Jump to content

Talk:Creative destruction

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jennpublic (talk | contribs) at 17:32, 4 March 2023 (→Environmental destruction: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Marxist, not Schumpeterian

This article is virtually useless for most of the people who will be using it. The primary readers of this page are likely to be business and economics students looking to get an overview of the Schumpeterian model of Creative Destruction. Instead they are bombarded with a lot of Neo-Marxist philosophy based on Sombart's use of the term in a broken-widows style fallacy. This article should be completely re-written from the Schumpeterian point of view, with the Marxist elements added as an "Other interpretations" section" Aronradix (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the article is not balanced as information and the way information is given to the reader, in such way it forms an obvious bias, I can see the edits that contributed to it, I think the article is a candidate for {{Unbalanced}} top template. --Aleksd (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And to be more concrete the edits are major due to Marxist Greek editors (they seem to need to tell us something, I'd like to know what exactly). --Aleksd (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree! Have any of you actually read Schumpeter’s Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy? It discusses Marx in detail: the whole of Part I is devoted to a detailed interpretation of Marx’s thought! Sorry if that’s news to you, but it’s ludicrous to argue that the article is biased because it gives the back history to a concept Schumpeter himself got from Marx (and of course elaborated). Since when does Wikipedia only dole out knowledge that MBA students think they might need? We’re not an MBA textbook. The fact is, like it or not, that Schumpeter didn’t invent the concept himself. The term has a history, and Wikipedia needs to represent concepts historically and globally, not from the perspective of Anglo-Saxon/neoliberal business models. Therefore it’s only right that the article should follow a rough historical order and deal with the economic origins of the concept before it goes on to deal with Schumpeter’s use (which is not its primary use in fields such as geography, political economy, anthropology and cultural studies). If you find the article needs to say more about Schumpeter, then flesh out the sections on Schumpeter, but don’t attack it because it gives an historical overview of the concept. Those MBA students looking for information on Schumpeter might learn a thing or two. Oh, and by the way, I’m British, not Greek (OK, I’m half-Greek), and I can assure you that my edits here have nothing at all to do with the crisis of capitalism in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, USA, etc., though Schumpeter would have said “I told you so”! I’m also not a Marxist, and in case you hadn’t heard, the Cold War is over. Marx is no longer taboo, but is widely considered a serious analyst of the mechanisms of capitalism in academia (as he was by Schumpeter). Therefore, I do not believe the article is unbalanced, although it would be if it were only about Schumpeter’s interpretation of the concept as Aronradix wants it to be! GKantaris (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read Socialism and Democracy but I have read his History of Economic Analysis and find it absurd to think that Schumpeter did not owe a great intellectual debt to Marx. However, it seems to me to be a stretch to go from their to saying Marx has priority on creative destruction (which is not merely economic cycles but a very a particular mechanism whereby they come about) is a stretch. For this reason I think the article should be changed so that:
1. Schumpeterian priority for creative destruction should be labeled in the first line.
OK, that's reasonable. I've rearranged it as suggested. GKantaris (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. It is made clear that creative destruction is a theory of business cycles.
No problem with this. I've added a mention of and link to the business cycle in the lead. If you want more, suggest a wording! GKantaris (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3 Most of the stuff on Marx should be kept but rewritten for clarity and have the bit at the end which explains the phrase "creative destruction" is not Marx's should be moved to the top of the section where skimmers can see it.
I've moved that bit at the end to the top of that section. GKantaris (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Relabel all the Marx stuff a history section and put it near the bottom of the page.
Hmmm, it's already labelled as "History". And it would be bizarre for the History of a term to be presented in non-chronological order. People interested only in Schumperer's use of the idea can easily use the Table of Contents to jump straight to that section. GKantaris (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. on unrelated note: "The film Other People's Money provides contrasting views of creative destruction, presented in two speeches regarding the takeover of a publicly-traded wire and cable company in a small New England town. One speech is by a corporate raider, and the other is given by the company CEO, who is principally interested in protecting his employees and the town." Seriously? Unless someone objects or offers to fix it by making it unbiased, and, yea know, relevant I'm just gonna delete this section.
Yeah, it's weak (I didn't write it). Be bold, go ahead and edit! GKantaris (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walras101 (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to drop in and say that, having just read Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, he does not *directly* draw creative destruction from Marx. He certainly discusses Marx but the implication that he draws creative destruction directly from him is not representative of what I just read. And yes, I just read it straight through - and just because he talks about Marx first does not imply, quote: "...in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Schumpeter introduced the term "creative destruction", which he explicitly derived from Marxist thought (analysed extensively in Part I of the book)..." It is not "explicitly derived." Period. Cheers. 02:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:503:25A0:5C79:8062:17A:ED8F (talk)

Wanted to drop in and say that Schumpeter does not draw creative destruction from Marx within the text and certainly does not do so explicitly (which the articles says). This should be removed. One just needs to read the text to find this out. MHP Huck (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzsche

I feel that until there is a proper write-up on Nietzsche's use of creative destruction (see Reinart's book in the notes), he shouldn't have a section to himself. Certainly not just a quotation dumped under the heading Nietzsche. So I've temporarily moved the quotation to the "Other early usage" section, where Nietzsche was already discussed, and have written a brief lead-in to the quote. By all means reintroduce a dedicated section on Nietzsche, but only when you (whoever) have at least a paragraph explaining his use of the idea in his work. It should still be a subsection of History, though. GKantaris (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Creative destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin

From the Origin of Species (1859)...

The extinction of old forms is the almost inevitable consequence of the production of new forms.

Context...

Passing from these difficulties, the other great leading facts in palaeontology agree admirably with the theory of descent with modification through variation and natural selection. We can thus understand how it is that new species come in slowly and successively; how species of different classes do not necessarily change together, or at the same rate, or in the same degree; yet in the long run that all undergo modification to some extent. The extinction of old forms is the almost inevitable consequence of the production of new forms. We can understand why, when a species has once disappeared, it never reappears. Groups of species increase in numbers slowly, and endure for unequal periods of time; for the process of modification is necessarily slow, and depends on many complex contingencies. The dominant species belonging to large and dominant groups tend to leave many modified descendants, which form new sub-groups and groups. As these are formed, the species of the less vigorous groups, from their inferiority inherited from a common progenitor, tend to become extinct together, and to leave no modified offspring on the face of the earth. But the utter extinction of a whole group of species has sometimes been a slow process, from the survival of a few descendants, lingering in protected and isolated situations. When a group has once wholly disappeared, it does not reappear; for the link of generation has been broken.

From my perspective, the term evolutionary economics is redundant. Innovation, variation, natural selection, competition and creative destruction are equally relevant to economics and evolution. With this in mind, what did Marx contribute to our understanding of evolution? This article should have a lot less Marx and a lot more Darwin. 71.84.207.69 (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basic definition missing

Agree this is too technical. The intro is more of a detailed subsection and an intro needs to be written. PLEASE Jennpublic (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental destruction

Some analysis is being done of for example international real estate investment firms, purchasing carbon valuable forest then managing them for highest return and lowest environmental values

Environmental destruction is a major aspect of destructive capitalism by which capital value is extracted from earth resources via environmental destruction. 

Please anyone w the academic references …add this Jennpublic (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creative_destruction&oldid=1142841216"