This is one of a series of posts that will ask what the most pertinent question raised by a prominent influencer of political economy might have been, and what the relevance of that question might be today. There is a list of all posts in the series at the end of each entry. The origin of this series is noted here. 

After the first two posts in this series, the topics have been chosen by me, and this is one of those. This series has been produced using what I describe as directed AI searches to establish positions with which I agree, followed by final editing before publication. 

This post refers to the Austrian (later American) economist, Joseph Schumpeter, with whose work I have always had a difficult relationship because it has been so heavily associated with right-wing thinkers, many of whom have abused it for their own purposes without appearing to understand it. That, though, provides reason to consider him in this series, because difficult and even contradictory people always demand attention. 

Joseph Schumpeter was one of the most unsettling economists of the twentieth century, in my opinion. He admired capitalism for its dynamism, its restless energy, and its power to transform. But he also foresaw that its very success would ultimately undermine it, in which sense he shared an opinion with Karl Marx, although for different reasons..

In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942), Schumpeter described capitalism as a process of “creative destruction.” He suggested entrepreneurs innovate, invent, and disrupt whilst creating new economic activity. As old industries collapse, new ones rise. Growth and progress emerge in that case from a process of perpetual upheaval. Capitalism's strength lies, as a consequence, in its instability and its ability to destroy the old to make way for the new.

But Schumpeter also saw a darker side. The same forces that drive innovation simultaneously, in his opinion, erode stability, community, and meaning. The capitalist process, he warned, “incessantly revolutionises the economic structure from within.” That constant churn undermines the very institutions, such as social cohesion, trust, and democracy, that keep it functioning.

Hence, the Schumpeter Question: if capitalism depends on endless innovation and destruction to renew itself, how can society survive the chaos it continually creates?

The romance of innovation

Schumpeter's vision of the entrepreneur remains iconic. In his view, the heroic innovator challenges convention, disrupts markets, and pushes society forward. This idea has become central to modern myth-making, from Silicon Valley to corporate boardrooms. The role of “disruptor” is now worn as a badge of honour.

But Schumpeter's entrepreneur was not a romantic figure. He (or she, although he wrote in a different era) was (and is), instead, an agent of upheaval. Each new wave of innovation renders existing skills obsolete, displaces workers, and wipes out businesses. The dynamism that makes capitalism thrive also ensures it can never be still.

Innovation is not a gentle progress; it is a process of creative destruction.

The cost of destruction

Schumpeter understood that this destruction has consequences. When industries collapse, communities fracture. When technologies change too fast, institutions struggle to adapt. When wealth shifts from production to speculation, social trust decays.

In that case, he foresaw that capitalism's own success could create discontent. As firms grow, he realised entrepreneurship could give way to bureaucracy. As wealth concentrates, he foresaw that elites could entrench themselves. And he realised that the development of monopolies could smother the creative spark of entrepreneurship, while the social resentment of those left behind could threaten political stability.

In short, capitalism's energy was also its entropy.

The technocratic illusion

Modern capitalism has embraced Schumpeter's language while ignoring his warning. “Creative destruction” has become a slogan to justify everything from automation to asset stripping. Politicians and executives invoke innovation as if it were an unqualified good.

But Schumpeter's point was subtler. Innovation is not costless. When new technologies displace workers faster than societies can retrain them, inequality rises. When digital platforms destroy traditional businesses without paying fair taxes or wages, public revenues fall. When finance treats speculation as innovation, it creates bubbles rather than progress.

Capitalism's problem is not that it innovates too little, but that it innovates without responsibility.

The political fragility of capitalism

Schumpeter was clear-eyed about capitalism's political vulnerability. He predicted that as the system matured, its social legitimacy would erode. The very success of capitalist enterprise would create a class of bureaucrats, financiers, and rentiers detached from production. The middle class, squeezed by uncertainty, would lose faith. Intellectuals, disillusioned by inequality, would turn against it.

He saw capitalism's downfall not in proletarian revolution but in moral exhaustion; a system that corrodes the values it depends upon.

That diagnosis feels extraordinarily contemporary.

The corporate capture of creativity

The Schumpeterian entrepreneur has long since been replaced by the corporation. Most innovation is now industrialised, managed by vast research budgets and defended by armies of lawyers. The energy of creative destruction has been channelled into oligopoly.

Big Tech exemplifies the irony: companies born as disruptors now crush competition, extract rents, and manipulate data. They innovate not to liberate but to dominate. The “creative” has been replaced by the “extractive.”

Schumpeter might have seen in these giants the terminal stage of capitalism, a system that destroys its creative function while preserving its destructive one.

The ecological contradiction

Schumpeter wrote before climate breakdown was visible, but his logic extends there, too. The compulsion to innovate, expand, and destroy cannot coexist indefinitely with planetary limits. The same system that renews itself through technological advances also devours finite resources. Creative destruction becomes literal destruction.

A society that consumes its environment to fuel its economy is not innovating — it is cannibalising its future.

What answering Schumpeter requires

To answer the Schumpeter Question, we must confront capitalism's addiction to disruption. We must ask whether a system that can survive only by destroying itself can ever be sustainable. That requires:

1. Social control of innovation so that technology serves social needs, not speculative gain.

2. Active transition management to protect workers and communities during industrial change instead of abandoning them to “the market.”

3. Democratic direction of investment to channel innovation into ecological and social repair, and not just consumption and financial engineering.

4. Revaluing stability to recognise that continuity, care, and maintenance are as valuable as novelty.

Inference

The Schumpeter Question asks whether capitalism's defining strength, which is its power to transform, is also its fatal weakness. Innovation, left ungoverned, becomes chaos. Destruction, left unaccounted, becomes decline.

Schumpeter saw that capitalism would eventually undermine the social fabric it needed to survive. His prophecy still holds: a system that thrives on disruption without direction, and profit without purpose, will destroy both itself and the societies that host it.

The challenge now

The challenge now is to recover creation without destruction, harnessing innovation for repair rather than ruin.

Only then might we escape Schumpeter's trap: an economy that renews itself by breaking the world on which it depends.

Previous posts in this series

• The economic questions
• Economic questions: The Henry Ford Question
• Economic questions: The Mark Carney Question
• Economics questions: The Keynes question
• Economics questions: The Karl Marx question
• Economics questions: the Milton Friedman question
• Economic questions: The Hayek question
• Economic questions: The James Buchanan question
• Economic questions: The J K Galbraith question
• Economic questions: the Hyman Minsky question

Comments 

When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.