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

资本主义、社会主义与民主

约瑟夫·熊彼特

资本主义靠不断摧毁自己的旧物而生长。

Choose your version
In depth · the introduction

大多数经济学问的是:一个市场如何把已有的东西分配下去。熊彼特却问了一个更奇怪的问题:那些新东西,究竟从何而来——又有什么,必须先死去,才能给它们腾出位置?

核心想法

熊彼特说,关于资本主义最深的真相,不是平衡,而是动荡。新产品、新机器、做生意的新方式不断到来,把旧的一切抹去——煤气灯、马车、街角的录像带店。他把这叫作「创造性破坏」,并说它是「资本主义的本质事实」。一个经济,与其说是一台平稳的机器,不如说是一片定期燃烧、好让新生长扎根的森林。

这重新定义了「竞争」本身。对一家公司真正的威胁,通常不是对手把同一种产品削价一分钱,而是有人带着一种全新的产品或方法出现,让旧的那个变得多余。当上那个「有人」的酬报,是一阵利润的迸发——这正是为什么会有人费心去创新,也正是模仿者随后竞争掉的东西。

它是如何诞生的

约瑟夫·熊彼特是个才华横溢、爱演戏的奥地利人。他爱说,自己曾立志要做世上最伟大的经济学家、骑手与情人——结果只在骑术上失了手。他当过本国的财政部长、当过一家银行的行长(银行垮了),到 1930 年代成了哈佛的教授,眼看着对手凯恩斯、以及马克思的幽灵主宰着这个时代。

他在第二次世界大战期间写下《资本主义、社会主义与民主》(1942),那时资本主义仿佛正夹在法西斯主义与共产主义之间受审。这本书一半是经济学,一半是历史,一半是预言。它最有名的时刻,也是最阴郁的:被问到「资本主义能否存续?」,他答道:「不能。我认为它不能」——不是因为它会失败,而是因为它会成功得如此彻底,以至于溶解掉支撑它的那种文化。在那个悲观的预言上,他错了;在「创造性破坏」上,他叫人难忘。

它为何重要

熊彼特把创新放到了经济学的中心——在那里,他的同代人放的是均衡,马克思放的是阶级斗争。「创造性破坏」成了我们描述技术与整个行业兴衰的标准说法,也成了为市场的「乱」所作的一种标准辩护:那种关停工厂、终结职业的churn,恰恰也是送来更便宜的商品、新的工作与进步的同一股力量。几乎每一场关于「颠覆」、初创企业、以及该不该扶持衰落行业的现代争论,都是他框定的。

一个可以想象的画面

想想一片森林。远看它仿佛恒久不变,可它正是靠扰动而活:一场火、或一棵巨树倒下,撕开一道缝隙,于是迅速生长的幼苗一拥而入——它们在从前的浓荫里本无法存活。几十年后,那道缝隙成了新的树冠——直到下一次扰动,又把它放倒。熊彼特的经济,正是这样运转。凑近看,那些火像是纯粹的损失——一家倒闭的公司、一项变得一文不值的技能——可它们恰恰是让整片森林持续生长的东西。把火彻底禁绝,你得到的不是一片更安全的森林,而是一片死气沉沉的森林。

一张六十年市场份额的堆叠图,每条彩色带是一代技术。滑块设定新技术多久来一次;每条带从顶部升起,称霸一阵,再被下一代向下挤出——滑得越快,带就越窄、越拥挤。

它的位置

熊彼特,与本馆中其他经济学家彼此对话。他从马克思那里借来了「变化」的引擎——他对马克思既敬重、又长篇批评——却否定了马克思的结局。他站在亚当·斯密那只安详的「看不见的手」的对面,坚持说:那只手在不停地把东西打翻。而他,是他的对手凯恩斯的一大对照:凯恩斯操心需求与短期(「长期来看,我们都死了」),熊彼特在意的是供给与长期——是那阵重塑「生产什么」的风。今天的「创新经济学」、以及「颠覆」这整套词汇,都是他的后裔。

The original document
Original source text

第二部序言——资本主义能否存续?

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——创造性破坏的过程

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——一种击向根基的竞争

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——崩塌的高墙:企业家的多余化

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