義了「競爭」本身。對一家公司真正的威脅,通常不是對手把同一種產品削價一分錢,而是有人帶著一種全新的產品或方法出現,讓舊的那個變得多餘。當上那個「有人」的酬報,是一陣利潤的迸發——這正是為什麼會有人費心去創新,也正是模仿者隨後競爭掉的東西。

它是如何誕生的

約瑟夫·熊彼特是個才華橫溢、愛演戲的奧地利人。他愛說,自己曾立志要做世上最偉大的經濟學家、騎手與情人——結果只在騎術上失了手。他當過本國的財政部長、當過一家銀行的行長(銀行垮了),到 1930 年代成了哈佛的教授,眼看著對手凱因斯、以及馬克思的幽靈主宰著這個時代。

他在第二次世界大戰期間寫下《資本主義、社會主義與民主》(1942),那時資本主義彷彿正夾在法西斯主義與共產主義之間受審。這本書一半是經濟學,一半是歷史,一半是預言。它最有名的時刻,也是最陰鬱的:被問到「資本主義能否存續?」,他答道:「不能。我認為它不能」——不是因為它會失敗,而是因為它會成功得如此徹底,以至於溶解掉支撐它的那種文化。在那個悲觀的預言上,他錯了;在「創造性破壞」上,他叫人難忘。

它為何重要

熊彼特把創新放到了經濟學的中心——在那裡,他的同代人放的是均衡,馬克思放的是階級鬥爭。「創造性破壞」成了我們描述技術與整個行業興衰的標準說法,也成了為市場的「亂」所作的一種標準辯護:那種關停工廠、終結職業的翻騰,恰恰也是送來更便宜的商品、新的工作與進步的同一股力量。幾乎每一場關於「顛覆」、新創企業、以及該不該扶持衰落行業的現代爭論,都是他框定的。

一個可以想像的畫面

想想一片森林。遠看它彷彿恆久不變,可它正是靠擾動而活:一場火、或一棵巨樹倒下,撕開一道縫隙,於是迅速生長的幼苗一擁而入——它們在從前的濃蔭裡本無法存活。幾十年後,那道縫隙成了新的樹冠——直到下一次擾動,又把它放倒。熊彼特的經濟,正是這樣運轉。湊近看,那些火像是純粹的損失——一家倒閉的公司、一項變得一文不值的技能——可它們恰恰是讓整片森林持續生長的東西。把火徹底禁絕,你得到的不是一片更安全的森林,而是一片死氣沉沉的森林。

一張六十年市場份額的堆疊圖,每條彩色帶是一代技術。滑桿設定新技術多久來一次;每條帶從頂部升起,稱霸一陣,再被下一代向下擠出——滑得越快,帶就越窄、越擁擠。

它的位置

熊彼特,與本館中其他經濟學家彼此對話。他從馬克思那裡借來了「變化」的引擎——他對馬克思既敬重、又長篇批評——卻否定了馬克思的結局。他站在亞當·斯密那隻安詳的「看不見的手」的對面,堅持說:那隻手在不停地把東西打翻。而他,是他的對手凱因斯的一大對照:凱因斯操心需求與短期(「長期來看,我們都死了」),熊彼特在意的是供給與長期——是那陣重塑「生產什麼」的風。今天的「創新經濟學」、以及「顛覆」這整套詞彙,都是他的後裔。

The original document
Original source text

第二部序言——資本主義能否存續?

J. A. Schumpeter · Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy · 1942 · Part II, Prologue
Can capitalism survive? No. I do not think it can.
Schumpeter is quick to add that the answer matters less than the facts and arguments behind it. His verdict is the mirror-image of Marx's: capitalism will fall not from failure but from success — its own achievements eroding the institutions and the temper of mind that sustain it.

第七章——創造性破壞的過程

Part II, Ch. VII · The Process of Creative Destruction
Capitalism, then, is by nature a form or method of economic change and not only never is but never can be stationary.
The opening up of new markets, foreign or domestic, and the organizational development from the craft shop and factory to such concerns as U.S. Steel illustrate the same process of industrial mutation—if I may use that biological term—that 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 being visualized is how capitalism administers existing structures, whereas the relevant problem is how it creates and destroys them.

第七章——一種擊向根基的競爭

Part II, Ch. VII · The Process of Creative Destruction
But in capitalist reality as distinguished from its textbook picture, it is not that kind of competition which counts but the competition from the new commodity, the new technology, the new source of supply, the new type of organization (the largest-scale unit of control for instance)—competition which commands a decisive cost or quality advantage and which strikes not at the margins of the profits and the outputs of the existing firms but at their foundations and their very lives.
It is against this “perennial gale of creative destruction,” Schumpeter argues, that every piece of business strategy must be read. A monopoly that looks like a permanent fortress in a snapshot may, over time, be only a temporary shelter from the next gale.

第十二章——崩塌的高牆:企業家的多餘化

Part II, Ch. XII · Crumbling Walls
Innovation itself is being reduced to routine. Technological progress is increasingly becoming the business of teams of trained specialists who turn out what is required and make it work in predictable ways.
If the heroic entrepreneur is replaced by the corporate research department, Schumpeter reasons, then capitalism is quietly automating away the very function — and the social type — that gave it its drive and its legitimacy.
J. A. Schumpeter · Harvard · 1942