Saturday, August 21, 2010

Elaboration on my interpretation of "creative destruction"

The FUNDAMENTAL impulse that sets and keeps the capitalist engine in motion comes from the NEW consumers, GOODS, the NEW METHODS of production or transportation, the new markets, the new forms of industrial ORGANIZATION that capitalist enterprise creates. [Note that some of these categories are related to scale and don't belong in a section on creativity, although they might stimulate true creativity in order to satisfy demand.]
[...]
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. It is what capitalism consists in and what every capitalist concern has got to live in....
Other 19th century formulations of this idea [creative destruction] include Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin, who wrote in 1842, "The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!"

‘Whoever must be a creator always annihilates.’

from Thus Spake Zarathustra by Freidrich Nietzsche [emphasis added]

Some will probably object to my analysis of the phrase "creative destruction," so I've decided to elaborate. After digging deeper into the subject, I am more convinced that I was on the right track from the start, and that this entire "economic theory" was created as a cover story for the real meaning of the term, which I contend originated as a sly reference to the process of devising new approaches to destroying civilization and mankind. Note that the quote from Mikhail Bakunin (actually a British agent, a member of Lord Palmerston's "zoo"), regarding "the passion for destruction" (a literally demonic compulsion) was included in the Wikipedia entry on "creative destruction"; I consider this to have been intended as a hint of what I contend is the dark reality underlying the phrase.

If we know anything about Larry the Snake, it's that he's all about destruction. Doesn't the passage "the emphasis he [Schumpeter] placed on the tremendous power of INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURIAL INITIATIVE TO DRIVE GROWTH through a process he famously CHARACTERIZED AS 'CREATIVE DESTRUCTION'" seem just a little contrived to you? Why would someone place emphasis on the power of creativity by including "destruction" in a term for it? Is there any need to point out, for example, that when airplanes were invented, they supplanted other modes of transport? Instead of creating "economic theories" about the obvious, society should be organized to minimize the destructive effects of these consequences, but without discouraging creativity. To some extent, this has been done, but CREATIVITY IS ACTIVELY SUPPRESSED WHEN IT INTERFERES WITH "CREATIVE DESTRUCTION." For example, nuclear energy has been suppressed through a combination of contrived "accidents" and irrational fear, and the revolutionary transport technology known as maglev has been suppressed with the phrase "there's no money," EVEN AS THE FED ISSUES TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR WORTHLESS PAPER ON THE BASIS OF THE INSINUATION THAT OUR ECONOMY IS BASED ON WORTHLESS PAPER. They are suppressed precisely because they would interfere with Satan's plan to destroy civilization. In other words, there's no money for real progress, but there's money for destroying civilization ("creative destruction"), partly by inflating the currency out of existence. (This is the real distinction between a central bank controlled by the oligarchy, and a national bank which serves the general welfare. Don't be deceived by the bogeyman of "fractional reserve banking" - the real issue is how the bank's credit is used.)