Author’s Note. More than a decade ago, together with Rainer Kattel, we argued that, from a Schumpeterian perspective, development is best understood not as convergence or catch-up, but as leapfrogging. Looking back, that intuition seems to have aged remarkably well. As technological rivalry, industrial policy, and China’s rise move to the center of contemporary debates, the concept appears more relevant than ever. This essay returns to that earlier line of inquiry, but with a different objective: to reconstruct the intellectual foundations of leapfrogging through the work of Trotsky, Gerschenkron, and Schumpeter, and to explore whether contemporary China represents the first large-scale attempt to institutionalize it. In that sense, the essay is both a continuation and a reconsideration of a conversation that began more than ten years ago.

Preface

“Leapfrogging” has become one of the most fashionable expressions in contemporary discussions of technology, development, and geopolitics. China is leapfrogging the West. Artificial intelligence allows countries to leapfrog industrialization. Digital payments enable developing economies to leapfrog banking systems. Electric vehicles permit newcomers to leapfrog established automotive powers.

The term appears everywhere. Politicians use it. Consultants celebrate it. Journalists repeat it. Yet the more frequently it is invoked, the less clear its meaning becomes.

What exactly is leapfrogging? How is it different from catching up? Under what conditions does it occur? And perhaps most importantly, why has it remained such a rare historical phenomenon?

The striking aspect of the contemporary fascination with leapfrogging is that it often focuses on outcomes while neglecting the mechanisms. We are constantly told that countries, firms, or technologies have leapfrogged. We are rarely told how the leap occurred, why it occurred there rather than elsewhere, or whether it can be repeated.

As a result, leapfrogging increasingly resembles one of those concepts that everybody uses, and nobody defines. Perhaps the surprise is that the elements required to explain leapfrogging have existed for more than a century. They are simply scattered across thinkers who are rarely placed in the same conversation.

Subscribe now

Introduction

The journey begins in an unexpected place. Much of the critical social theory tradition was not concerned with leapfrogging at all. Marx, Weber, and many of their successors were primarily concerned with explaining why development appeared so difficult outside the small group of countries that pioneered industrial capitalism.

Later generations, from Rosa Luxemburg to dependency theorists, shifted attention toward the international system itself, but often arrived at a similarly pessimistic conclusion: underdevelopment. Development was the exception; underdevelopment was the rule.

Against this backdrop, a different intellectual tradition gradually emerged.

Trotsky raised the possibility that latecomers might skip stages rather than replicate the pioneers' historical path. Gerschenkron explained how backwardness itself could generate developmental advantages under the right institutional conditions. Schumpeter provided the missing economics, showing how innovation, entrepreneurial competition, finance, and creative destruction generate the discontinuities through which leapfrogging occurs.

Together, these thinkers bring us remarkably close to an analytical explanation of leapfrogging. Yet one question remains.

Leapfrogging has historically been exceptional. Most countries do not repeatedly reinvent themselves around successive technological paradigms. Most experience episodes of modernization, industrialization, or growth, but few repeatedly move toward the frontier as that frontier itself shifts.

This is where contemporary China enters the story.

China’s significance lies not merely in the scale of its economic rise, impressive as that has been. Nor does it lie solely in its emergence as a technological competitor to the United States. The deeper question concerns whether China represents something historically new: the attempt to transform leapfrogging from an occasional developmental event into a systematic developmental capability.

Marx, Weber, and Civilizational Pessimism

Despite their profound differences, Marx and Weber shared a skepticism about the developmental prospects of much of Asia. Whether expressed through the Asiatic Mode of Production or through the absence of the cultural and institutional foundations of rational capitalism, both saw powerful obstacles to autonomous capitalist development outside the West.

Marx and Engels repeatedly suggested that countries such as India and China were trapped in social structures that impeded endogenous transformation. Colonialism was therefore viewed as simultaneously destructive and historically transformative. As Marx put it in his discussion of British rule in India, England had “a double mission in India: one destructive, the other regenerating” (Marx, 1853). British rule was condemned for its brutality but also interpreted as a force that dissolved stagnant social relations and integrated previously isolated societies into world history. In this sense, capitalist development arrived from the outside, through conquest and incorporation into a global system whose center lay in Western Europe.

Weber’s argument differed substantially but pointed in a similar direction. The absence of the cultural and institutional foundations associated with rational capitalism appeared to place major Asian civilizations at a disadvantage relative to the West. Yet, as Stanislav Andreski observed in his incisive critique of Weber’s sociology of religion, many of these claims rested on fragile foundations. Weber implicitly assumed a correspondence between religious beliefs and economic rationality that historical evidence often fails to support. As Andreski noted, “there is no chronological correspondence” between advances in science, production, organization, and religious change (1984, 82). Indeed, he went further, arguing that “if religions were ranked according to their compatibility with scientific reasoning, Confucianism would occupy the leading position” (1984, 84).

For all their differences, Marx and Weber arrived at a similar conclusion. The problem was not how latecomers might leap ahead, but why they seemed unable to do so. Development appeared as a largely Western achievement, while much of the rest of the world was cast as trapped by historical, cultural, or institutional constraints. Their theories differed sharply, but both rested on a common assumption: modernity had a geographic center, and it was not in Asia.

In contrast, Sven Beckert opens his magnificent Capitalism: A Global History by reminding readers that, from at least the twelfth century onward, multiple “islands of capital” flourished in places as diverse as Aden, Aleppo, Bukhara, Calicut, Hangzhou, and later Potosí. More importantly, he rejects the notion of a singular birthplace of capitalism altogether. “It is impossible to pinpoint an exact place or moment when capitalism began”.

“Capitalism is a process, not a discrete historical event with a beginning and an end, and it did not drop fully formed into a particular location” (Beckert, 2025, p. 29). Beckert does not provide a theory of development. What he does provide is a powerful corrective to the assumption that modernity possessed an exclusively European genealogy.

The implication is profound. If capitalism emerged through interactions spanning multiple regions rather than from a uniquely European source, then the developmental monopoly implicitly assumed by both Marx and Weber becomes considerably more difficult to sustain.

Rosa Luxemburg, Dependency Theory, and the Persistence of Underdevelopment

The next major shift in the debate moved beyond the internal characteristics of societies and toward the structure of the international system itself.

For Rosa Luxemburg, capitalism could not reproduce itself within a closed capitalist system. Its expansion depended upon the continuous incorporation of non-capitalist territories and social formations. As she put it, “capital needs non-capitalist social strata as a market for its surplus value.” (1913, Introduction).

Dependency theorists transformed this insight into a broader framework for understanding global hierarchy. From Raúl Prebisch’s center-periphery analysis to the more radical formulations of André Gunder Frank, and later the sophisticated historical and political analyses of Fernando Cardoso and Faletto, and, especially, Giovanni Arrighi, the central concern became explaining why development appeared so exceptional while underdevelopment proved so persistent.

The question itself had changed. Marx and Weber focused primarily on the obstacles residing within non-European societies. Dependency theorists redirected attention toward the international structures within which those societies operated. The source of backwardness was no longer sought primarily in culture, institutions, or social organization, but in unequal patterns of exchange, specialization, finance, and power embedded in the world economy.

This represented an important break with the Eurocentric assumptions that often underlay earlier accounts of development. Yet the conclusion remained remarkably similar. Integration into the global economy was more likely to reproduce dependency than to overcome it. Development remained the exception; underdevelopment remained the rule.

In this sense, dependency theory achieved something important and paradoxical. It successfully provincialized Europe, but it did not fundamentally rehabilitate the developmental prospects of latecomers. The puzzle was still why countries failed to develop, not how they might leap ahead.

Trotsky and Gerschenkron: The Possibility and Institutions of Leapfrogging

Trotsky: Uneven and Combined Development and the Seeds of Leapfrogging

Trotsky’s perspective on uneven and combined development suggested that latecomers could skip stages rather than reproduce the historical trajectory of pioneers. Beginning with Results and Prospects (1906) and reaching its fullest expression in The History of the Russian Revolution (1932), Trotsky introduced a fundamental reversal in the way the problem of development had previously been understood1.

Whereas Marx, Weber, and later dependency theorists focused primarily on the obstacles facing latecomers, Trotsky drew attention to the opportunities generated by backwardness itself. Precisely because late-developing societies were not burdened by the institutional and technological legacies of earlier stages, they could selectively absorb the most advanced achievements of the leading economies without reproducing their entire historical trajectory.

In his famous formulation, “The privilege of historic backwardness—and such a privilege exists—permits, or rather compels, the adoption of whatever is ready in advance of any specified date, skipping a whole series of intermediate stages” (Trotsky 1932/1997, p. 27).

This was not yet a theory of leapfrogging in the modern sense. Trotsky was primarily concerned with the dynamics of revolutionary development rather than economic catch-up or forging ahead. Yet he identified something that had largely escaped previous generations of thinkers: backwardness could be a source not only of constraints, but also of opportunities. The developmental problem was no longer simply why countries lagged behind. It became a way for some latecomers to transform their very backwardness into an advantage.

The possibility of leapfrogging had entered the discussion.

Gerschenkron: Backwardness as Opportunity

If Trotsky introduced the possibility of leapfrogging, Gerschenkron transformed that possibility into an institutional argument.

Although his work is often interpreted as a theory of catch-up, this understates the originality of his contribution. Gerschenkron was interested not simply in how latecomers grow faster than pioneers, but in how backwardness itself alters the conditions of development.

His central insight was simple, yet profoundly counterintuitive. The further a country stands from the technological frontier, the larger the stock of existing knowledge, technologies, organizational forms, and institutional arrangements available for adoption. Backwardness, therefore, creates constraints but also opportunities.

Late developers confront a world in which technologies, organizational forms, financial institutions, policy successes, and policy failures are already visible. Crucially, they inherit a developmental map—one that reveals not only what to emulate, but also what to avoid (Gerschenkron: 1962, especially chapter 1).

Industrialization remains a formidable challenge, but latecomers confront a different problem from that faced by pioneers: they can draw upon technologies, organizational forms, financial institutions, and developmental experiences that already exist elsewhere.

Technologies can be imported rather than invented. Capital goods can be acquired rather than developed from scratch. Organizational forms can be emulated. Institutional innovations can be adapted. Failures can be studied and avoided.

As Gerschenkron famously observed, “the more backward a country, the greater the likelihood that industrialization would proceed through special institutions capable of organizing and accelerating the process” (1962, 44). Depending on the degree of backwardness, these institutions might take the form of investment banks, state-directed finance, planning agencies, or bureaucratic coordination. The developmental challenge was therefore not merely economic. It was organizational and institutional.

In this respect, Gerschenkron’s framework represented a major departure from both classical liberalism and Marxist orthodoxy. Development did not proceed through universal stages. Different countries followed different trajectories, producing what he memorably called an “orderly system of graduated deviations” (1962,46).

Yet Gerschenkron’s analysis raises an intriguing question. How different was his argument from Trotsky’s earlier theory of uneven and combined development?

Gerschenkron never acknowledged an intellectual debt to Trotsky, but the parallels are difficult to ignore. Both rejected linear theories of development. Both argued that latecomers need not replicate the path of pioneers. Both saw backwardness as a potential source of advantage rather than merely a burden.

The difference lies elsewhere. Trotsky identified the possibility of developmental leaps. Gerschenkron explained the institutions that might make such leaps possible. But one cannot ignore Trotsky as a pioneer in that terrain.

At the same time, Gerschenkron’s framework had important limitations.

It remained largely Eurocentric, derived primarily from the historical experiences of Germany, Austria, Russia, and other late-developing European countries. It paid relatively little attention to international power relations, geopolitical competition, or the broader global context within which development unfolded. In this respect, Trotsky’s perspective was arguably more international context-oriented than Gerschenkron’s.

Remarkable is how well Gerschenkron’s insights traveled to East Asia.

Long after the European cases that inspired him had faded into history, many of his central propositions reappeared in the work of scholars seeking to explain the rise of East Asia. Chalmers Johnson, Alice Amsden, Robert Wade, and Atul Kohli all emphasized, in different ways, the role of states, finance, institutional coordination, and strategic intervention in accelerating industrial transformation.

Without necessarily adopting Gerschenkron’s language, they extended many of his core insights into a very different historical and geographical context (Johnson, 1982; Amsden, 1989; Wade, 1990; Kohli, 2004). The result was the emergence of what later became known as the developmental-state literature.

Yet, a crucial problem remained unresolved.

Gerschenkron explained why backwardness could become an advantage. He identified the institutions capable of organizing accelerated industrialization and showed why latecomers often follow developmental trajectories very different from those of pioneers. What he did not provide was a systematic account of the economic mechanisms through which leapfrogging occurs.

Why do some latecomers merely catch up while others leap ahead? How are new competitive advantages created? What role do innovation, entrepreneurship, finance, and technological disruption play in reshaping the hierarchy of nations? Most importantly, what transforms technological borrowing into sustained technological leadership?

Nor was this limitation confined to Gerschenkron alone. Much of the developmental-state literature that followed greatly enriched our understanding of state capacity, industrial policy, technological acquisition, and institutional coordination. However, a systematic account of the mechanisms of forging ahead remained a lacuna.

At precisely this point, the developmental-state tradition reaches its analytical limits, and Schumpeter enters the story.

Share

Schumpeter and the Economics of Leapfrogging

Creative Destruction as Leapfrogging

If Trotsky introduced the possibility of developmental leaps and Gerschenkron explained the institutions that could enable them, Schumpeter supplied the crucial missing element: the economic mechanism through which leapfrogging occurs. Curiously, Schumpeter never used the term. Yet few thinkers have contributed more to understanding the phenomenon.

The reason is straightforward. Leapfrogging is not fundamentally a story about growth. It is a story about innovation. More precisely, it is a story about how innovation, along with competition, disrupts existing hierarchies and creates opportunities for new firms, new sectors, and occasionally new countries to redesign the frontier.

This is the essence of Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction.

Creative destruction is often understood narrowly as the process through which new firms and technologies replace existing ones. Schumpeter’s argument was far more ambitious. New technologies displace old technologies. New organizational forms turn old ones obsolete. Entire new industries emerge while others decline and vanish. Entire techno-industrial paradigms are periodically reorganized. New institutions emerge, and financial innovations follow suit.

Railways displaced canals. Automobiles displaced horse-drawn transport. Semiconductors displaced electromechanical technologies. Digital platforms reorganized retail, communications, and media. Electric vehicles are now challenging the century-old internal-combustion ecosystem.

In each case, innovation does more than increase productivity. It reshapes the whole competitive landscape.

This is precisely how leapfrogging occurs.

Countries at the frontier often carry the burden of legacy assets, entrenched interests, sunk costs, and institutional inertia. Latecomers frequently possess fewer such constraints. When technological paradigms shift—often because their key sectors are reshaping the frontier through innovation and competition—latecomers can sometimes adopt the new more rapidly than leaders can abandon the old. Leapfrogging, in this perspective, is not accelerated imitation. It is the exploitation of discontinuities created by innovation and creative destruction.

Schumpeter therefore supplied something largely absent from Gerschenkron and, later, from much of the developmental-state literature. He supplied an economics.

Gerschenkron explained why opportunities emerge and which institutions best serve them. Schumpeter explained how they are exploited. Innovation, entrepreneurship, finance, and competition serve as the mechanisms by which developmental opportunities are transformed into developmental leaps.

One could stop here and conclude that Gerschenkron provided the institutions, while Schumpeter provided the economics. Such a conclusion would be premature. Yet there is a second and less appreciated contribution.

Schumpeter’s Second Contribution: The Institutionalization of Leapfrogging

Schumpeter’s analysis of socialism, particularly in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, points toward a much more ambitious possibility.

The standard interpretation views Schumpeter primarily as the theorist of entrepreneurial capitalism and creative destruction. Yet Schumpeter also argued that the very success of capitalism was transforming the organizational foundations of innovation itself. The heroic entrepreneur was increasingly replaced by large organizations, research laboratories, managerial bureaucracies, and coordinated systems of investment.

Innovation was becoming institutionalized.

This observation led him to a provocative conclusion. A socialist system, properly organized, might not suppress innovation. Under certain political and institutional conditions, it could organize and coordinate innovation more effectively than corporate capitalism itself.

The argument had little to do with equality and much to do with organization.

The socialization of investment, the strategic coordination of technological change, the capacity to mobilize resources on a large scale, and the deliberate management of structural transformation could, in principle, accelerate the process of creative destruction rather than impede it.

This insight is particularly relevant for understanding leapfrogging.

If Gerschenkron explained how backward countries might accelerate development, Schumpeter sketched the institutional framework through which societies might repeatedly generate and manage successive waves of creative destruction.

Put differently, Gerschenkron explained how countries might leap. Schumpeter explained how they might keep leaping. The distinction is crucial. From this perspective, leapfrogging is not a variant of catch-up. It is a consequence of creative destruction.

Historically, leapfrogging has been episodic. Germany leapfrogged Britain in selected sectors. Japan leapfrogged much of the West after the Meiji Restoration, and especially after World War II. South Korea and Taiwan achieved extraordinary developmental transformations during the twentieth century.

But none of these cases fully resolved a deeper question: can leapfrogging itself become an institutional capability rather than an exceptional historical episode?

It is precisely at this point that contemporary China enters the discussion.

Can Leapfrogging Be Institutionalized? China as a Laboratory

China raises a more ambitious possibility. Can leapfrogging itself be institutionalized?

Exploring that possibility requires a broader analysis of China’s political economy than can be offered here. In a previous Substack post, I argued that contemporary China is best understood as a form of Socialism with Schumpeterian Characteristics: a system that combines the socialization of investment, bureaucratic coordination, and intense market competition while treating innovation and structural transformation as matters of statecraft rather than market outcomes.

I subsequently extended that argument to China’s evolving geopolitical strategy and Eurasian ambitions. Here, I focus on a narrower but equally important question: what does this institutional architecture imply for our understanding of leapfrogging?

Viewed through the lens developed so far, contemporary China can be interpreted as an attempt to combine the central insights of Trotsky, Gerschenkron, and Schumpeter within a single political-economic architecture. From Trotsky comes the recognition that late development need not reproduce the historical trajectory of pioneers. Development can proceed through selective adoption, compression, and combination.

From Gerschenkron comes the institutional apparatus required to accelerate transformation: state coordination, development-oriented finance, industrial policy, and strategic intervention. From Schumpeter comes something even more fundamental: the recognition that development is ultimately driven by a complex ecosystem comprising institutions, finance, innovation, competition, and creative destruction.

China’s distinctiveness lies in its attempt to combine all three within an institutional framework where, in Schumpeter’s words, “the economic affairs of society belong to the public domain rather than the private one” (1942, p. 167).

The objective is not merely industrialization, nor even technological catch-up. It is the continuous upgrading of the socio-economic system structure through successive waves of innovation.

This is visible across a remarkably wide range of sectors. Telecommunications, high-speed rail, renewable energy, batteries, electric vehicles, digital platforms, artificial intelligence, robotics, and advanced manufacturing all reveal the same pattern. Strategic coordination shapes direction. Public finance absorbs risk. Competition selects winners and losers. Innovation remains relentless.

The result is neither classical planning nor laissez-faire capitalism. It is better understood as an attempt to institutionalize creative destruction itself.

This interpretation also sheds light on an otherwise curious fact. Despite having become a technological superpower and one of the world’s largest economies, China continues to describe itself as a developing country.

This is often dismissed as diplomatic opportunism or bureaucratic convenience. It may also reflect something deeper.

From a Schumpeterian and evolutionary perspective, this makes perfect sense. There is no such thing as a fully developed economy. The very concept implies a final stage or developmental endpoint. It suggests that development is a destination rather than a process.

For equilibrium economics, this may be a reasonable assumption. For Schumpeter, it is not.

Economies evolve through successive waves of innovation, competition, and structural transformation. New paradigms continuously displace old ones. In such a world, development is never completed. The frontier itself is constantly moving.

Seen from this perspective, China’s self-identification as a developing country appears less paradoxical than it first seems. It reflects an understanding that economic success does not eliminate the developmental challenge. It merely changes its form.

The goal is not to become developed. The goal is to remain developmentally dynamic.

This brings us back to Schumpeter’s neglected reflections on socialism. As argued before, Schumpeter viewed socialism not primarily as a distributive arrangement but as an organizational one. The socialization of investment, the bureaucratic coordination of innovation, and the deliberate management of creative destruction could, under certain conditions, outperform corporate capitalism in organizing long-term transformation.

China represents the closest contemporary approximation to this possibility. Whether the experiment ultimately succeeds remains an open question.

The point is analytical rather than predictive.

For the first time in modern history, a major power appears to be attempting something more ambitious than development, industrialization, or technological catch-up. It is attempting to transform leapfrogging—the capacity to repeatedly create and exploit technological discontinuities while moving toward a shifting frontier—into a permanent feature of its developmental strategy.

If Gerschenkron explained why latecomers sometimes leap, and Schumpeter explained how they can keep leaping, contemporary China raises the next question in this developmental sequence:

Can leapfrogging itself be institutionalized?

Leave a comment

References

Amsden, A.H. (1989). Asia’s Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization. New York: Oxford University Press.

Andreski, S. (1984). Max Weber’s Insights and Errors. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Arrighi, G. (1994). The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the Origins of Our Times. London: Verso.

Beckert, S. (2025). Capitalism: A Global History. New York: Crown.

Burlamaqui, L. and Kattel, R. (2016) ‘Development as Leapfrogging, Not Convergence, Not Catch-Up: Towards Schumpeterian Theories of Finance and Development’, Review of Social Economy, 74(3), pp. 278–299.

Cardoso, F.H. and Faletto, E. (1979) Dependency and Development in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Frank, A.G. (1967) Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Gerschenkron, A. (1962) Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Johnson, C. (1982) MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925–1975. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Kohli, A. (2004). State-Directed Development: Political Power and Industrialization in the Global Periphery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Luxemburg, R. (2003 [1913]) The Accumulation of Capital. London: Routledge.

Marx, K. (1979 [1853]) ‘The British Rule in India’, in Tucker, R.C. (ed.) The Marx-Engels Reader. 2nd edn. New York: W.W. Norton, pp. 653–664.

Prebisch, R. (1950). The Economic Development of Latin America and Its Principal Problems. New York: United Nations.

Schumpeter, J.A. (2008 [1942]) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper Perennial.

Selwyn, B. (2011) ‘Trotsky, Gerschenkron and the Political Economy of Late Capitalist Development’, Economy and Society, 40(3), pp. 421–450.

Trotsky, L. (1969 [1906]) Results and Prospects. New York: Merit Publishers.

Trotsky, L. (1997 [1932]) The History of the Russian Revolution. London: Pluto Press.

Wade, R. (1990). Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Preface

Look carefully at the image above. It contains two possible futures.

The image is not about artificial intelligence. It is about political economy.

The factories work. The robots work. The algorithms work. The question is whether society works.

Nearly a century ago, John Maynard Keynes imagined a future in which technological progress would liberate humanity from economic necessity. Today’s AI revolution suggests he may have been far more right than most people realize.

Yet Keynes left one crucial question unanswered.

Who governs abundance?

Subscribe now

Introduction

Suppose the “Schumpeterian Keynes” of Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren landed in 2026.

After recovering from the shock of smartphones, artificial intelligence, robotic systems, biotechnology, and computational power beyond anything imaginable in 1930, he might arrive at a surprising conclusion: technologically, we are much closer to the world he described than most people realize.

The productivity revolution happened.

Machines increasingly perform cognitive tasks once thought to be uniquely human. Vast networks of computers process information at a planetary scale. Scientific discovery is increasingly accelerated by algorithms. Entire industries are being reorganized around automation and artificial intelligence.

And yet, unlike Keynes’s vision, contemporary societies are not debating how to enjoy a fifteen-hour workweek. They are debating whether artificial intelligence will eliminate jobs, concentrate wealth, undermine democracy, or perhaps make large segments of humanity economically irrelevant.

Something does not fit.

Most contemporary discussions of artificial intelligence share a common assumption. Whether optimistic or pessimistic, they treat technology as the independent variable and society as the dependent one. Artificial intelligence will save us. Artificial intelligence will destroy us. Artificial intelligence will liberate humanity. Artificial intelligence will enslave it.

Both sides commit the same mistake. Technology is not the independent variable. Governance is.

Revisiting Keynes’s Prophecy

In 1930, in the midst of the Great Depression, Keynes published one of the most remarkable essays in the history of economic thought. Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren was not a business-cycle forecast, nor a policy manifesto. It was a thought experiment1.

The question Keynes posed was simple: what happens when humanity finally solves its economic problem?

By “economic problem,” Keynes meant something very specific. For most of human history, scarcity has been the central organizing principle of social life. Human beings worked long hours not because they particularly enjoyed doing so, but because survival required it. Poverty was the normal condition of mankind. Economic progress consisted largely of escaping it. Keynes believed this historical condition was approaching its end.

Driven by technological progress, capital accumulation, and scientific advances, productive capacity would continue to expand over generations. The result would be a society capable of producing vastly more goods and services with vastly less human labor.

His most famous prediction followed naturally from this premise. Future generations, he suggested, might find that a fifteen-hour workweek was sufficient to satisfy their material needs. The economic problem, which had preoccupied humanity for millennia, would finally be solved.

Much has been written about whether Keynes correctly predicted the pace of technological change. In retrospect, that debate misses the point. Keynes was not primarily forecasting technology. He was asking a deeper question: what happens to society once scarcity ceases to be its central challenge?

Seen from 2026, this question appears unsurprisingly contemporary. Artificial intelligence, robotics, biotechnology, advanced manufacturing, and computational power are pushing productive capabilities to levels that would have seemed almost magical in Keynes’s time. The prospect of abundance no longer belongs exclusively to the realm of utopian speculation.

Yet something important separates our world from Keynes’s vision.

In Keynes 'prophecy, rising productivity and rising prosperity largely moved together. The benefits of technological progress would eventually diffuse throughout society, allowing individuals to work less while enjoying higher living standards. The social problem created by abundance was not poverty, but how to use leisure wisely.

Today’s AI debate begins from a very different premise. Technological abundance may arrive, many argue, but its benefits could remain concentrated in the hands of a relatively small group of firms, investors, and technological elites.

This distinction is crucial. The central question is no longer whether machines can generate abundance. Increasingly, they can. The question is how abundance is governed.

Hidden within Keynes’s optimistic vision lies an assumption that remained largely implicit in his thinking: the gains generated by technological progress must somehow be distributed broadly enough to sustain prosperity as a social condition rather than merely a technological possibility.

“The pace at which we can reach our destination of economic bliss will be governed by four things-our power to control population, our determination to avoid wars and civil dissensions, our willingness to entrust to science the direction of those matters which are properly the concern of science, and the rate of accumulation as fixed by the margin between our production and our consumption; of which the last will easily look after itself, given the first three.” (1930, 373).

Read today, Keynes’s list is striking for what it reveals about his political assumptions. The population could be managed. Science would increasingly guide public decision-making. Wars and major civil conflicts could be avoided. Capital accumulation would proceed largely undisturbed.

In retrospect, the technological component of Keynes’s prophecy appears considerably stronger than its political component. However, Keynes’s essay was never merely about technology. It was about the political and institutional conditions under which technological progress could be transformed into shared prosperity.

Contemporary discussions of artificial intelligence often overlook this point. They focus on what the technology can do while paying remarkably little attention to who governs its deployment, who captures its gains, and how those gains are distributed throughout society.

Yet Keynes himself cannot entirely escape criticism. His technological optimism was arguably justified. His political optimism was considerably less so. The passage quoted above reveals a striking confidence that population growth could be managed, scientific expertise could guide public policy, wars and major social conflicts could be contained, and capital accumulation could proceed largely undisturbed. History proved less accommodating.

The century that followed delivered world wars, cold wars, financial crises, ideological polarization, and renewed great-power competition. The governance of prosperity proved far more difficult than Keynes had imagined.

In this sense, Keynes underestimated what might be called the politics of abundance.

He brilliantly described the destination. He devoted much less attention to the political and institutional struggles required to get there. The central challenge posed by artificial intelligence today is precisely the one Keynes flagged but left largely unexplored: how can societies govern technological abundance in ways that transform productive capacity into shared prosperity rather than concentrated wealth?

Answering that question requires moving beyond Keynes himself. It requires understanding the mechanisms through which purchasing power is generated, distributed, and sustained in an economy where machines increasingly perform tasks once associated with human labor.

The next step in the argument, therefore, begins with a dystopian thought experiment. What happens when technological progress succeeds spectacularly, but the governance problem remains unresolved?

Blade Runner as Political Economy

Suppose Keynes’s technological prophecy comes true, but his political assumptions do not.

Artificial intelligence continues advancing. Robots become increasingly capable. Productivity rises dramatically. Scientific discovery accelerates. Goods and services become cheaper and more abundant. The technological frontier keeps moving outward. Yet the gains from this process remain concentrated.

In such a world, increasingly our world, the owners of algorithms, data centers, platforms, patents, and intellectual property become extraordinarily wealthy. A relatively small number of firms capture a growing share of the income generated by the new economy. Markets function. Innovation continues. Profits soar. But prosperity ceases to diffuse.

This is not Keynes’s world. It is much closer to Blade Runner.

What makes Blade Runner fascinating is that it is often interpreted as a technological dystopia. In reality, it depicts something more subtle. Technology works remarkably well. The problem is not technological stagnation. It is the coexistence of extraordinary productive capabilities with extreme social fragmentation.

Not coincidentally, elements of this vision increasingly appear in contemporary technological forecasting debate. Peter Thiel and Elon Musk’s repeated predictions of a future in which artificial intelligence performs much of today’s labor rest on a technological premise. They describe what machines may eventually do. They say remarkably little about how the resulting society might actually work.

Who receives the income? Who generates the demand? Who buys the output? Who captures the gains? Those questions remain largely unanswered.

The answer cannot simply be “the market,” since markets are mechanisms of exchange, not sources of purchasing power. Someone, somewhere, must possess the income necessary to transform productive capacity into realized demand. The challenge is no longer technological. It is institutional and political. And that is precisely where Keynes’s prophecy intersects with political economy.

Beyond Blade Runner: Tugan-Baranovsky, Kalecki, and the Demand Problem

The Blade Runner scenario is often presented as the inevitable consequence of automation. As machines become increasingly capable, human labor becomes progressively less necessary. Wealth concentrates among technology owners, while society fragments into winners and losers.

The story is compelling. It is also incomplete. For more than a century, economists have wrestled with a question that sounds remarkably contemporary: Can capitalism continue to expand if machines increasingly replace human labor?

The first important answer came from an unlikely source, a forgotten pioneer, Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky2.

Writing between the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth (1894, 1905, 1906), Tugan challenged the widespread belief that capitalism would eventually collapse because workers could not buy back what they produced. His central insight was deceptively simple. Capitalism does not depend exclusively on the consumption of final goods. Investment itself generates markets.

Factories purchase machines. Machine producers purchase steel. Steel producers purchase energy. Railways generate demand for locomotives, locomotives generate demand for steel, and steel generates demand for mining.

In contemporary language, artificial intelligence creates demand for data centers. Data centers create demand for semiconductors. Semiconductor production creates demand for highly specialized equipment. All of them require electricity, transmission networks, logistics, and infrastructure.

The AI revolution is therefore not merely a tech story. It is also a gigantic investment story.

Tugan’s contribution remains remarkably relevant because it solves an important part of the puzzle. Even in a highly automated economy, accumulation can generate large and expanding markets for investment goods. The system possesses powerful endogenous sources of demand.

Yet Tugan’s solution is not the end of the story. Investment goods are not the same thing as consumption goods. A society cannot live on data centers alone.

A second answer was later provided by Michał Kalecki.

Kalecki (1971) understood that profits generate their own forms of demand. The owners of successful firms consume. They purchase luxury goods, real estate, financial assets, services, and status symbols. In a highly unequal society, elite consumption can sustain significant economic activity. “Workers spend what they earn. Capitalists earn what they spend”, Kalecki aptly wrote.

The emerging AI economy offers numerous examples. Extraordinary concentrations of wealth already coexist with extraordinary levels of consumption at the top of the income distribution. Kalecki, therefore, solves another piece of the puzzle. Tugan explains how investment demand is sustained. Kalecki explains how investment spending and elite consumption sustain profits and growth.

Yet neither fully answers the question Keynes posed not in 1930, but in The General Theory.

By 1936, Keynes’s central concern was no longer the distant prospect of abundance. It was the immediate problem of effective demand. How could modern economies recover from a depression and generate sufficient purchasing power to sustain high levels of output and employment?

His answer is well known. Fiscal policy, public spending, and, perhaps most importantly, what he called the “socialization of investment” would help stabilize aggregate demand and prevent economies from settling into prolonged periods of stagnation.

These insights remain indispensable. Yet they leave open a question Keynes never had to confront directly. Suppose technological progress continues to advance. Suppose artificial intelligence, robotics, and automation progressively reduce the role of human labor in production. Suppose, in other words, that Keynes’s 1930 prophecy materializes.

How, then, is mass purchasing power maintained? Keynes understood that prosperity ultimately depends on effective demand. What he never fully explored was how effective demand might be generated in a society where employment ceases to be the principal mechanism for distributing income.

This is the question that artificial intelligence places squarely before us. And it is here that modern monetary theory enters the conversation.

Share

Solving Keynes’s Missing Problem

At first sight, the problem appears formidable. If wages cease to be the principal mechanism through which purchasing power is distributed, what replaces them?

Modern monetary theory begins from an observation entirely familiar to Keynes: In a sovereign monetary system, money is ultimately a public institution (Wray, 2015). The state is not merely a participant in the monetary system; it is its key architect3.

This insight becomes particularly important in a technologically advanced economy characterized by high productivity, strong innovative capabilities, and substantial state capacity. Such an economy can generate not only goods and services but also purchasing power.

The implication is profound. A society no longer needs to rely exclusively on employment as the mechanism through which income reaches households. This does not imply the disappearance of markets, entrepreneurship, competition, or private property. Nor does it imply the end of work. Many individuals would continue working, innovating, investing, creating businesses, conducting research, teaching, caring, and producing.

What changes is something more fundamental: the relationship between employment and income.

For most of modern capitalism, employment has served simultaneously as a mechanism of production and a mechanism of distribution. People worked to produce goods and services, but they also worked to earn the income necessary to purchase them.

An economy approaching Keynes’s world of abundance gradually weakens the first connection. Machines increasingly perform the productive function. Artificial intelligence increasingly performs cognitive tasks once reserved for human beings. The production of abundance becomes progressively less dependent on human labor.

Yet the second connection remains indispensable. People must still possess purchasing power.

From this perspective, the challenge of an AI economy is not primarily technological. It is institutional and political. The question is whether societies can construct a financial architecture capable of sustaining mass purchasing power independently of employment. Once purchasing power is understood as a public institution rather than merely a by-product of employment, entirely new possibilities emerge.

One would be to recognize that every citizen possesses a legitimate claim on part of the productivity gains generated by society’s technological, institutional, and scientific inheritance. After all, no innovation emerges in a vacuum. Every breakthrough rests upon generations of accumulated knowledge, public infrastructure, educational systems, scientific research, and institutional development.

In such a system, citizens would no longer depend exclusively on labor-market participation to obtain income. Instead, they would receive a permanent income stream reflecting their status as members of a highly productive society.

From an accounting perspective, the mechanism is surprisingly straightforward. The state would recognize these claims as liabilities to its citizens, while the corresponding asset would be the productive capacity of the economy itself. In effect, citizens would become shareholders in the technological civilization they collectively sustain.

One might think of this as a form of sovereign social dividend—or, more provocatively, as quantitative easing for the people.

The precise institutional design is less important than the principle. Income may vary based on family circumstances, social contributions, caregiving activities, education, or other factors I cannot delve into here. What matters is that purchasing power would no longer depend exclusively on employment.

This is not a proposal to abolish markets. It is a proposal to make Keynes’s world of abundance economically viable. Without consumers, firms cannot realize profits. Without purchasing power, abundance remains unsold. Without effective demand, even the most advanced technological system ultimately encounters economic and political limits.

In this sense, modern monetary theory can be read as extending Keynes’s analysis into a world he never fully imagined: a world in which the central challenge is no longer creating jobs for workers but creating purchasing power for citizens.

Conclusion: Keynes’s Prophecy Meets China

Nearly a century after the publication of Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren, Keynes’s technological prophecy appears far more accurate than many of his political assumptions.

Artificial intelligence, robotics, biotechnology, and unprecedented computational power are bringing the prospect of abundance steadily closer. In this respect, Keynes may have seen further into the future than most contemporary commentators. The productivity revolution he anticipated is no longer a distant possibility. It is unfolding before our eyes.

Yet Keynes left largely unexplored the question that increasingly defines the AI age: how is abundance governed? The answer cannot be found in technology alone.

Schumpeter helps explain how abundance is created through innovation and creative destruction. Tugan explains how investment generates powerful endogenous markets capable of sustaining accumulation. Kalecki illuminates how profits and capitalist expenditure support important sources of demand. Modern monetary theory suggests how purchasing power might be maintained in a world where employment gradually ceases to be the dominant mechanism for distributing income.

Together, these perspectives reveal something that much of the contemporary AI debate overlooks. The central challenge, as already noted, is not technological. It is institutional and political.

The decisive question is not whether intelligent machines can generate abundance. Increasingly, they can. The decisive question is whether societies possess the capacity to transform abundance into shared prosperity. Among contemporary large economies, one case stands out.

This inevitably brings us to China.

China should not be viewed as Keynes’s utopia. No society has solved the governance problem of abundance, and none ever will permanently. As Schumpeter remarked, evolution produces new challenges as rapidly as it solves old ones. Yet China may represent the most important contemporary experiment in addressing the problem.

Its combination of state capacity, industrial policy, strategic technological development, socialization of investment, and explicit commitment to shared prosperity constitutes something new in the contemporary world: a large-scale effort to govern technological transformation in the public interest.

In much of the contemporary debate, AI is treated primarily as a technological race. The emphasis falls on innovation, competitiveness, market leadership, and private entrepreneurial success.

China increasingly frames the issue differently. Technological leadership matters. But so do social stability, national development, strategic autonomy, and what the Chinese leadership now explicitly describes as “Common Prosperity.”

Whether one agrees with the concept or not, its importance is difficult to overstate. Common Prosperity represents an explicit recognition that technological progress alone is insufficient. The gains generated by development must also be distributed in ways that broaden material prosperity, preserve social cohesion, and sustain political legitimacy.

Whether it succeeds remains uncertain. In that sense, China should not be understood as Keynes’s destination. It should be understood as Keynes’s laboratory.

Leave a comment

References

Kalecki, M. (1933/1971) “An Outline of a Theory of the Business Cycle”, in Selected Essays on the Dynamics of the Capitalist Economy 1933–1970. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Keynes, J. M. 1930. “Economic Possibilities of Our Grandchildren” in Essays in Persuasion, London: Norton.

Keynes, J. M. 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Macmillan.

Schumpeter, J. A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Routledge.

Tugan-Baranovsky, M. I. 1921. El socialismo moderno. Translated by Ramón Carande Thovar. Madrid: Editorial Reus. (Originally published in 1906)

Tugan-Baranovsky, M. I. 1916. Los fundamentos teóricos del marxismo. Translated by Ramón Carande Thovar. Madrid: Hijos de Reus. (Originally published in 1905)

Tugan-Baranovsky, M. I. 1954. Periodic Industrial Crises: A History of British Crises. Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the United States, 3(3), pp. 745–802. ( Originally published in 1894).

Wray, L. Randall (2015). Modern Money Theory: A Primer on Macroeconomics for Sovereign Monetary Systems. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

About a month ago, before leaving for Asia, I wrote that this Substack might briefly shift from longer analytical essays toward “fragments, field observations, or ideas still in formation.”

What follows began exactly that way.

At first, these were simply travel notes: impressions of cities, train stations, payment systems, museums, translation apps, hotels, temples, airports, parks, public behavior, infrastructure, wine, and urban atmospheres across Singapore, Thailand, China, Japan, and, finally, Paris.

But gradually another pattern emerged. Different civilizations are no longer merely growing at different speeds. Increasingly, they are organizing modernity itself in radically different ways — technologically, aesthetically, socially, and institutionally.

So, this essay became something slightly different from a travel diary.

Think of it instead as a set of field notes from the shifting geography of modernity itself. Disagreements, corrections, and well-aimed provocations remain, as always, very welcome.

Subscribe now

Introduction

The future rarely announces itself dramatically. Sometimes it arrives quietly, through payment systems. Or train stations. Or translation apps. Or a passenger riding an electric suitcase through an airport terminal.

After one month traveling across Singapore, Thailand, China, Japan, and finally Paris, what remained with me was not a geopolitical conclusion, but something more granular: different civilizations are now solving modernity in radically different ways. And increasingly, they are doing so through ecosystems rather than ideology.

Systems, Cities, and the Future of Everyday Life

China was the great shock.

Not because of tech — that story is already over-discussed and poorly understood — but because of the scale and integration of everyday functionality. The first Western instinct upon arrival is irritation. Apps fail. Cards stop working. Platforms reject foreign integration.

Everything requires Chinese ecosystems: payments, maps, mobility, messaging, delivery, transportation, and tickets. At first glance, it feels closed. Then another interpretation slowly emerges.

China did not build a censorship infrastructure. (Although it can serve that purpose as well). It built sovereign infrastructure. The Great Firewall is not simply informational. It is a response to multiple civilizational threats. China produced an entire technological-financial architecture that operates independently of American platforms and American financial plumbing.

And for Chinese citizens, the system works astonishingly well. The experience is not one of chaos. Quite the opposite. Orderly hypermodernity tsunami.

Shanghai: Aestheticized Hypermodernity

Shanghai is where this realization becomes impossible to ignore.

The city no longer feels like an emerging economy trying to catch up. It feels like a civilization already operating inside the next cycle. Finance, luxury, fashion, logistics, digital integration, architecture, high-speed rail, platform ecosystems — all functioning simultaneously and at enormous scale. Pudong often resembles what would happen if Manhattan had been redesigned by engineers from Shenzhen. And yet Shanghai is not merely efficient. That is the crucial point.

It is seductive. Stylish. Affluent. Confident. Increasingly, China is not just manufacturing the future. It is aestheticizing it.

What surprised me most was not the scale itself, but the coexistence of hyper-modern systems with layers of highly organized public sociability that Western cities increasingly lost somewhere along the way. One evening, in a large public park, middle-aged couples performed salon dancing with astonishing seriousness and elegance while, nearby, elderly citizens played mini-golf under the trees.

That’s Shanghai Communism.

Not the proclaimed “Authoritarianism ”. Not western individualism. Something new: collective urban modernity infused with middle-class pleasure, public choreography, and an almost obsessive commitment to frictionless everyday life.

The Bund remains one of the great urban spectacles on Earth. Across the river, Pudong projects China’s future skyward; on the opposite side, hundreds of stylish cocktail bars, rooftop lounges, restaurants, luxury hotels, and illuminated terraces transform the waterfront into a theater of consumption, fashion, and urban self-confidence.

Shanghai increasingly feels less like “China opening to the world” and more like China repositioning itself at its center. The cultural ecosystem reinforces the sensation.

At the MAP museum in Pudong, an exhibition simultaneously featured Picasso alongside the artistic worlds of India, Iran, and the Ottoman Empire. The juxtaposition felt revealing. Not westernization. Civilizational curation.

As if Shanghai no longer saw itself merely as a participant in globalization, but increasingly as one of the places from which a Sino-centric globalization itself will be narrated.

The same synthesis appears in places like M50 and Pagoda One, where galleries, experimental art, digital aesthetics, cafés, fashion culture, and platform-era entrepreneurship merge almost seamlessly into the urban fabric. In Shanghai, tech and logistics do not oppose culture. They amplify it. And that may be the city’s most important message. Not simply that China became rich. But it is becoming culturally ambitious in its own terms.

Chongqing: The Vertical Frontier

Chongqing reveals another side of this same phenomenon. Shanghai dazzles horizontally. Chongqing overwhelms vertically.

The city looks less planned than algorithmically generated. Mountains pierced by infrastructure. Trains crossing apartment buildings. Highways suspended above rivers and valleys. Entire districts stacked on top of one another as if gravity had become a negotiable policy variable.

China increasingly gives the impression that geography itself has become negotiable.

At night, Chongqing becomes almost surreal. The entire city glows in layers: bridges, towers, elevated roads, river crossings, illuminated skylines climbing mountains in every direction. An 8D city, as locals proudly describe it — a place where movement occurs simultaneously above, below, across, and through urban space.

Crossing the river itself becomes part of the urban experience. Boat, train, car, cable car, suspended transit systems — the city offers multiple dimensions of circulation almost casually, as if topographical difficulty merely represented another engineering challenge awaiting optimization.

And yet what impressed me most was not simply the hypermodernity. It was the coexistence.

Unlike many futuristic urban projects elsewhere, Chongqing does not completely erase its past. Fragments of old neighborhoods survive between the infrastructure explosions. Narrow stairways, older buildings, local food streets, improvised urban corners — human scale reappears unexpectedly between giant vertical systems. The city feels less like a clean modernist replacement and more like accelerated historical layering.

Then came one of the trip’s biggest surprises.

On top of a hill overlooking this hyper-modern landscape stands the Stilwell Museum, dedicated entirely to General Joseph Stilwell, the American commander who worked alongside Chiang Kai-shek during World War II. The symbolism was extraordinary.

At a moment when China and the United States increasingly describe each other in terms of strategic rivalry, technological warfare, sanctions, military containment, and geopolitical competition, here was an official Chinese museum honoring an American general as a historic friend of China.

Not propaganda. Not irony. Memory. And perhaps a subtle reminder that geopolitical relations are never permanently frozen into the categories of a single historical moment.

The Three Gorges Museum revealed another layer altogether: the Developmental State in action. Not as an abstract theory. As civilization-scale execution capacity.

Infrastructure, territorial integration, flood control, energy systems, industrial coordination, mass displacement, engineering ambition — all presented unapologetically as components of national development and modernization.

Western discussions often describe the Chinese state primarily in terms of control. Chongqing reveals something equally important: organizational ambition. The scale can be intimidating. Sometimes exhausting. Occasionally excessive.

But it is impossible to leave Chongqing without sensing that China still operates with a developmental imagination whose scale largely disappeared in the contemporary West. The city does not simply project modernity. It projects civilizational confidence.

A society convinced that the future can still be built physically — bending gravity, complexity, and geography to human coordination, while somehow preserving fragments of the past inside the acceleration itself.

Share

Chiang Mai: Civilization at Human Scale

Chiang Mai, in Thailand, felt almost like a counterargument to Shanghai and Chongqing. China builds the future. Chiang Mai preserves the human scale of the past without rejecting modernity altogether.

The city does not overwhelm technologically. Nor does it attempt to. Modernity exists there, but quietly, on the side — enough infrastructure, enough comfort, enough integration to function smoothly, but without subordinating the entire urban experience to speed, scale, or optimization.

What compensates is something increasingly scarce in hyper-modern societies:
beauty embedded into everyday life.

Ancient temples and magnificent shrines appeared almost casually throughout the city, often just a few minutes away from rooftop pools, stylish cafés, craft beer centers, boutique hotels, yoga studios, and modern apartment buildings. The juxtaposition never felt forced. It simply felt absorbed into the rhythm of the place.

At various points, traditional Buddhist ceremonies unfolded with complete seriousness while nearby monks checked their cell phones or spoke casually into their smartphones between rituals.

That image stayed with me. Not because it represented contradiction, but because it represented continuity. Chiang Mai is not backward. Not at all.

It is certainly not frontier territory in the Shanghai or Chongqing sense. There is little obsession with technological acceleration or infrastructural gigantism. But the city reveals another possible equilibrium between tradition and modernity — one in which historical memory remains fully integrated into everyday life rather than transformed into a spectacle, a museum piece, or a tourism commodity alone.

And perhaps that is why the city feels so emotionally legible. Temples, shrines, slower rhythms, unexpected empathy from strangers, human-scale streets, food markets, ordinary conversations — all combine into a social atmosphere that hyper-modern societies increasingly struggle to reproduce.

In Chiang Mai, efficiency quietly loses the argument to atmosphere. And surprisingly, nobody seems particularly unhappy about it.

Japan, meanwhile, produced the most complex reaction of all. Socially refined. Deeply civilized. Extraordinary service culture. Public trust visible everywhere. But simultaneously: engineered stagnation.

The contrast with China becomes progressively unavoidable. Cash everywhere. Aging Shinkansens. Limited digital integration. Little EV presence. Urban infrastructure often visibly old.

Tokyo: Elegant Stagnation

Tokyo deserves a more nuanced reading than the simplistic Western image of Japanese hyper-modernity. Everything works. That part is true.

Public order remains extraordinary. Service quality is impeccable. Streets are safe, clean, organized, and socially disciplined in ways increasingly rare elsewhere. The social fabric still functions with remarkable cohesion.

But after China, another layer becomes impossible to ignore. The machinery works — yet often without the same sense of frontier dynamism.

Train stations can feel unexpectedly clunky. Parts of the metro system seem technologically dated. Even the famous Shinkansen, still impressive for its comfort and punctuality, increasingly conveys the impression of a magnificent system aging with dignity rather than defining the technological frontier.

Communication reveals another subtle contrast.

In China, translation apps became fully integrated into everyday life. Baidu Translate appeared everywhere: restaurants, taxis, hotels, shops, and random street interactions. Technology there functions as a friction-reducing force embedded directly into mass social behavior.

Japan feels different. Even in Tokyo, many interactions still occur through polite mutual incomprehension, as if the smartphone translation revolution had been only partially absorbed into everyday urban culture.

And outside a few areas — Omotesando, parts of Roppongi, especially around Roppongi Hills, some transport hubs, selective luxury districts — much of urban Japan feels frozen somewhere between 1998 and 2007. Not collapsing. Not poor. Not dysfunctional. Frozen.

The contrast with China is not one of civilization versus decline. That would be simplistic and wrong. Japan remains deeply sophisticated socially, culturally, aesthetically, and institutionally.

But economically and technologically, one senses the lingering scars of the Plaza Accord, the bursting of the asset bubble, and decades of policy improvisation aimed at managing a balance-sheet recession without fully escaping it.

The country still operates extraordinarily well. What it no longer projects, however, is historical momentum. And that changes the emotional atmosphere of the place.

Tokyo often feels less like the capital of the future than like an extraordinarily successful civilization managing stagnation with elegance, discipline, and social refinement. Perhaps that is why the city generates such mixed emotions. Admiration, certainly. But also, melancholy.

Japan increasingly appears trapped inside a geopolitical and economic architecture from which it can neither fully detach nor meaningfully redefine itself.

Henry Kissinger once remarked, “To be an enemy of the United States is dangerous. To be a friend is fatal.” Walking through Tokyo after China, the phrase takes on an uncomfortable analytical resonance.

Japan remains wealthy, civilized, and technologically capable. But it is no longer fully sovereign over its own historical trajectory.

Kyoto and Kanazawa: Two Japans

Kyoto intensified the paradox of Japan.

Some of humanity’s most beautiful cultural fragments survive there. Temples suspended above forests. Wooden streets at dusk. Zen gardens approach abstraction. Entire neighborhoods are still capable of producing moments of almost impossible aesthetic harmony.

And yet the surrounding urban experience increasingly feels exhausted.

Tourism overload everywhere. Aging infrastructure. Weak urban maintenance. Visual clutter. Congested buses crossing endless flows of visitors moving from one “must-see” destination to another with industrial efficiency. At times, Kyoto begins to feel less like a living city than like a civilization trapped inside its own postcard.

The contradiction becomes especially striking after China.

In Shanghai and Chongqing, one senses overwhelming momentum, sometimes excessive, but unmistakably future-oriented. Kyoto projects the opposite sensation: a city surviving economically by monetizing accumulated beauty while struggling to generate equivalent contemporary vitality around it.

Magnificent civilization. Exhausted operating system.

And yet, precisely because the historical core remains so extraordinary, the disappointment becomes sharper. Kyoto is not overrated. The problem is almost the reverse: the city’s historical beauty is so exceptional that the surrounding decay and infrastructural fatigue become impossible not to notice.

Then came Kanazawa. And suddenly Japan breathed again. Kanazawa felt almost like Kyoto had passed through aesthetic quality control.

Smaller. More elegant. Better preserved. Human-scaled. A city where tourism still coexists with urban dignity rather than completely overwhelming it.

The old neighborhoods remain alive rather than being transformed into permanent crowd-management systems. The fish market functions as both an urban institution and a gastronomic experience, delivering astonishing seafood without Kyoto’s tourist exhaustion. The castles may be smaller than Kyoto’s great historical landmarks, but they still convincingly project feudal grandeur. And the Nomura Samurai House is one of those rare places where history still feels spatially tangible rather than museum-packaged.

Most importantly, Kanazawa still possesses rhythm. The city breathes. One walks instead of navigating. The greenery, the careful maintenance, the moderate scale, the quieter streets — all combine into an urban atmosphere increasingly rare in over-touristed historical centers.

Kyoto remains historically indispensable. But for now, if the goal is to experience a Japanese city where beauty, history, functionality, and everyday life still coexist somewhat organically, skip Kyoto’s exhaustion and head to Kanazawa instead.

Singapore: Perfected Optimization

Singapore now appears to me almost as a completed historical project. Still extraordinarily successful. Still elegant. Still hyper-functional. But no longer frontier territory. Singapore mastered managed optimization. China is designing new frontiers. Those are completely different registers.

Singapore still dazzles. China overwhelms. To repeat an overused — but still accurate — expression, returning from China increasingly feels like coming back from the future.

And yet Singapore remains one of the most extraordinary urban experiments of the modern era. Almost impossible, really. A tiny island with no meaningful natural resources transformed, within a few decades, into one of the richest, safest, cleanest, and most sophisticated urban societies on Earth.

The achievement bears the imprint of Lee Kuan Yew and of the small Weberian — but also highly entrepreneurial — bureaucracy he helped construct: technocratic, disciplined, incorruptible by regional standards, strategically interventionist, and remarkably pragmatic.

Singapore never truly embraced neoliberalism in the Anglo-American sense. The state remained deeply present everywhere that mattered: housing, infrastructure, industrial policy, finance, logistics, education, sovereign wealth management, and long-term planning.

The result is visible almost immediately upon arrival. The “city within a garden” is no longer branding rhetoric. It materialized physically.

Gardens by the Bay feels less like urban landscaping than like a civilization attempting to aestheticize ecological engineering itself. Changi Airport barely functions as an airport anymore; it resembles a luxury entertainment ecosystem accidentally attached to aviation infrastructure. Rooftop infinity pools, immaculate public transport, integrated green spaces, luxury hotels, food courts operating with astonishing efficiency — the entire urban experience projects competence.

And perhaps that is Singapore’s greatest accomplishment—the elimination of friction. The city runs with a smoothness that often feels almost post-political. Though no one should ignore the immense army of temporary migrant workers sustaining that frictionless surface beneath the tropical polish.

But after China, another perception gradually emerges. Singapore increasingly feels optimized rather than exploratory. The city perfected management. China is simultaneously experimenting with scale, speed, technological sovereignty, and civilizational ambition. Singapore refines. China redesigns. Singapore organizes complexity. China accelerates it.

And that difference matters historically. Because optimization, however impressive, eventually encounters diminishing returns. One also senses, beneath Singapore’s extraordinary success, the structural risks of extreme financialization — even when managed by a highly capable state equipped with sophisticated regulatory institutions.

The financial sector increasingly occupies enormous gravitational space within the economy. Luxury real estate, wealth management, global capital intermediation, and ultra-high-end consumption now shape large portions of the urban landscape and economic logic.

So far, the Singaporean state has managed this balancing act extraordinarily well, far better than most Western economies. Public housing remains functional. Infrastructure remains world-class. Social order remains intact. Long-term planning still exists.

But the tension is visible. Can a hyper-financialized economy preserve productive dynamism indefinitely, even under competent state management? Or does financial gravity eventually begin to dominate innovation itself?

Singapore does not yet resemble the Western model of speculative decadence. But the question increasingly hovers in the background.

Paris: Décadence avec Élégance

And then came Paris.

Returning from Asia sharpens Europe almost violently. Paris remains one of humanity’s great achievements in symbolic civilization. Few places still compress so much beauty, memory, artistic density, architectural coherence, café culture, sensuality, fashion, and historical layering into everyday urban life. Even walking without a destination still feels culturally productive.

The city continues to seduce almost effortlessly. And yet, after Shanghai, Chongqing, Singapore, and Tokyo, another perception becomes difficult to suppress. Europe still excels at atmosphere, but Asia increasingly dominates entire ecosystems.

The contrast appears everywhere — not catastrophically, but persistently. Paris compresses it: Infrastructure feels older, urban maintenance less reliable. Logistics slower. Airports more chaotic. Hotels somehow simultaneously expensive and dysfunctional. Saint-Germain charm coexisting with plumbing disasters and elevators, apparently preserved as historical monuments.

Decadence with elegance. The remarkable thing is that Paris continues to transform even its dysfunctions into an aesthetic experience.

Walking through the Musée d’Orsay is like watching bourgeois modernity emerge visually in real time: Courbet’s material realism, Manet’s urban rupture, and Caillebotte’s Haussmannian Paris together form a visual archive of Europe inventing the bourgeois-industrial world.

And perhaps that is precisely why contemporary Paris feels so emotionally complex after Asia. Europe built modernity. Asia is increasingly redesigning it.

Then came another surprise: a small but magnificent exhibition by Leonora Carrington at the Musée du Luxembourg, blending surrealism with occultism, mythology, dreams, feminine symbolism, and subconscious rebellion with astonishing elegance.

A final stroll through Saint-Germain. Wine at Monoprix is somehow outperforming expectations yet again. Crowded cafés. Luxembourg Gardens under spring light. The Seine at dusk. A memorable magret du canard at La Jacobine. Church bells somewhere in the background, while tourists, students, old intellectuals, exhausted waiters, and elegant women continued performing the endless theater of Parisian life.

Paris still excels at blending history, beauty, fashion, scenic urbanism, artistic density, gastronomy, and, naturally, wine into one seamless civilizational performance. China increasingly excels at producing many of those things too — including, somewhat surprisingly, wine. (Go for the upper-tier Great Wall labels and have a try.)

That may be the real surprise of contemporary Asia. Not simply economic growth. Not merely technological catch-up. But the emergence of societies increasingly capable of simultaneously combining hyper-modernity, infrastructural scale, historical depth, aesthetic ambition, and civilizational continuity.

Conclusion

Responding to Kishore Mahbubani after one month of traveling across Asia, the answer increasingly seems difficult to avoid: yes, the world's center of gravity has shifted East.

Hypermodernity, infrastructure, technological ambition, social cohesion, historical memory, urban scale, and civilizational confidence increasingly coexist there at extraordinary intensity. And within Asia, China is increasingly the system-defining power. Unlike much of the contemporary West, China still behaves as if history were something to be built rather than merely lived.

And perhaps that is the deepest impression one brings back from Asia today. Not merely that the future is being built there. But that much of the world increasingly feels as if it is already living inside frameworks Asia, especially China, is now redesigning in real time.

Leave a comment

The hedgehog meets the fox, and a richer financial architecture emerges

Preface

This post turns to what lies beyond the incomplete unity of the “Big Idea.” It focuses on a highly underrated dimension of the “fox” in Hyman Minsky’s work: the seeds of a financial theory of the firm, embedded in his analysis of balance sheets and the evolution from hedge to speculative and Ponzi positions. These seeds are not only identified but also extended, and their implications for evolutionary theories of the firm are made explicit.

The central move, however, comes in the conclusion. There, the argument shifts from interpretation and critical evaluation to construction: bridging Minsky’s balance-sheet dynamics with evolutionary theories of the firm—particularly those associated with Joseph Schumpeter and David Teece—to surface a further, largely untheorized possibility: the Schumpeterian corporation equipped with a Minskyian financial architecture.

This is not a mere juxtaposition. It suggests a firm capable of organizing innovation while actively managing its own financial fragility—internalizing, rather than externalizing, the tension between creative destruction and financial instability. In that sense, the argument points toward a missing link in the theory of the firm: one in which innovation, strategy, and balance-sheet dynamics are analytically inseparable.

Introduction

If the Financial Instability Hypothesis fails to provide a unified theory (see part 1), it is not because Minsky lacked analytical depth. It is because his work points in multiple directions at once — toward a broader, but never fully integrated, architecture of financial capitalism1.

What appears, at first glance, as incompleteness is better understood as fragmentation: a set of analytical trajectories that are never brought together into a single system.

Three such trajectories stand out. First, the seeds of a financial theory of the firm are visible in his analysis of balance sheets and the evolution from hedge to speculative and Ponzi positions. Second, a financial approach to the evolution of capitalism, developed through his suggestive — but never fully systematized — account of successive financial regimes. Third, an incomplete framework for institutional stabilization, centered on the roles of the Big Bank, Big Government, and Big Regulator.

This installment focuses on the first of these trajectories: the seeds of a financial theory of the firm. The remaining two: the financial approach to the evolution of capitalism and the institutional architecture of stabilization, will be taken up in the final part of this series.

These are not extensions of the Financial Instability Hypothesis. They are fragments of a larger architecture that Minsky never fully assembled.

The seeds of a financial theory of the firm

What follows is not a theory developed explicitly by Minsky, but a theoretical implication of his framework — one that emerges once his core propositions are taken seriously.

Minsky’s starting point is clear: capitalism is “essentially a financial system,” and finance operates as its ephor. At the same time, his taxonomy of hedge, speculative, and Ponzi finance is defined at the level of economic units — firms, households, and financial institutions — whose balance sheets determine their position within the system.

Taken together, these two elements point to a decisive implication. If capitalism is organized through financial relations, and if systemic stability depends on the evolving financial positions of its constituent units, then the firm cannot be understood solely as a productive entity. It must be understood, fundamentally, as a financial structure rather than merely a productive entity.

From this perspective, the firm is best conceived as a managed balance sheet under conditions of uncertainty. Its strategic position is determined not only by its productive capabilities but also by the structure and management of its assets and liabilities — by its capacity to generate cash flows, access and roll over financing, and preserve margins of safety amid shifting expectations and liquidity conditions.

These conditions are shaped by the level and volatility of interest rates and exchange-rate dynamics, which influence the cost of funding, the valuation of assets and liabilities, and the firm’s exposure to refinancing and currency risk. The distinction between hedge, speculative, and Ponzi positions is thus not merely a macro-financial classification. It is implicitly a taxonomy of firm behavior and vulnerability.

From this standpoint, growth, survival, and strategy become inseparable from financial architecture. Investment is not simply a function of expected profitability; it is conditioned by balance-sheet strength, access to external finance, and exposure to refinancing risk. Firms with robust financial structures — high internal cash flows, manageable debt obligations, and limited dependence on short-term funding — possess greater strategic flexibility.

Those operating in speculative or Ponzi positions, by contrast, are constrained by their need to continuously validate their liabilities through refinancing and asset price appreciation. Financial fragility, in this sense, is not only a macroeconomic condition. It is a property of firms.

More fundamentally, this perspective places financial innovation at the center of the analysis. The management of the balance sheet is not a static exercise but an ongoing process of innovation: restructuring liabilities, creating new financial instruments, and strategically reconfiguring funding structures.

The ability to transform the composition, maturity, and cost of liabilities — and to align them with uncertain and evolving asset positions — becomes a central dimension of firm strategy. Balance-sheet management thus becomes the linchpin of competitive positioning and firm growth.

This dimension is only partially visible in both Minsky and Schumpeter. Minsky emphasizes financial practices and evolving positions but does not theorize financial innovation at the firm level. Schumpeter places innovation at the core of capitalism but focuses primarily on new combinations in technology, production, and markets, leaving the firm's internal financial architecture underdeveloped.

Bringing these perspectives together reveals a deeper connection: a financial theory of the firm derived from Minsky is inherently Schumpeterian from the outset. Innovation operates not only in products and processes, but in the very financial architecture that sustains the firm.

This argument has important implications for how we understand innovation, competition, and selection. The capacity to undertake long-term, uncertain, and potentially transformative investments depends critically on the firm’s ability to sustain negative cash flows and to secure ongoing financing. Crucially, financial structures thus condition not only the scale but also the direction of innovation. Firms operating under tight financial constraints will favor incremental, short-horizon projects; those with stronger and more flexible balance sheets can pursue more radical forms of creative destruction. Innovation, in this sense, is not merely financially mediated; it is structured by the firm's financial architecture.

Competition likewise assumes a strong financial dimension. Firms compete not only through technologies, prices, and organizational forms, but through the management of their balance sheets. Access to credit, cost of funding, liquidity buffers, and debt maturity structures all influence competitive outcomes.

At the same time, the ability to hedge against interest-rate and exchange-rate volatility — or to exploit favorable monetary regimes such as quantitative easing — can decisively reshape firms’ cost structures, risk exposure, and strategic horizons, thereby altering competitive hierarchies.

Periods of financial expansion tend to compress these differences, allowing firms to expand through refinancing and leverage, while simultaneously sowing fragility across the system. Periods of tightening, by contrast, reveal and amplify these underlying vulnerabilities, extending financial fragility and risking a transition to instability, while also generating selection processes driven as much by financial resilience as by productive efficiency.

Seen in this light, the firm’s evolution becomes the micro-foundation of Minsky’s macro-dynamics of financial fragility. The transition from hedge to speculative and Ponzi finance is not an abstract systemic shift; it is the aggregation of changes in firms' financial structures. Systemic fragility emerges when a sufficient proportion of firms becomes dependent on fragile financing arrangements, rendering the system vulnerable to shifts in liquidity conditions.

When that configuration migrates to the financial system, fragility morphs into instability, as explored in Part 1 of this essay. Once these Minskyan “seeds” are properly organized, they carry key implications for theories of the firm concerned with growth, innovation, and structural change. The most salient of these can now be outlined.

Implications: Resources, Strategy, and Dynamic Capabilities

At this point, the analytical gain of this financial perspective becomes clearer. If the firm is understood as a managed balance sheet under conditions of uncertainty, then its financial configuration is not only a source of vulnerability, but also a determinant of strategic quality and growth potential. Some financial structures support resilience, flexibility, and long-term investment; others create dependence, fragility, and exposure to adverse shifts in liquidity.

The distinction between leading and laggard firms is therefore not reducible to productive efficiency or technological capability alone, but emerges from the interaction between financial structure, organizational capacity, and their impact on innovation. Financial management conditions the effective deployment of productive and organizational capabilities — shaping not only what firms can do, but what they can sustain.

This perspective lies outside the domain of standard theories of the firm — whether neoclassical, transaction-cost, or static oligopolistic — and also beyond existing evolutionary approaches. The difference, however, is decisive: standard theories have no room for this type of extension, whereas evolutionary approaches are structurally open to it.

The question, then, is how this financial perspective relates to that tradition. Addressing it requires moving beyond Minsky’s fragments and engaging directly with the core elements of the most insightful attempts to theorize the firm as a dynamic entity — beginning with the resource-based view, extending through the strategy-and-structure perspective on corporate organization, and culminating in the dynamic capabilities approach.

Resources and the Lateral Role of Finance in the Firm

The resource-based theory of the firm, pioneered by Edith Penrose (1959), represents one of the most important departures from static conceptions of economic organization. In this framework, the firm is not a production function, but a repository of resources and capabilities, whose growth depends on how managers recombine and redeploy those resources over time. Firms transform homogeneous inputs into heterogeneous services, and it is this process of internal learning, accumulation, and redeployment that drives expansion and diversification.

This is a fundamentally dynamic and, in many respects, Schumpeterian view. Growth is not equilibrium adjustment, but an open-ended process shaped by internal capabilities and external opportunities. Yet a critical dimension remains underdeveloped: the financial conditions that make such processes possible.

In Penrose’s framework, finance is present but analytically lateral: it conditions growth without structuring it. As she puts it, “the services yielded by resources are a function of the way in which they are used, and the same resources can be used in different ways” (Penrose, 2009 [1959], p. 25).

Growth, in this perspective, is driven by the internal redeployment and recombination of resources under managerial direction. But the question of how these processes are financed — how firms sustain investment, absorb losses, and manage the temporal mismatch between expenditures and returns — remains largely implicit.

This limitation is not confined to Penrose. As later surveys of the resource-based tradition make clear, the analytical focus remains overwhelmingly elsewhere. As Pankaj Ghemawat (2002) notes in his survey of the field, firms are understood as “stuck with a few key resources,” with analysis centered on how these resources are developed and deployed through capabilities, learning, and organizational processes, rather than through financial structuring.

In reality, firms do not simply recombine resources. They operate as financial organisms, whose growth depends on their ability to mobilize and orchestrate liquidity — and, through it, their financial resources — under conditions of uncertainty.

This orientation is already visible in earlier assessments of the Penrosian tradition (Foss and Loasby, 1998), where the emphasis falls on resources, knowledge, and coordination, with finance remaining outside the core analytical framework. More recent surveys confirm the persistence of this pattern.

As Foss and Linder (2022) show in their review of the microfoundations of resources, capabilities, and strategy, the focus remains on “individual skills, knowledge, actions, and interactions” (p. 1). An equally revealing fact is what this perspective leaves out: finance is virtually absent from the analysis. The term appears only once, in a passing reference (p. 49), and the notion of a financial system as a structuring force in capability formation and deployment is nowhere to be found in the entire volume.

This omission is not trivial. It reflects a deeper analytical bias: capabilities are treated as emerging from the coordination of resources and managerial action, while the financial conditions that enable, constrain, and ultimately select among those capabilities remain untheorized.

Strategy, Structure, and the Logic of Industrial Capitalism

Any serious account of the modern corporation must pass through the work of Alfred Chandler Jr. and his collaborators. Their historical reconstruction of the rise of the large industrial enterprise remains the most systematic demonstration that capitalism, once it reaches a certain scale, ceases to operate through decentralized market coordination and becomes instead an organizational system of administered coordination.

Chandler’s central claim is well known but still insufficiently absorbed: “the visible hand of managerial coordination replaced the invisible hand of market forces” (Chandler, 1977). As administrative coordination supplants market coordination within the firm, the modern corporation emerges not as a deviation from competitive capitalism, but as its necessary institutional form under conditions of large-scale industrial production.

At the core of this transformation lies a sequence that structures Chandler’s entire analysis: strategy precedes structure, and both condition performance. Firms expand by exploiting economies of scale and scope, and this expansion requires new organizational forms — multidivisional structures, managerial hierarchies, and integrated production and distribution systems — capable of coordinating increasingly complex flows of goods, information, and decisions.

In this framework, the firm is fundamentally a solution to coordination problems. Its boundaries expand not primarily in response to market power considerations, but because internal organization becomes more efficient than external contracting. The rise of managerial capitalism is thus anchored in a historically specific problem: how to coordinate high-throughput systems of production and distribution in an environment where markets alone are insufficiently reliable.

Finance is not absent from this account. On the contrary, Chandler is attentive to the capital intensity of railroads, heavy industry, and mass production, as well as to the role of retained earnings and capital markets in enabling expansion. However, finance appears in a strictly instrumental register: it provides the resources necessary for growth, but it does not shape the logic of that growth. The firm's trajectory is determined by strategic and organizational imperatives; finance follows.

This analytical ordering reveals a limitation of Chandler’s framework. By treating capital as a resource rather than a structuring force, this approach brackets off the possibility that financial conditions — liquidity, leverage, expectations, and credit creation — might actively shape corporate strategy, alter organizational trajectories, or generate systemic fragilities. The corporation, in his account, is embedded in a financial environment, but not constituted by it.

The result is a powerful and historically bounded theory: Chandler and his collaborators — in a body of work spanning Strategy and Structure (1962), The Visible Hand (1977), Scale and Scope (1990), and Big Business and the Wealth of Nations (1997) — capture with unmatched clarity the organizational logic of industrial capitalism under relatively stable financial conditions.

But not its transformation once finance becomes an active—and potentially destabilizing—force.

From a Minskyan perspective, this limitation is decisive. Financial structure is not a passive background condition, but a central determinant of firm behavior under uncertainty, shaping investment horizons, strategic choices, and the capacity to sustain commitments over time. These dynamics cannot be adequately captured within a framework in which finance remains analytically subordinate to strategy and organization.

The task, therefore, is not to reject Chandler, but to complement him: to move from the organizational logic of the firm to the financial logic of its expansion, and from coordination to liquidity and leverage as the deeper structuring principles of modern capitalism.

Share

Dynamic Capabilities and the Evolutionary Theory of the Firm

If Chandler provides the most rigorous account of strategies and organizational structures under corporate capitalism, and Penrose supplies the foundational insight that firm growth is driven by the productive deployment of internal resources, then the Dynamic Capabilities (DC) approach represents the most developed attempt to theorize the firm as a resource-based, innovation-driven, and evolutionarily adaptive entity2.

Emerging from the strategic management literature and most fully articulated by David Teece and collaborators, this framework shifts the analytical focus from static efficiency to the processes by which firms generate, sustain, and transform competitive advantage under conditions of deep uncertainty3.

At its core, the Dynamic Capabilities (DC) approach rejects the firm as a production function or a nexus of contracts. Instead, it conceives the firm as a repository of capabilities — organizational and managerial processes through which resources are combined, deployed, and reconfigured over time.

As Teece emphasizes, the firm must be understood not in terms of given inputs and outputs, but in terms of its ability to “integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly changing environments”, that is, “to learn, coordinate, and orchestrate assets in ways that static market coordination cannot achieve.”(Teece, 2017).

This perspective places heterogeneity at the center of analysis. Firms differ not simply in their resource endowments, but in their capacity to build, integrate, and redeploy those resources in response to changing environments. The central problem is therefore not allocation under given constraints, but adaptation, innovation, and survival. The dynamic capabilities framework explicitly seeks to explain differential firm performance over time — why some firms grow, others stagnate, and others disappear.

A key conceptual distinction structures the framework: that between ordinary and dynamic capabilities. Ordinary capabilities are the operational routines that enable firms to produce efficiently with existing technologies and organizational structures. They are, in essence, capabilities for “doing things right.” Dynamic capabilities, by contrast, operate at a higher level. They are the capabilities that allow firms to “do the right things”, to identify new opportunities, respond to technological change, and reconfigure their asset base accordingly.

Teece formalizes these higher-order capabilities through a tripartite schema: sensing, seizing, and transforming. Firms must first sense opportunities and threats, scanning and interpreting technological and market developments. They must then seize those opportunities by mobilizing resources and designing appropriate business models. Finally, they must transform — continuously renewing their organizational structures, asset configurations, and strategic positioning to sustain competitiveness over time.

This architecture marks a decisive shift toward an explicitly evolutionary theory of the firm. Competition is no longer understood as equilibrium interaction among homogeneous agents, but as a process of differential adaptation under uncertainty. Firms operate in environments characterized not by calculable risk, but by Knightian uncertainty, where outcomes cannot be reduced to probabilistic expectations. In this context, managerial judgment becomes central.

Indeed, one of the most distinctive contributions of the DC framework is its rehabilitation of management as an economic variable. Managers are not passive optimizers, but entrepreneurial actors responsible for orchestrating assets, forming expectations about the future, and committing the firm to uncertain investment paths. In doing so, however, the framework effectively collapses a distinction that is central in Schumpeter: that between the entrepreneur, as the agent of innovation, and the manager, as the agent of coordination. In Teece’s formulation, both functions are subsumed under “management,” which expands its analytical scope but blurs an important conceptual distinction.

Furthermore, the framework explicitly integrates elements from multiple traditions: Schumpeterian innovation, Penrosean resource recombination, and Keynesian “animal spirits” as a driver of investment under uncertainty.

The result is a theory that integrates innovation, organization, and strategy into a unified analytical framework. The firm emerges as a dynamic system, continuously engaged in processes of learning, coordination, and transformation. Its boundaries, activities, and trajectories are shaped not only by market conditions but also by its internally developed capabilities to perceive, interpret, and act upon an evolving economic landscape.

What distinguishes the dynamic capabilities approach within the broader landscape of firm theory is precisely this integration. It moves beyond the static efficiency concerns of neoclassical theory, the contractual focus of transaction-cost approaches, and the resource-accumulation emphasis of early evolutionary models.

It thus provides the most advanced articulation to date of the firm as an evolving, innovation-driven entity operating amid uncertainty.

The Limits of the Dynamic Capabilities Approach

Notwithstanding its outstanding contributions, the Dynamic Capabilities approach has begun to confront its own limitations. David Teece has recognized that the field he helped shape faces a moment of rupture:

“The field of Strategic Management is itself at an inflection point. If it is to have continuing relevance, it must go through (intellectual) disruptions of the kind that business itself confronts. Small incremental steps will not get the field to where it needs to be” (Teece, 2020, 33).

In his account, this need for disruption is driven in part by the emergence of the People’s Republic of China as a major economic and technological power, and by the challenge it poses to established Western models of organizing economic activity. Yet while this diagnosis is perceptive and correct, the direction of the required theoretical shift remains incomplete.

Despite its analytical sophistication, the DC framework leaves a critical dimension underdeveloped. Its account of firm behavior under uncertainty is articulated in terms of managerial cognition, organizational processes, and resource reconfiguration, but it does not provide a systematic treatment of financial structure and its evolution4.

This omission is not immediately apparent because the framework explicitly engages with uncertainty, investment, and long-term strategic commitment. Firms are understood to operate under conditions of Knightian uncertainty, where outcomes cannot be reduced to probabilistic expectations and managerial judgment plays a central role.

Yet the conditions under which such judgments are made — the financial commitments that sustain them, the liabilities that constrain them, and the evolving balance-sheet structures that condition their viability — remain largely outside the analytical core of the theory.

In the DC framework, investment appears as a strategic and organizational decision: firms sense opportunities, seize them through resource mobilization, and transform their asset base accordingly. But the financial architecture that makes such processes possible is not theorized.

The capacity to invest is implicitly assumed rather than explicitly constructed. Access to funding, the maturity structure of liabilities, exposure to refinancing risk, and the role of leverage in shaping strategic horizons do not enter as central analytical variables. Most strikingly, in a theory centered on innovation, financial innovation itself remains outside the analytical framework

As a result, the framework captures how firms adapt and innovate, but not how they structure financing, adoption, and diffusion. It explains capability formation and transformation, but not the financial conditions that enable, constrain, and select among capabilities over time.

This limitation becomes particularly significant once technological uncertainty and the temporal dimension of investment are fully taken into account. Both technological development and innovation require the commitment of resources in the present in the face of uncertain future returns.

Such commitments have a strong financial dimension that remains unaddressed: they require the continuous construction and management of balance sheets — the dynamic coordination of assets and liabilities under liquidity constraints and shifting expectations over time.

The sustainability of innovation strategies, therefore, depends not only on the firm’s ability to sense and seize opportunities but also on its capacity to manage its balance sheet under conditions of uncertainty.

From this perspective, the absence of a financial architecture dimension in the DC framework is not a secondary omission. It affects the theory’s ability to account for differences in firm behavior and performance over time. Firms with similar capabilities may follow very different trajectories depending on how their financial commitments are structured and managed.

The processes of competition and selection are shaped not only by capability differentials but also by differences in financial resilience and exposure to changing liquidity conditions, including firms’ capacity to manage interest-rate and exchange-rate risk and to incorporate these risks into their strategic positioning.

What emerges, therefore, is a structural asymmetry. The most advanced evolutionary theory of the firm provides a rich account of how capabilities are built, deployed, and transformed, but leaves underdeveloped the financial mechanisms that sustain and test these processes over time. What is missing across the evolutionary approaches examined here is not finance per se, but its elevation to a structuring principle of firm behavior and growth.

Conclusion: Financial Architecture, Innovation, and the Schumpeterian Corporation

A Minsky-based financial theory of the firm does not displace the Dynamic Capabilities framework. It completes it by introducing what remains absent from its analytical core: a systematic account of financial structure and its role in shaping the deployment and evolution of capabilities over time.

If the firm is understood as a managed balance sheet under uncertainty, then the transformation of resources is inseparable from the transformation of financial commitments. The ability to convert inputs into productive capabilities depends on the capacity to secure, structure, and continuously manage financing. Growth, in this sense, is not only a function of resource recombination but of financial innovation and balance-sheet management.

This introduces a decisive distinction. Firms with similar technological and productive capabilities may nonetheless follow divergent capability-building trajectories depending on how their financial commitments are structured, financed, and managed over time.

Access to funding, liability maturity, leverage, and exposure to interest-rate and exchange-rate movements shape strategic horizons and constrain or enable long-term investment. Financial resilience, not just productive efficiency, becomes a central dimension of competition and selection.

Once financial architecture is brought into the analysis, this relationship becomes structural. Balance-sheet management is not a passive constraint but an active domain of strategy: the design of liabilities, the management of liquidity, and the alignment of funding structures with uncertain investment paths. The capacity to innovate thus depends not only on the recombination of resources, but on the ability to sustain that recombination financially over time.

In this light, the firm is neither simply a bundle of resources nor a nexus of contracts. It is a financially constituted, evolving structure whose trajectory reflects the interaction between innovation, liquidity, and uncertainty.

The Schumpeterian corporation, accordingly, cannot be understood solely as an engine of innovation. At its core lies a Minskyian financial architecture: the active management of balance sheets, the continuous provision and securing of liquidity, and the capacity to actively manage and orchestrate interest-rate and exchange-rate dynamics in the firm’s favor.

It is not only an innovator but also a financial structure that survives, expands, or fails through the management of its capabilities and balance sheet. In short, creative destruction is internal to the firm’s strategy and organization, grounded in its financial architecture.

Leave a comment

References

Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chandler, A. D. (1977). The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chandler, A. D. (1990). Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chandler, A. D., Amatori, F., and Hikino, T. (eds.) (1997) Big Business and the Wealth of Nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Foss, N. J. and Loasby, B. J. (eds.) (1998) Economic Organization, Capabilities and Co-ordination: Essays in Honor of G. B. Richardson. London: Routledge.

Foss, N. J. and Linder, S. (eds.) (2022) Microfoundations of Strategy: A Reader. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Ghemawat, P. (2002) ‘Competition and business strategy in historical perspective’, Business History Review, 76(1), pp. 37–74.

Minsky, H. P. (1975). John Maynard Keynes. New York: Columbia University Press.

Minsky, H. P. (1982). Can “It” Happen Again? Essays on Instability and Finance. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Minsky, H. P. (2008 [1986]). Stabilizing an Unstable Economy. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Penrose, E. T. (2009 [1959]) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Proença, A. and Burlamaqui, L. (2023). Schumpeterian Competition and Dynamic Capabilities: Towards a Theory of the Schumpeterian Corporation. Working Paper, Colégio Brasileiro de Altos Estudos (CBAE-UFRJ).

Schumpeter, J. A. (2017 [1911]). The Theory of Economic Development. London: Routledge.

Schumpeter, J. A. (2012 [1942]) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Routledge.

Teece, D.J. (2020). ‘Fundamental Issues in Strategy: Time to Reassess?’ in Strategic Management Review, 1(1), pp. 1–45.

Teece, D. J. (2018). ‘Dynamic capabilities’, in Augier, M. and Teece, D. J. (eds.), The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Teece, D. J. (2017) ‘Towards a capability theory of (innovating) firms: implications for management and policy’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41(3), pp. 693–720

Teece, D. J. (2010). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management: Organizing for Innovation and Growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997) ‘Dynamic capabilities and strategic management’, Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), pp. 509–533.

Unity overstated, fragmentation obscured: revisiting Minsky.

Preface

This essay unfolds in three parts. It revisits Hyman Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis through the lens of Isaiah Berlin’s distinction between hedgehogs and foxes. It argues that the conventional reading of Minsky as a hedgehog — a thinker organized around a single, powerful insight — captures something essential but ultimately obscures a critical limitation: the absence of a fully articulated mechanism linking financial fragility to financial instability.

Part 1 develops this critique and proposes a reconstruction. It shows that fragility is a cumulative, balance-sheet process, while instability emerges when the financial system ceases to perform its core function of providing finance and funding, thereby amplifying balance-sheet deterioration and liquidity shortages. This transition, far from being purely endogenous, is shaped by shifts in liquidity conditions and, in the interpretation advanced here, by the monetary policy environment that both sustains and ultimately unsettles fragile financial structures.

Part 2 turns to what lies beyond this incomplete “Big idea”. It focuses on a first dimension of the “fox” in Minsky’s work: the seeds of a financial theory of the firm, embedded in his analysis of balance sheets and the evolution from hedge to speculative and Ponzi positions. These seeds are extended, and their implications for existing evolutionary theories of the firm are made explicit.

Part 3 broadens the perspective. It develops the remaining “fox” trajectories: a financial approach to the evolution of capitalism, articulated through Minsky’s account of successive regimes, and a reassessment of his policy and institutional framework for economic and financial stabilization, centered on the roles of the Big Bank, Big Government, and Big Regulator.

Taken together, these elements do not form a unified theory. They point instead to a broader analytical architecture than the hedgehog label can accommodate.

Introduction

In The Hedgehog and the Fox, Isaiah Berlin proposed a now-famous distinction: the hedgehog knows one big thing; the fox knows many things. The contrast is not about intelligence but about intellectual style — whether one reduces complexity to a single organizing principle or navigates reality through multiple, often conflicting, perspectives. Tolstoy, Berlin argued, was both: a fox by temperament, a hedgehog by aspiration. His work constantly overflowed the unity he sought to impose on it.

Hyman Minsky belongs in this tradition.

Gary Dimsky and Robert Pollin, in a perceptive essay, frame their contribution around the “Wall Street paradigm”: the idea that capitalism is fundamentally a financial system whose dynamics are governed by evolving balance sheets, cash-flow commitments, and the structure of financial relations. From this perspective, the Financial Instability Hypothesis (FIH) becomes Minsky’s “one big thing” — the unifying insight that stability breeds instability, as periods of tranquil growth endogenously generate financial fragility and, eventually, crisis.

This is a powerful interpretation — and not an incorrect one. It captures something essential in Minsky: the insistence that finance is not a veil but, in Minsky’s own formulation, the ephor of capitalism. It also explains why his work has proven so resilient, especially in the aftermath of recurrent financial crises. If there is a single idea that travels well across time and context, it is precisely that stability can be destabilizing.

And yet, taken as a complete characterization, this reading is misleading.

The problem is not that Minsky’s “one big thing” is wrong, but that it is not, in fact, one thing. The Financial Instability Hypothesis does not operate as a tightly specified mechanism, but rather as a cluster of related propositions whose internal connections remain underdeveloped.

His famous taxonomy of hedge, speculative, and Ponzi finance provides a compelling account of how financial fragility increases over time, as units become more dependent on refinancing and more exposed to shifts in cash flows. But it does not explain, in any systematic way, how this rising fragility translates into financial instability.

In fact, and somewhat surprisingly, Minsky never provided a fully articulated linkage between the two. Let’s unpack that.

Financial Fragility vs. Financial Instability: A Conceptual Gap

Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis (FIH) remains one of the most insightful frameworks for understanding capitalist dynamics amid financial expansion, euphoria, and eventual disruption. Its core intuition — that stability breeds instability — has proven remarkably resilient, especially in the wake of successive episodes of financial turmoil.

Yet, for all its power, the hypothesis rests on a conceptual ambiguity that has received far less attention than it deserves.

Minsky used the notions of financial fragility and financial instability extensively and often interchangeably. His writings strongly suggest a distinction between them. But that distinction is never rigorously drawn. The result is a conceptual gap at the very heart of his “one big idea.”

This is not a minor terminological issue. It goes directly to the internal coherence of the FIH as a unified explanatory framework.

The Lack of a Sharp Distinction in Minsky

At its core, Minsky’s concept of financial fragility refers to the vulnerability of economic units, households, firms, and financial institutions to adverse shocks. More precisely, it concerns the structure of their balance sheets, especially the relationship between cash inflows and debt commitments.

As debt obligations become harder to service out of current income, financial units evolve from hedge to speculative to Ponzi positions — Minsky’s well-known taxonomy. Fragility, in this sense, is not an event but a process: the gradual erosion of margins of safety embedded in balance sheets.

As the share of speculative and Ponzi units increases, the system becomes progressively more fragile. This is one of Minsky’s most powerful insights.

But it is also where the analytical clarity begins to fade.

The hedge–speculative–Ponzi classification provides a compelling account of how fragility builds up over time. What it does not provide is a clear explanation of how this rising fragility is transformed into financial instability. The transition from one to the other is repeatedly invoked — but never rigorously theorized.

The absence of a sharp distinction becomes evident when we follow Minsky across his major works.

In John Maynard Keynes (1975), fragility is central. Minsky writes:

“It is also evident that the economy behaves quite differently with a fragile rather than a robust financial system and that the fragility of the financial system is related to the ratio of debt payments to operations income…” (p. 160)

Here, fragility is clearly defined in balance-sheet terms. Instability, however, remains in the background. Indeed, in the book's index, there are two entries for financial instability but no clear definition, while financial fragility, despite its centrality, is not indexed as a distinct analytical category.

By contrast, in Can “It” Happen Again? (1982), the focus shifts toward instability. The FHI is explicitly formulated as a theory of crisis. On financial instability, perhaps the most “canonical” reference, extracted from his 1977 paper, “The Financial Instability Hypothesis,” Minsky states:

“There is, in the financial instability hypothesis, a theory of how a capitalist economy endogenously generates a financial structure which is susceptible to financial crises, and how the normal functioning of financial markets in the resulting boom economy will trigger a financial crisis” (1982, 99).

Once more, financial instability is mentioned but not explained or linked to financial fragility. The link back to fragility — the mechanism through which fragility accumulates and transforms into crisis — remains implicit.

Even in Stabilizing an Unstable Economy (1986), often regarded as his definitive statement on financial stability and instability, the distinction remains elusive. The text is surprisingly sparse in explicit references to financial instability itself and notably lacks a detailed exploration of the mechanisms by which financial fragility propagates throughout the financial system and morphs into financial instability.

The following quotations are representative:

“Financial instability is linked to the relative importance of income, balance-sheet, and portfolio cash flows in an economy” (p.226).

And a few pages later:

“The mixture of hedge, speculative, and Ponzi finance in an economy is a major determinant of its stability. The existence of a large component of positions financed in a speculative or a Ponzi manner is necessary for financial instability” (p.232).

Again, the analytical bridge is missing. Fragility appears as a structural condition, instability as an outcome. The process connecting the two is assumed rather than specified.

The result is a curious theoretical configuration. Minsky provides a compelling account of how financial fragility builds up over time, and a powerful intuition about the emergence of instability. What is missing, however, is an explicit transmission mechanism linking the two. The passage from fragility to instability is repeatedly invoked, but never analytically specified.

Fragility appears alternately as a condition, a tendency, and a phase. Instability appears as an event, a regime shift, or a systemic breakdown. Their relationship is narrated, illustrated, and suggested — but never formally integrated.

Attempts to Refine Minsky: Clarification Without Resolution

Minsky’s followers have long recognized this ambiguity and have attempted to resolve it. Their efforts are often insightful — but ultimately inconclusive.

L. Randall Wray, one of Minsky’s closest collaborators and most influential interpreters, dedicated a whole book to Minsky (Wray, 2016). That volume seems the proper place to search for clarification. At the very beginning, he writes,

“Minsky’s view can be captured in his memorable phrase: ‘Stability is destabilizing.’ What appears initially to be contradictory or perhaps ironic is actually tremendously insightful: to the degree that the economy achieves what looks to be robust and stable growth, this is setting up the conditions in which a crash becomes ever more likely. It is the stability that changes behaviors, policy making, and business opportunities so that the instability results” (pp.2–3).

This is an elegant restatement of Minsky’s core intuition. But it does not solve the problem.

Fragility remains a tendency, instability an outcome. The transition between the two is described but not analytically specified. There are no clear thresholds, no operational criteria, and no defined mechanism through which fragility becomes instability.

Jan Kregel, perhaps the most sophisticated interpreter of Minsky, comes closer. In his 2007 analysis, he identifies a concrete process:

“The expansion of credit leads to declining lending standards, deteriorating asset quality, and increasing vulnerability — which becomes visible when the growth of credit slows” (p.13).

This is a significant step forward. It introduces dynamics — amplification, shifts in liquidity preference, and feedback effects.

In 2008, Kregel produced another insightful comment:

“The idea of increasing financial fragility is built around the slow and imperceptible erosion of margins of safety during conditions of relative stability…. The result is a debt deflation process in which ‘position has to be sold to make position,’ and the downward pressure on prices raises real debt burdens. Lower prices increase the necessity to sell and reinforce the excess supply, making it even more difficult for the investor to fully repay his/her loan from asset sales” (p. 8).

Here, Kregel deepens this insight by emphasizing the erosion of margins of safety, the emergence of self-reinforcing debt-deflation dynamics, and the role of asset price declines in triggering systemic stress. Yet even here, the distinction remains blurred. Fragility and instability are discussed together, often under the same heading, without a clear analytical separation of their ontological status or causal relationship.

Ironically, one of the clearest formulations appears not in the main body of the literature, but in a footnote. In a 1994 chapter, Robert Pollin and Gary Dymski propose a distinction that comes closest to resolving the issue:

“Financial fragility refers to a state of the system, while financial instability denotes a dynamic process affecting that system” (371, fn2).

This is an important clarification. But it still leaves open the central question: What mechanism transforms a fragile state into an unstable process?

The answer is not provided1

Share

A Proposal for a Precise Distinction

The problem, then, is not empirical but theoretical.

Minsky identifies all the relevant components — balance sheets, cash flows, refinancing constraints, asset prices, expectations, and liquidity — but does not fully integrate them into a coherent mechanism.

Building on Burlamaqui and Torres (2020) and Burlamaqui ( 2025), a more precise distinction can be proposed. What follows is not an explicit reconstruction found in Minsky but a synthesis of elements from his work, integrated into a coherent transmission mechanism.

Financial fragility should be understood as a cumulative, potentially long-lasting process, characterized by the progressive deterioration of balance sheets across economic units. It unfolds gradually, as the ratio of cash inflows to debt commitments declines, and as financial structures migrate toward speculative and Ponzi positions.

In this sense, fragility is a structural condition — one that can persist, deepen, and even stabilize temporarily.

Financial instability, by contrast, is a qualitative shift. It emerges when financial fragility reaches a point at which balance-sheet deterioration can no longer be contained within the ordinary liquidity-creation circuits of the financial system.

At that point, a critical transformation occurs. Even relatively small disturbances can trigger a generalized shift in liquidity preference within the financial system. Financial units begin to prioritize survival over expansion. Balance-sheet repair replaces risk-taking. Confidence evaporates. The system enters a phase in which refinancing becomes uncertain, asset prices grow increasingly volatile, and liquidity is hoarded rather than created.

This marks the activation of a transmission mechanism that Minsky clearly intuited but never fully articulated: a cumulative and self-reinforcing process in which asset sales depress prices, rising real debt burdens force further liquidation, and the system is driven from fragility to instability — and from instability to an economy-wide crisis.

The pivotal moment is contagion — not merely the spread of disturbances across sectors, but their amplification from within the financial system itself. This amplification operates through a dual mechanism: contagion and the fear of contagion reinforce one another. As balance sheets deteriorate, the rapid circulation of information — both signal and noise — shifts expectations and erodes confidence. The result is a generalized rise in liquidity preference.

Financial institutions, uncertain about the solvency of their counterparties, withdraw from intermediation. Lending — even, and especially, within the financial system itself — contracts sharply. In doing so, the fear of contagion becomes a driver of contagion: the attempt to avoid exposure generates the very breakdown of funding relations that propagates systemic stress.

Financial instability is, in this sense, a creature of the financial system — it emerges when the system ceases to perform its core function of providing finance and funding and instead transmits and magnifies balance-sheet stress. What begins as localized fragility is transformed, through interconnected balance sheets and shrinking liquidity, into system-wide disruption.

At that point, the financial system no longer absorbs shocks; it amplifies them. Rather than acting as a stabilizing buffer, it becomes a mechanism of propagation. In this sense, financial instability is not merely the continuation of fragility. It is its transformation into a dynamic process of systemic disintegration — a generalized “dash for cash” that, absent intervention, culminates in collapse.

Yet this transition is not purely endogenous.

A further, largely overlooked dimension concerns the role of central banks as co-protagonists in this process. In standard readings of Minsky, the central bank appears primarily as the “Big Bank” — the stabilizing force that intervenes once instability emerges. But this is only half the story.

The transition itself is shaped, and often accelerated, by the conduct of monetary policy. Periods of prolonged monetary accommodation — particularly when interest rates are kept low beyond what prevailing margins of safety would justify — compress risk premia, sustain asset valuations, and encourage the expansion of leverage. In doing so, they contribute directly to the progressive “Ponzification” of the system.

Fundamentally, this is not merely a permissive background condition. It is an active component of the process. By validating balance-sheet structures that would otherwise be unsustainable, monetary policy extends the life of fragile configurations and allows them to deepen. Fragility, in this sense, is not only endogenous to private behavior; it is co-produced by the monetary policy environment within which that behavior unfolds.

The same policy regime may later precipitate the transition to instability. When monetary conditions tighten — especially abruptly — amid elevated leverage and widespread dependence on refinancing, balance-sheet deterioration can no longer be contained within the ordinary liquidity-creation circuits of the financial system. What had been a fragile yet functioning system is suddenly revealed to be unstable.

At that point, the system's logic reverses. Liquidity creation gives way to liquidity preference; expansion turns into retrenchment. Financial units shift from position-making to position-defending. The attempt to meet existing commitments generates the very conditions that make them unfulfillable. The system begins to unwind.

Episodes such as the tightening preceding the 1929 crash, the Bank of Japan’s policy reversal following the Plaza Accord, and the Federal Reserve’s rate increases prior to the 2007–08 crisis illustrate this dynamic with particular clarity. In each case, fragility is built under one monetary policy regime and exposed under another.

In the late 1920s, the Federal Reserve’s shift toward monetary tightening — after a prolonged period of credit expansion and speculative excess — contributed to the collapse of highly leveraged positions, vividly described by John Kenneth Galbraith in The Great Crash, and situated within a broader systemic crisis by Charles Kindleberger in The World in Depression. From a different analytical perspective, Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz, in their account of the “Great Contraction,” emphasize the role of monetary policy in shaping the trajectory of the downturn2.

Across these otherwise divergent interpretations, a common implication emerges: the vulnerability of the system was not created at the moment of crisis, but, in the interpretation advanced here, co-produced by the preceding monetary policy regime and exposed by its reversal3.

A similar pattern is visible in Japan. The prolonged monetary accommodation that followed the Plaza Accord sustained a massive expansion in asset prices and leverage, only to be reversed by subsequent tightening by the Bank of Japan. Richard Werner, in Princes of the Yen (2003), emphasizes the role of monetary policy in both inflating and puncturing the bubble.

In Japan’s Policy Trap Dollars Deflation and the Crisis of Japanese Finance (2002), Akio Mikuni, R Taggart Murphy, and Michael H Armacost shows how the crisis emerged from the cumulative weakening of bank balance sheets and prolonged regulatory forbearance during the bubble years, with subsequent policy tightening acting less as a cause than as the trigger that both exposed an already fragile financial structure and effectively punctured the bubble.

The 2007–08 crisis follows the same logic. The prolonged period of low interest rates and abundant liquidity in the early 2000s — often associated with the “Greenspan put” — facilitated the expansion of leverage and the proliferation of fragile financial structures. The subsequent tightening cycle, beginning in 2004, contributed to the breakdown of refinancing chains and the collapse of asset-backed securities markets.

As emphasized by Adam Tooze in Crashed and Alan Blinder in After the Music Stopped, the crisis was less the result of an exogenous shock than the unwinding of a system whose fragility had been built up over the preceding monetary regime.

Across these cases, the pattern is consistent: fragility is accumulated under conditions of monetary accommodation, …and instability is revealed and unleashed when those conditions are reversed. In short, instability emerges from the progressive “Ponzification” of the system — but only when that process is recognized, internalized, and acted upon by economic agents under changing monetary conditions that both sustain and ultimately unsettle it.

In Minsky’s own formulation, it is only at this juncture that the Big Bank enters the scene: not as a routine actor, but as the necessary counterforce to a system that has lost its capacity to reproduce its own liquidity. The full story, however, requires acknowledging a much larger role for the Big Bank than this reactive function alone suggests.

Conclusion

The Financial Instability Hypothesis, then, is best understood not as a unified theory, but as a set of powerful — yet only partially integrated — analytical insights. Its enduring influence stems from the strength of its core intuition: that stability breeds fragility. But that intuition, by itself, does not constitute a fully specified theory of crisis.

What is missing in Minsky is not the identification of the relevant elements, but their integration into a coherent transmission mechanism. Balance-sheet fragility, liquidity preference shifts, refinancing breakdowns, and crisis dynamics all appear in his work — but they are never fully assembled into a structured account of how fragility becomes instability.

This essay has proposed such a reconstruction. Financial fragility is a cumulative, balance-sheet condition; financial instability is a systemic process that emerges when the financial system ceases to perform its core function of providing finance and funding and instead begins to amplify stress. The transition between the two is neither automatic nor purely endogenous: it is mediated by shifts in liquidity conditions and, crucially, by the monetary policy environment that both sustains and ultimately unsettles fragile financial structures4.

In this light, Minsky’s “one big thing” appears in a different form. It is not a single, unified mechanism, but a set of interrelated processes — powerful in isolation, yet incomplete when integrated.

If Minsky is a hedgehog, then it is not because he knew one big thing. It is because he sought one — and produced, instead, a set of insights whose full implications exceed the unity he aimed to impose.

It is in these excesses that the fox begins to appear — and with it, a different way of reading Minsky, to which Part 2 will turn.

Leave a comment

References

Berlin, I. (1993). The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Essay on Tolstoy’s View of History. London: Phoenix.

Blinder, A. S. (2013). After the Music Stopped: The Financial Crisis, the Response, and the Work Ahead. New York: Penguin Press.

Blinder, A. S. (2022). A Monetary and Fiscal History of the United States, 1961–2021. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Burlamaqui, L. (2025a). Financial fragility without financial instability: Reform in the Chinese banking system—Zhu Rongji’s and its aftermath. Levy Economics Institute Working Paper 1086.

Burlamaqui, L. and Torres Filho, E. (2020). “The COVID-19 crisis: A Minskyian approach to mapping and managing the (western?) financial turmoil.” Levy Economics Institute, Working Papers Series No. 968.

Dymski, G. A. and Pollin, R. (1992) ‘Hyman Minsky as a hedgehog: The power of the Wall Street paradigm’, in Fazzari, S. M. and Papadimitriou, D. B. (eds.) Financial Conditions and Macroeconomic Performance: Essays in Honor of Hyman P. Minsky. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 27–61.

Friedman, M. and Schwartz, A. J. (1963) A Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Galbraith, J. K. (2009). The Great Crash, 1929. Boston: Mariner Books.

Kindleberger, C. P. (1973). The World in Depression, 1929–1939. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kregel, J. A . (2007). “The Natural Instability of Financial Markets.” Levy Institute Working Paper No. 523. Levy Economics Institute of Bard College

Kregel, J. A (2008) “Minsky’s ‘Cushions of Safety’, Systemic Risk and the Crisis in the U.S. Subprime Mortgage Market.” Public Policy Brief No. 93, Levy Economics Institute: 9.

Mikuni, A., Murphy, R. T., and Armacost, M. H. (2002) Japan’s Policy Trap: Dollars, Deflation, and the Crisis of Japanese Finance. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Minsky, H. P. (1975). John Maynard Keynes. New York: Columbia University Press.

Minsky, H. P. (1982). Can “It” Happen Again? Essays on Instability and Finance. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Minsky, H. P. (1986). Stabilizing an Unstable Economy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Pollin, R. and G. Dymski. (1994). “The Costs and Benefits of Financial Instability: Big Government Capitalism and the Minsky Paradox” in New Perspectives in Monetary Macroeconomics, Explorations in the Tradition of Hyman P. Minsky, edited by G. Dymski and R. Pollin. Michigan University Press

Tooze, A. (2018). Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World. New York: Viking.

Werner, R. A. (2003). Princes of the Yen: Japan’s Central Bankers and the Transformation of the Economy. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Wray, R. (2016). Why Minsky Matters: An Introduction to the Work of a Maverick Economist.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Beyond collapse and stabilization: capitalism generates both automation and prosperity. Tugan’s analysis reveals the need for an ethical socialism to govern them.

Introduction

The previous essay in this series (Part I) showed how Tugan-Baranovsky dissected and dismantled the economic foundations of Marx’s theory of collapse. If capitalism is not driven toward breakdown by declining profitability or insufficient demand, then the problem must be reformulated at a more fundamental level.

This essay takes up Tugan’s theoretical reconstruction of capitalist dynamics from that vantage point. The question is no longer why capitalism is bound to fail, but how it reproduces itself: how accumulation generates its own conditions of expansion, and how its trajectory is shaped by social and political constraints.

This shift has decisive implications. Once collapse is no longer the organizing principle, analysis must move from limits to processes, and from breakdown to the organization of production, demand, and power. It is on this terrain that Tugan’s argument unfolds — and where its consequences become most far-reaching.

What emerges is not a harmonious system, but a resilient and conflictual one: capable of sustained expansion yet structured by relations that displace human ends in favor of accumulation. It is this combination — economic resilience and ethical tension — that reopens the socialist question on entirely different grounds.

The Inversion of Marx’s Law: Accumulation, Productivity, and Profit

Tugan-Baranovsky’s reconstruction of capitalist dynamics begins not with a qualification, but with a direct assault on the analytical core of Marx’s theory. The law of the falling rate of profit, he argues, rests on a fundamental misapprehension of the role of productivity in capitalist development. The issue is not marginal. It is decisive.

“In Marx’s formulation,” Tugan writes, “the influence of rising labor productivity on the value of the products of labor is almost entirely ignored. The substitution of machines for workers, driven by technological progress, necessarily increases productivity. The labor-value of any given quantity of products must therefore fall. The value of labor-power must fall as well, and the exploitation of the worker consequently increases. At the same time, the value of constant capital declines… The problem, therefore, is far less simple than Marx supposes.” (1905 [1916], p. 209).

This passage goes to the heart of the matter. Marx’s law derives its force from a specific chain of reasoning: mechanization raises the organic composition of capital, reducing the relative share of living labor, and thereby exerting downward pressure on profitability. But this reasoning holds only if one abstracts from the very process that defines capitalist development — the continuous transformation of productivity.

Once technological change and productivity are reintroduced, the entire structure of the argument shifts. Mechanization does not simply replace labor; it reorganizes the system's value structure. It lowers the value of commodities, reduces the cost of capital goods, and raises the rate of surplus value. The elements in the denominator and numerator of the profit rate are transformed simultaneously. Under such conditions, no unidirectional law can be derived.

Tugan presses the point further — and here the critique becomes devastating.

“What Marx wished to determine,” he observes, “was the influence of rising productivity on the rate of profit. But he entangled himself in a portentous quid pro quo: instead of analyzing the effects of increasing productivity, he investigated the opposite precisely — the case of declining productivity — and in this way arrived at his so-called law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.” (1905 [1916], pp. 210–11).

The force of the argument lies not only in its conclusion, but in its diagnosis: Marx’s law is not simply incomplete; it is constructed on a reversed premise. The dynamics of capitalism are inferred from a scenario that contradicts its defining characteristic — the progressive expansion of the productive forces.

From this vantage point, Tugan draws the logical conclusion with characteristic sharpness. The direction of the tendency must be inverted:

“The foregoing demonstrates not only that Marx’s law is false, but that the very opposite is correct: the progressive development of the productive forces of labor produces a tendency for the rate of profit to rise, not to fall. This latter law, as a tendency, is an indisputable and highly important feature of capitalist development. But it must be understood only as a tendency, whose effects are weakened and counterbalanced by opposing causes.” (1905 [1916], pp. 212–13)

This is the analytical pivot. Capitalism is no longer a system driven toward declining profitability, but one in which technological progress can sustain — and even enhance — the conditions of accumulation. Yet Tugan is careful to avoid replacing one determinism with another. His “law” is explicitly conditional.

He identifies a series of counteracting forces that may restrain or offset the upward movement of profitability: the lengthening of the turnover period as fixed capital expands1; reductions in the working day2; increases in real wages3; the growing appropriation of surplus by rentiers, particularly through urban land rents4; and finally, the growing share appropriated by the state through taxation, which diminishes capitalist profit in order to meet public needs5. These factors do not negate the underlying tendency, but they render its outcomes historically variable.

At this point, however, Tugan introduces a second, deeper line of critique — one that moves beyond the internal logic of Marx’s argument and targets its conceptual foundations. The problem is no longer the mis-specification of productivity, but the structure of the value theory itself:

“I do not employ Marx’s customary terminology… because I do not share the Marxist theory of surplus value,” he writes. “In my opinion… there is no essential difference between human labor power and inanimate means of production. There is the same right to qualify as variable capital both the machine and human labor power, since both produce surplus product.” (1894, in Colletti ed., p. 263, fn. 1)

This is a radical move. It dissolves the privileged status of labor as the sole source of surplus value — the cornerstone of Marx’s system. Tugan pushes the argument to its limit:

“The means of production perform… exactly the same role as labor power. Under modern economic conditions, machines are entirely equivalent to workers… With respect to the creation of profit, men and means of production are equal in the capitalist economy.” (1894, Colletti ed., p. 225)

Here, the critique reaches its most provocative form. Capitalism, Tugan insists, is an antagonistic system in which human beings are treated as means of production — but analytically, this implies that the distinction between labor and capital cannot serve as the foundation of a theory of profit. The Marxist theory of surplus value collapses not only empirically, but conceptually.

The implications are profound. Once the privileged role of labor is abandoned, and productivity is placed at the center of analysis, the dynamics of capitalism must be rethought entirely. Profitability is no longer governed by the depletion of a single source of value but by the evolving interplay among technology, productivity, and accumulation.

A striking echo of this shift appears much later in Peter Drucker, who argued that “the next economics should again have a theory of value… [one that] may base itself on the postulate that productivity—that is, knowledge applied to resources throughout human work—is the source of all economic value” (Drucker, in Bell and Kristol, eds., 1981, p. 18). Seen from this perspective, the irony is unmistakable: Tugan had already centered the analysis of capitalism on precisely this problem nearly a century earlier.

This inversion of Marx is the first pillar of Tugan-Baranovsky’s reconstruction. It replaces a theory of necessary decline with a theory of conditional expansion — and, in doing so, opens the way to a second, equally consequential insight: that accumulation itself can generate the demand required for its continuation.

Endogenous Markets: Investment and the Self-Expansion of Demand

If the inversion of Marx begins with profitability, it reaches its full analytical force in Tugan’s treatment of demand. The central issue is no longer whether accumulation depresses profits, but whether capitalism can continue to expand when mass consumption remains constrained.

The prevailing intuition, shared in different forms by Marx and later demand-led theories, holds that insufficient (consumption) demand must eventually impose a barrier to accumulation. Tugan rejects this premise at its root. Capitalism, he insists, is not organized around the satisfaction of human needs, but structured as an antagonistic system driven by accumulation.

From this follows a radically different conclusion: demand is not an external constraint but is generated within accumulation itself, above all through investment. Capitalist development thus takes the form of an endogenous expansion in which production calls forth further production — machines producing machines.

It is precisely this mechanism that makes Tugan’s reconstruction so profoundly counterintuitive: the sources of crisis do not arise primarily from insufficient consumption, but from the structure and coordination of investment itself — from disproportionalities in the expansion of the different branches of production that periodically disrupt the process of reproduction.

At the same time, this insight anticipates, though in a fundamentally different analytical framework, a core principle later formalized by Kalecki and Keynes: that investment, not savings, plays the decisive role in determining output and growth6. Yet where Keynes would later analyze the possibility that investment demand may chronically falter, Tugan emphasizes its generative capacity — its capacity to create the very markets upon which continued accumulation depends.

From this premise, Tugan advances his positive counter-argument. Capitalist production, he insists, creates its own markets — above all through the production of means of production. The key is not final consumption but the cumulative expansion of Marx’s “Department I”: machinery, tools, industrial equipment, raw materials, infrastructure. Investment in one branch calls forth production in others.

In short, technologies generate complementary technologies, production systems require infrastructure, and new lines of production give rise to expanding networks of interdependent demand. The market, in other words, is not simply there waiting to absorb output; it is continuously generated within the very process of accumulation.

Tugan gives this argument extraordinary force in one of the most striking passages in his crisis book:

“The means of production are becoming ever more important, both in the productive process and in the market. Confronted with the machine, the worker is relegated to a secondary place, and so too is the corresponding demand for his consumption, in comparison with the derivative demand arising from the productive consumption of the means of production. The entire activity of the capitalist economy takes on the character of a mechanism, one might say of an entity existing for itself, in which human consumption appears only as a mere moment within the processes of reproduction and circulation of capital.” (1954 pp. 218–220).

That is Tugan at full power. The worker’s consumption does not disappear; it is displaced analytically from the story's center. The engine of dynamism lies elsewhere — in productive consumption, in the expansion of the means of production, in infrastructure, in investment as self-expanding demand. What emerges is not a harmonious capitalism, but a resilient and deeply conflictual one: a system capable of reproducing itself even when wages remain compressed and social asymmetries deepen.

The historical record — already noted in Part I — reinforces this point. Japan’s rapid industrialization before the Second World War, South Korea’s state-led transformation after 1961, Brazil’s expansion between 1930 and 1980, and China’s sustained hyper-growth from the 1980s through the 2010s all illustrate, in different institutional settings, the same underlying mechanism: accumulation generating its own markets through investment, even under conditions of uneven distribution.

This pattern is not confined to these cases. Taiwan’s state-led, export-driven industrialization, as well as Russia’s experience, first under late Tsarist industrialization and later under Soviet planning, further reinforce the point. In both contexts, large-scale investment in the means of production played a decisive role in expanding economic capacity and generating demand, despite persistent constraints on mass consumption.

What appears as a limit to growth from a consumption-centered perspective is, for Tugan, completely off the mark. Personal consumption does not drive capitalism — it trails behind it. The system is propelled by accumulation and investment, not by workers' purchasing power.

In this respect, Tugan anticipates a central insight that Schumpeter later develops. For Schumpeter, capitalist dynamics are not driven by production geared to satisfy existing consumption, but by waves of innovation financed by credit, which reorganize production and generate new demand in the process. Development, in this view, is propelled from within the system itself by investment and transformation, rather than constrained by the limits of existing consumption.

This is why Tugan’s conclusion is so devastating for the collapse theory. If accumulation creates markets endogenously, then there is no necessary path from limited mass consumption to economic breakdown. Crisis remains possible, even recurrent. But its causes can no longer be reduced to workers' inability to purchase the full product of industry. That is a profound change in the analytical landscape.

Against the underconsumption tradition, Tugan demonstrates that accumulation possesses an internal capacity to generate demand. Against equilibrium-centered perspectives, he shows that this process is conflictual, cumulative, crisis-ridden, and historically uneven. And against Marx’s collapse narrative, he establishes that capitalism’s demand problem is not a simple ceiling imposed by mass consumption, but a dynamic problem of investment, market structure, and power.

This reframing shifts the terrain of analysis. If profitability can persist and demand can be generated endogenously, the central question is no longer whether capitalism must collapse, but how its dynamics evolve as its own forces of transformation intensify. What happens when technological change advances to the point where labor itself is increasingly displaced?

It is there — in the relation between machines, profit, and accumulation — that Tugan’s contemporary relevance becomes fully visible.

Share

Automation, Accumulation, and Profitability

If accumulation is not constrained by declining profitability or insufficient consumption, then the terrain of analysis shifts to the internal dynamics of production itself. Mechanization is not a threat to profitability; it transforms the conditions under which profitability is generated.

For Marx, mechanization generates a structural contradiction: as machinery replaces labor, the sole source of surplus value is progressively displaced, giving rise to a tendency for the rate of profit to fall. Tugan-Baranovsky rejects this conclusion.

But Tugan does not stop at refutation. He advances a far more radical claim — one that overturns the very foundation of Marx’s value theory.

“The means of production perform in the productive process, as well as in the formation of the rate of profit, exactly the same role as labor power… With respect to the creation of profit, men and means of production are equal in the capitalist economy.” (1894, reproduced in Colletti ed, 1978, p.225)

Capitalism, in Tugan’s stark formulation, reduces human labor to one element within a broader productive mechanism — one that operates according to the logic of accumulation rather than the primacy of labor. This is a conceptual rupture. If profit does not depend exclusively on labor, then mechanization does not erode the foundations of capitalism. It can reinforce them under certain conditions.

The implications extend directly into contemporary debates.

Tessa Morris-Suzuki, revisiting the issue in her New Left Review essay “Robots and Capitalism,” frames the problem in terms that restate the classical dilemma. She argues that advanced automation may generate a structural contradiction:

If we accept… that automatic enterprises can make profits only parasitically… and that the rising level of automation must therefore be accompanied either by increasing exploitation… or by falling average levels of profit, then it would seem that major capitalist economies are rushing towards their doom.” (1984, p.111).

This argument reproduces, in modern form, the Marxian premise: if labor is the exclusive source of value, then a system that progressively eliminates labor undermines its own basis of profitability.

The reply came four issues later, from Ian Steedman — and it was cast very much in Tugan’s terms.

“Tessa Morris-Suzuki… has opened up an interesting and necessary discussion… Unfortunately… [her argument] is firmly cast within a completely inappropriate set of concepts.” (Steedman, 1985, p.69)

After briefly summarizing the argument, Steedman strikes directly at its core:

“Why is this conceptual framework completely inappropriate…? Because a fully automated economy will exhibit zero surplus value and can be organized by private, individual owners… receiving a uniform, positive rate of profit. What is revealed by full automation is not the ‘inner limit’ of capitalism but rather the inner limit of the labor theory of value…” (Steedman, 1985, p.74).

With this, the issue is settled with remarkable clarity. What recedes is not labor as such, but labor stripped of its knowledge content. As production becomes increasingly automated, routine labor is displaced, while knowledge-intensive labor remains central to technological generation and upgrading. What disappears, therefore, is not the basis of profitability, but the plausibility of a framework that ties profit exclusively to labor as such.

As Tugan had already emphasized, “we shall not maintain that labor alone determines the value of products… The theory of productive potential as the exclusive attribute of human labor must be rigorously distinguished from the Marxist theory of value as the exclusive product of labor; the two theories, from a logical point of view, have nothing in common” (1906 [1921], p. 39).

Steedman’s intervention thus restates, in the language of late twentieth-century debates, unaware that the argument had already been made — more directly and more radically — by Tugan-Baranovsky nearly a century earlier. If machines can sustain profitability even in the limit case of full automation, then capitalism’s dynamics cannot be understood through the lens of labor-value alone.

From this point, the argument opens onto a broader analytical terrain. Once the privileged role of labor in determining profit is called into question, the problem becomes how to theorize production and distribution without recourse to labor values. It is here that a structural convergence with Sraffa becomes visible.

In Sraffa’s framework, production is conceived as a system of commodities produced by means of commodities, in which prices and distribution are determined by technical conditions, and the surplus does originate on labor values. The convergence with Tugan is not genealogical but structural: both displace labor from its privileged role in determining profit.

In this respect, Tugan can be read as anticipating, and in some ways extending, the surplus approach. Sraffa (1960) derives the surplus from the technical conditions of production, leaving its distribution to social and political determination, as later emphasized by Garegnani (1984). Tugan, however, moves along a different axis. While rejecting the labor theory of value, he does not treat the surplus as a purely technical magnitude, but anchors it in the social relations through which control over the means of production becomes power over persons. The implication is decisive: surplus is a relation of power.

As he put it, “This possibility of acquiring, through power over things, a power over men,” Tugan concluded, “is the source—and the only source—of the exploitation of labor.” (1906 [1921], p.57)

At the same time, the dynamic dimension of Tugan’s argument points forward to Schumpeter. Once mechanization is no longer seen as undermining profitability, technological change becomes a central driver of capitalist expansion. Innovation reorganizes production, displaces existing structures, and generates new fields of accumulation.

Seen from this perspective, contemporary developments—full automation, artificial intelligence, and the emergence of “dark factories” operating with minimal human labor—do not signal the exhaustion of capitalism. They represent an intensification of its core conflictual logic: accumulation driven by the continuous transformation of the productive apparatus, in which labor recedes as a direct input and inequality and precaritization move to the center.

The problem, therefore, is not the disappearance of profit, but the transformation of its social and institutional conditions. The employment–income nexus that historically underpinned capitalist stability breaks down, placing the governance of work, income, and social reproduction at the core of the system.

It is here that Tugan’s insight acquires its full contemporary significance.

By dissolving the economic inevitability of collapse, Tugan does more than revise Marxian theory: he transforms the foundations of the socialist project itself. If capitalism can sustain expansion despite its tensions and contradictions, then socialism can no longer be justified as the necessary outcome of historical laws, nor as the realization of a predetermined proletarian mission grounded in a disappearing form of labor.

With the economic foundations of Marx’s collapse theory dismantled, Tugan shifts the terrain to what he considers decisive: the ethical justification of socialism. If capitalism is not destined to break down as a consequence of its internal tensions, then socialism cannot be grounded in economic inevitability.

Leave a comment

Conclusion: The Socialist Question — From Scientific to Ethical Socialism

In Tugan’s reframing, the case for socialism must be reconstructed on different grounds: not as an economic inevitability, but as a political and ethical response to a system that, while capable of generating expanding wealth, does so through relations of power that reduce human beings to the status of machines and subordinate their fate to the logic of accumulation.

Tugan’s answer is unequivocal. The contradiction between capitalism’s economic logic and its modern legal norms lies at the core of his analysis. While the legal order recognizes the worker as a free citizen, formally endowed with the same rights as the capitalist, the economic structure subjects that same worker to relations of subordination and exploitation. As Tugan emphasizes, this tension is not incidental but constitutive, revealing a fundamental disjunction between juridical equality and economic dependence (1905 [1916], p. 147).

In short, the foundations of capitalism and liberal democracy are not merely misaligned but structurally contradictory.

Seen from this perspective, the limits of Marx’s framework become clearer. By grounding socialism in the supposed inevitability of capitalist collapse while also invoking class struggle and political agency, Marx leaves unresolved the tension between determinism and voluntarism. Socialism appears at once as historical inexorability and as a political project.

Tugan breaks with this ambiguity. Socialism is no longer derived from crisis but justified against a system whose normal operation rests on structured domination. In this sense, he reopens a tradition Marx had dismissed: the utopian socialists. Owen, Fourier, Saint-Simon, and Pecqueur grasped that socialism rests on the ethical recognition of individuals as ends in themselves.

Their limitation was not substantive but practical: they articulated the ethical case for socialism yet failed to specify the agents and institutions capable of bringing it into being. Marx, by contrast, provided a powerful analysis of capitalism and a mass political program, but left socialism conceptually underdeveloped. The synthesis, for Tugan, lies elsewhere: an ethical socialism grounded not in inevitability, but in conscious construction.

Socialism, therefore, appears in Tugan’s reformulation not as utopian reverie but as a state-backed moral and political project of managed development: the conscious construction of a society capable of reconciling economic efficiency with human dignity and social justice. At its core lies what he calls “a social state in which the security of collective interests is opposed to private interests” (1916 [1906], p. 215).

This social state does not extinguish individual freedom; it secures it by limiting exploitation rooted in the private monopolization and arbitrary control of the means of production. Public authority, in this framework, does not abolish markets but disciplines and steers them, subordinating investment and distribution to collective ends.

This vision finds partial historical expression in the Scandinavian social-democratic model, which combined markets with strong public authority, redistribution, and collective organization. It also finds an unexpected contemporary resonance in China’s Common Prosperity, an attempt to align markets with strategic and social objectives. In very different institutional settings, the same principle is at work: the subordination of private interests to collectively defined ends.

In this respect, Tugan’s reconstruction anticipates a later development in Schumpeter. In his discussion of socialism in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Schumpeter abandons the idea of collapse and recasts socialism as the organized, state-led direction of economic activity.

What Tugan adds is the ethical-political foundation. Socialism will not emerge from capitalism’s eventual self-erosion, but from the imperative to confront a system that organizes power through legally entrenched exploitation, reducing human beings to instruments of production.

The shift is decisive. Socialism moves from necessity to construction, from prediction to justification, from historical law to agency and political project. It is no longer the end point of capitalist breakdown, but the outcome of a historically specific, state-backed institutional process, grounded in the capacity to organize accumulation, discipline power, and sustain rising prosperity.

By redefining socialism as an ethical-political project, a system in which markets are subordinated to collective purposes, Tugan opens a path that transcends the sterile opposition between “scientific” and “utopian” socialism. His vision of ethical socialism resonates today in debates on universal income, the green transition, stronger social protection, and the reorganization of the income-work nexus, as well as in China’s emphasis on common prosperity and societal rejuvenation.

Taken together, these developments point to a common principle: the state must act as a central agent, and markets need not be abolished, but governed and directed toward collectively defined ends. Such a system, however, depends on a political meritocracy capable of organizing and sustaining this process, coordinating investment, disciplining accumulation, and aligning economic transformation with broader social objectives.

This brings us back to a central insight of the democracy series: democracy as an outcome, rooted in the institutional capacity to deliver development and shared prosperity.

References

Barnett, V. 2005. A History of Russian Economic Thought. London and New York: Routledge.

Boddy, R. and Crotty, J. 1975. Class Conflict and Macro-Policy: The Political Business Cycle. Review of Radical Political Economics, 7(1), pp. 1–19.

Burlamaqui, L. 1986. A Heterodoxia Marxista Revisitada: Bernstein e Tugan-Baranovsky, Intérpretes Precoces do Capitalismo Maduro. Master’s dissertation. Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas da Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP).

Christophers, B. 2020. Rentier Capitalism: Who Owns the Economy, and Who Pays for It? London: Verso.

Colletti, L. (ed.) 1978. El marxismo y el derrumbe del capitalismo. México: Siglo XXI Editores.

Garegnani, P. 1984. Value and Distribution in the Classical Economists and Marx. Oxford Economic Papers, 36(2), pp. 291–325.

Drucker, P. 1981. “Toward the Next Economics”, in Bell, D. and Kristol, I. (eds.) The Crisis in Economic Theory. New York: Basic Books, pp. 17–32.

Glyn, A. 1972. Capitalism and Crisis. London: Macmillan.

Hudson, M. 2015. Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy. Dresden: ISLET.

Kalecki, M .1935. “A Macrodynamic Theory of Business Cycles” in Econometrica, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 327–344.

Kalecki, M. (1933/1971) “An Outline of a Theory of the Business Cycle”, in Selected Essays on the Dynamics of the Capitalist Economy 1933–1970. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Keynes, J. M. 1930. A Treatise on Money (2 vols.). London: Macmillan.

Keynes, J. M. 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Macmillan.

Marx, K. 1980. Capital, Volume I. Edited by David Fernbach. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Marx, K. 1981. Capital, Volume III. Edited by David Fernbach. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Morris-Suzuki, T. 1984. Robots and Capitalism. New Left Review, I/147 (Nov–Dec), pp. 109–121.

Schumpeter, J. A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Routledge.

Sraffa, P. 1960. Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities: Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Steedman, I. 1975. Positive Profits with Negative Surplus Value. New Left Review, I/90 (Mar–Apr).

Steedman, I. 1985. Robots and Capitalism: A Clarification. New Left Review, I/151 (May–Jun), pp. 67–75.

Tugan-Baranovsky, M. I. 1921. El socialismo moderno. Translated by Ramón Carande Thovar. Madrid: Editorial Reus. (Originally published 1906)

Tugan-Baranovsky, M. I. 1916. Los fundamentos teóricos del marxismo. Translated by Ramón Carande Thovar. Madrid: Hijos de Reus. (Originally published 1905)

Tugan-Baranovsky, M. I. 1954. Periodic Industrial Crises: A History of British Crises. Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the United States, 3(3), pp. 745–802. ( Originally published in 1894).

Tugan-Baranovsky evaluates the economic foundations of Marx’s theory under the watchful eyes of Smith, Ricardo, Keynes, and Schumpeter.

Preface

Within Marxist theory, capitalism was widely believed to be destined to collapse.

That was Marx’s prediction. Internal economic contradictions — especially the falling rate of profit — would eventually render the system unsustainable.

Yet at the beginning of the twentieth century, an Eastern European economist, born in what is today Ukraine, reached the opposite conclusion. He dismantled the core economic mechanisms of Marx’s theory and argued that nothing in capitalism's economic logic necessitates its collapse. From a strictly economic standpoint, the system could continue to expand.

And yet he remained a socialist.

Understanding why leads directly into one of the most pressing debates about contemporary capitalism: whether technological transformation, from automation to artificial intelligence, undermines the foundations of demand expansion and profitability, or instead opens new frontiers for capitalist development while simultaneously reviving the question of socialism — not as a scientific inevitability, but as an ethical and political project.

Subscribe now

Introduction: The Forgotten Critic

Karl Marx predicted that capitalism would eventually collapse under the weight of its own internal contradictions. The system, he argued, contained structural economic laws that would ultimately undermine its viability: the falling rate of profit, the intensification of exploitation, and the progressive immiseration of the working class. Capitalism, in this view, was historically dynamic but economically self-destructive.

This argument shaped more than a century of socialist thought. It also shaped much of the criticism directed at Marx’s theory: if the predicted collapse did not occur, was the theory simply wrong?

At the turn of the twentieth century, an Eastern European economist offered a remarkably clear answer. His name was Mikhail Ivanovich Tugan-Baranovsky12.

Today, he is almost completely forgotten outside the specialized literature of economic history. Yet during his lifetime, and afterwards, he was widely respected and deeply influential3. Joseph Schumpeter regarded him as one of the most important analysts of capitalist dynamics. John Maynard Keynes referred to him in A Treatise on Money. A “major scholar,” in the words of Alec Nove. His work on industrial fluctuations helped inspire later theories of business cycles developed by economists such as Kondratiev, his former student, and Alvin Hansen4.

Tugan-Baranovsky’s engagement with Marx was unusual. He was neither a simple defender nor a conventional critic. Instead, he undertook something much more radical: a systematic theoretical dissection of Marx’s economic system.

His conclusion was striking. Marx had identified several genuine features of capitalism — especially its instability and periodic crises — but the central economic mechanisms he proposed were fundamentally mistaken. Capitalism was not condemned to stagnation or collapse by internal economic laws. On the contrary, its dynamics allowed for continuous expansion.

Yet this critique did not lead Tugan-Baranovsky to abandon socialism. Quite the opposite. Precisely because capitalism could no longer be expected to collapse under the weight of its contradictions, the case for socialism had to be reconstructed on entirely different grounds.

This shift begins from a stark diagnosis. Tugan recognized exploitation not as a masked economic mechanism, as in Marx’s framework, but as an explicit relation of power embedded in law and property: a structure in which control over the means of production is converted into power over persons, and where workers are systematically reduced to instruments of production. As he put it with characteristic clarity, “this possibility of acquiring, through power over things, a power over men, is the source, and the only source, of the exploitation of labor.”

The analytical consequence is decisive. Once exploitation is understood in these terms, socialism can no longer be derived from the internal laws of capitalist accumulation. It cannot be read off from crisis, nor inferred from tendencies in profitability or demand. It must be justified.

This shift is crucial. It transforms the debate about capitalism and socialism from a deterministic theory of economic breakdown into a political and moral question about how modern societies ought to organize production, distribution, and prosperity.

The first step in that transformation was the systematic examination of Marx’s economic theory itself. It begins with the concept that anchors Capital's entire architecture: the labor theory of value.

The Problem with the Labor Theory of Value

In Marx’s framework, the labor theory of value performs several analytical tasks simultaneously. It determines the value of commodities, explains the origin of surplus value, and ultimately grounds the theory of capitalist exploitation. Without it, the architecture of Capital loses its central pillar. As Tugan-Baranovsky himself observed, “the concept of labor as the substance of value is the axis of Marx’s economic system” ( 1916 [1905], p. 151).

Marx’s claim is well known. The value of a commodity is determined by the socially necessary labor time required for its production. Capitalist profit arises because workers are paid less than the value they create. The difference between the value produced and the wage paid constitutes surplus value, which the capitalist appropriates.

For Tugan-Baranovsky, this construction contains a decisive weakness. The problem is not that labor contributes to production. That point is obvious and uncontested. The problem lies in the stronger claim that labor alone determines value in a complex capitalist economy.

In modern production systems, Tugan argues, goods are produced through combinations of labor, machinery, technology, organizational knowledge, and natural resources. Capital equipment itself embodies past labor, but its productive contribution is not reducible to a simple measure of current labor time. Productivity depends on the structure of the production process, the organization of industry, and the scale of investment. Production, in other words, is a systemic phenomenon.

Once production is understood in this broader way, the idea that value can be traced uniquely to labor loses its analytical coherence. Prices emerge from the interaction of production costs, demand conditions, technological organization, and competitive pressures. Labor is one component of that system, but it cannot serve as the universal measure of value 5 6.

Tugan-Baranovsky therefore drew a sharp distinction between the role of labor in production and the claim that labor alone determines value. As he put it:

“Certainly, we shall not fall into Marx’s error; we shall not maintain that labor alone determines the value of products. The theory of productive potential as the exclusive attribute of human labor must be rigorously distinguished from the Marxist theory of value as the exclusive product of labor; the two theories, from a logical point of view, have nothing in common” (1906 [1921], p. 39).

This difficulty becomes even clearer in Marx’s own analysis of competition. In Volume III of Capital, Marx recognizes that market prices do not correspond directly to labor values. Competition equalizes profit rates across sectors, producing what he calls prices of production. Capital flows toward sectors with higher returns and away from sectors with lower ones until profit rates converge.

The consequence is profound. If profit rates equalize across industries with very different labor intensities, then profits cannot be explained solely by the extraction of surplus labor within each individual production process. Industries that use relatively little labor can generate the same rate of profit as those that employ much more labor.

Marx attempted to reconcile this problem through what later became known as the transformation of values into prices of production. Tugan-Baranovsky regarded this attempt as unsuccessful. Once the equalization of profit rates is introduced, the direct link between labor values and market prices becomes unstable. The labor theory of value ceases to function as the operational foundation of the system.

The implication is not trivial. If labor values cannot determine prices, then the derivation of surplus value as the unique source of profit becomes uncertain. Profit must instead be understood through the broader dynamics of investment, production, and market structure.

This shift marks the beginning of Tugan-Baranovsky’s critique of Marx’s economic system. The problem with capitalism is not that profitability becomes impossible in the long run. On the contrary, the system contains mechanisms that allow profit to persist and even expand.

Once that possibility is recognized, the question changes. The central issue is no longer whether capitalism must collapse economically, but how its dynamics of accumulation and technological transformation reshape the distribution of income, power, and opportunity across society.

That question leads directly to the next pillar of Marx’s system: the roots of exploitation.

Value, Surplus Value, and the Roots of Exploitation

If the labor theory of value forms the conceptual foundation of Marx’s system, the theory of surplus value provides its political and social meaning. As Tugan-Baranovsky emphasized, the two are inseparable: “The Marxist theory of surplus value, which is at the same time his theory of profit, is a necessary consequence of his theory of value” (1905 [1916], p. 190).

In Marx’s analysis, capitalist profit does not arise from exchange but from production. Workers sell their labor power for a wage, but the value they create during the working day exceeds the value of that wage. The difference between the value produced and the wage paid constitutes surplus value, which the capitalist appropriates. Exploitation, in this framework, is therefore not a moral accusation but an economic mechanism embedded in the structure of production itself — one that binds workers structurally to the sale of their labor power (Marx, Capital: vol 1, passim)7.

This mechanism depends on the premises of the labor theory of value. If labor alone determines the value of commodities, then surplus value must ultimately originate in the unpaid labor time extracted from workers. Profit, in other words, appears as the monetary expression of exploitation.

Once the labor theory of value is rejected as the determinant of prices, the explanatory chain that leads from labor time to profit begins to unravel. If prices are determined through the broader interaction of technology, capital intensity, competitive pressures, and market structures, then the direct identification of profit with surplus labor becomes far more difficult to sustain.

Tugan-Baranovsky argued that this difficulty is not merely technical, but exposes a structural fault line at the core of the analysis. The equalization of profit rates across sectors implies that profits cannot be explained solely by the extraction of surplus labor within each individual industry. As he put it:

“The theory of surplus value may be refuted both by showing that the distribution of the social product among classes does not follow the law of surplus value, and by demonstrating that the rate of profit is independent—both in static conditions and in its changes—of the composition of social capital” (1905 [1916], pp. 182–184).

According to Marx (Capital: vol 3, chapters 8-12), Capital moves between sectors in search of higher returns, redistributing profits across the system until rates converge. In such a system, profit becomes a systemic outcome of accumulation and competition rather than the direct expression of surplus labor within particular production processes.

This insight has profound implications. Inequality and power remain central features of capitalism, but they cannot be explained solely through the labor theory of value.

At this point, Tugan-Baranovsky reached an unequivocal conclusion. As he wrote:

“In this way, it is demonstrated that the general rate of profit does not correspond to the relation of surplus value to social capital. The theory of surplus value is false because it rests on a false premise. Labor is not the substance of value. By making labor the substance of value, Marx placed himself in irreconcilable contradiction with the facts. Socialist doctrine has not benefited from this; on the contrary, it has suffered enormous harm.” (1906 [1921], p. 53).

The critique, therefore, moves beyond the theory of exploitation itself and reaches the next layer of Marx’s system: the prediction that capitalism contains internal laws that will ultimately lead to its collapse.

The Two Theories of Collapse

Marx’s theory of capitalist collapse does not rest on a single mechanism. Instead, it contains two distinct lines of argument, both of which suggest that the long-term dynamics of capitalism will undermine its own viability.

The first mechanism is rooted in the sphere of production. The well-known law of the falling rate of profit. As capitalist production becomes increasingly mechanized, a growing share of investment takes the form of machinery and equipment rather than labor. Since surplus value originates in labor, Marx argued that this shift gradually reduces the rate of profit across the system. Capital accumulation thus produces its own limit: the very process that drives technological progress simultaneously undermines profitability (Marx, Capital: vol 3, chapters 13-15).

The second mechanism operates through the sphere of demand. Capitalist production tends to expand more rapidly than the purchasing power of the working population. Because workers receive only a portion of the value they produce, the system generates chronic tendencies toward underconsumption. Over time, the contradiction between the development of the productive forces and the existing social relations of production intensifies, and crises become progressively more severe.

Together, these two arguments form the backbone of Marx’s prediction that capitalism cannot sustain itself indefinitely. Either profitability declines to the point where accumulation stalls, or the system becomes trapped in recurring crises of insufficient demand.

Tugan-Baranovsky’s critique addresses both mechanisms. His analysis begins with the law of the falling rate of profit, widely regarded as the most fundamental of Marx’s theories of capitalist collapse. If this law does not hold, the prediction that capitalism must eventually break down cannot be sustained theoretically.

This brings us to the first pillar of Marx’s collapse theory: the law of the falling rate of profit.

The Falling Rate of Profit

Marx’s argument begins from a structural feature of capitalist development. Competition drives firms to increase productivity through technological innovation. Over time, this process leads to a rising “organic composition of capital”: a growing proportion of investment in machinery and equipment relative to labor.

For Marx, this transformation has a decisive consequence. Since surplus value originates in labor, a rising share of capital devoted to machinery reduces the proportion of living labor in production. The source of surplus value, therefore, shrinks relative to the total capital invested.

Marx acknowledged counteracting forces, including higher exploitation, cheaper constant capital, and market expansion, but treated them as offsets rather than forces capable of reversing the underlying tendency. The result is a long-term tendency for the rate of profit to decline.

Tugan-Baranovsky regarded this argument as deceptively simple. At first glance, he acknowledged, the logic appears straightforward. But the conclusion depends entirely on accepting the premises of the labor theory of value. Once those premises are questioned, the supposed “law” begins to unravel.

As he put it:

“The law itself is very elementary and seems to follow with logical necessity from the absolute labor theory of value. Yet this appearance is deceptive. The law cannot be derived from that theory at all. I believe I have already demonstrated this in my book ‘Studies for a Theory of Commercial Crises in England'. Here I shall confine myself to presenting another side of the problem, while at the same time indicating what I take to be the true law governing the movement of the rate of profit.” (1905 [1916], p. 191).

The core of the problem, Tugan argued, lies in Marx’s treatment of productivity. Marx correctly emphasized the replacement of labor by machinery as capitalism develops, but he failed to consider the full implications of technological progress for the economy's value structure.

Rising productivity does not merely reduce the share of labor in production. It also reduces the value of commodities, including both consumer and capital goods. Once this effect is taken into account, the dynamics of profitability become far more complex than Marx assumed.

Tugan expressed the point bluntly:

“In Marx’s formulation, the influence of rising labor productivity on the value of the products of labor is almost entirely ignored. The substitution of machines for workers, driven by technological progress, necessarily increases productivity. The labor-value of any given quantity of products must therefore fall. The value of labor-power must fall as well, and the exploitation of the worker consequently increases. Hence, the rate of surplus value must also rise. On the other hand, since the value of all products decreases, the value of constant capital must decrease too. All of these effects of rising productivity on the value of capital are ignored by Marx. The problem, therefore, is far less simple than Marx supposes.” (1905 [1916], p. 209, emphasis added).

Once these effects are understood, the supposed inevitability of a falling rate of profit becomes far less convincing. Technological progress may simultaneously increase labor productivity, reduce the value of capital goods, and raise the rate of surplus value. Under such conditions, the long-term movement in profitability cannot be deduced from the simple substitution of machinery for labor8.

The dynamics of capitalism are therefore not governed by a mechanical law of declining profits. They instead depend on the broader interaction among technological change, accumulation, and the expansion of markets.

For Tugan-Baranovsky, once the full effects of productivity growth are taken into account, the conclusion becomes almost the opposite of Marx’s. Technological progress does not necessarily compress profitability. Under many conditions, it can increase the rate of surplus value, reduce the value of capital goods, and sustain profitability even as the capital intensity of production rises.

In this sense, Tugan effectively inverts Marx’s famous “law.” Rather than a structural tendency toward declining profitability, capitalist development may generate a tendency for profits to rise, though always accompanied by counteracting forces and cyclical disturbances.

This inversion has far-reaching implications. If technological change can sustain or even raise profitability, then the expansion of automation does not necessarily undermine capitalist accumulation. On the contrary, it may reinforce it.

We will return to this point in Part II, where Tugan’s analysis opens a striking perspective on one of the central debates of our time: whether automation and artificial intelligence threaten the viability of capitalism — or instead provide new foundations for its expansion.

The Underconsumption Argument

If Marx’s prediction of collapse through declining profitability was questionable, a second mechanism seemed to lead to the same destination. Marx also believed that capitalist production would eventually encounter limits on the demand side. Because workers receive only a portion of the value they produce, the continuous development of the productive forces outpaces the purchasing power embedded in existing social relations.

Marx pointed in this direction. In a well-known passage, he observes that:

“The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses, as opposed to the drive of capitalist production to develop the productive forces as though only the absolute consuming power of society constituted their limit.” (Capital, Vol. III, Ch. 15)

From this perspective, capitalist crises arise because production outpaces effective demand. As accumulation proceeds, the gap between productive capacity and consumption widens, leading to periodic breakdowns that grow progressively more severe9.

This argument, often summarized as the underconsumption thesis, appeared to offer a powerful explanation for the recurrent crises of capitalist economies. When combined with the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and with Marx’s analysis of relative immiseration, it suggests a second route to collapse: not through declining profitability alone, but through the limits imposed by constrained consumption. Tugan-Baranovsky rejected Marx’s formulation.

For Tugan, the problem reflected a deeper analytical mistake: the tendency to attribute to capitalism the characteristics of a harmonious system oriented toward satisfying human needs. Capitalism, he insisted, belongs instead to the family of antagonistic systems, alongside slavery and feudalism, in which the worker is not the subject but the object of the economy, assimilated to animals, machines, and raw materials. In such systems, production is governed not by the level of personal consumption but by the requirements of surplus extraction and accumulation.

From this starting point, Tugan advanced his positive counter-argument. Capitalist production, he observed, creates its own markets, above all through the production of means of production. In reality, he reasoned, a large and growing share of production in modern economies consists of producer goods — machinery, industrial equipment, infrastructure, and the intermediate inputs used to expand the productive system itself.

Once this is recognized, the relationship between production and demand appears in a very different light. Capitalist accumulation can generate its own markets through investment. New machinery requires steel, factories require equipment, expanding industries demand infrastructure, and new technologies stimulate entire chains of complementary production.

Investment in one sector, therefore, stimulates production in others, creating a dynamic process of expanding industrial demand. In this sense, accumulation itself becomes a source of market expansion. Tugan-Baranovsky described this process as the creation of “endogenous markets.”

The implications are far-reaching. Even if workers' consumption grows slowly — or remains severely constrained — capitalist economies may continue to expand through the production of capital goods and infrastructure. The growth of investment demand can sustain industrial development independently of mass consumption.

Here, Tugan anticipated an insight that would later become central to Keynesian macroeconomics: fluctuations in investment, rather than consumption, often play the decisive role in shaping economic cycles and long-term growth. While Keynes developed this insight within a different analytical framework — one in which the exhaustion of profitable investment opportunities can generate persistent demand deficiencies, echoing earlier underconsumption arguments — the core intuition was already present in Tugan-Baranovsky’s work: investment is not merely a response to demand, it is itself a source of demand.

Tugan’s verdict on the underconsumption thesis could not have been clearer:

“We must decisively and unequivocally reject this theory of collapse… In the 1840s, Engels predicted that the limits of capitalist development had already been virtually reached. Evidently, this prophecy was most unfortunate. Since then, capitalist production has undergone a tremendous expansion, and yet it has not been troubled by difficulties arising from the valorization process. The market for the colossally expanded mass of commodities produced by capitalist industry was created by capitalism itself.” (1894 [1954], reproduced in Colletti, ed., p. 262).

This insight, radical for its time, finds striking confirmation in subsequent historical experience. Japan’s rapid industrialization before the Second World War, South Korea’s spectacular growth after 1961, Brazil’s extraordinary expansion between 1930 and 1980, and China’s hyper-growth from the 1980s through the 2010s all demonstrate that capitalist — and state-led socialist — accumulation can generate its own markets.

In retrospect, Tugan-Baranovsky’s critique anticipates a later debate within twentieth-century economics. In 1942, Joseph Schumpeter advanced a similar criticism of Keynesian stagnation theories. For Schumpeter, capitalist development is driven not by the limits of consumption but by waves of innovation, investment, and technological transformation that continually expand the productive system and the markets that sustain it.

In this sense, Schumpeter’s critique of stagnation can be read as a later echo of Tugan-Baranovsky’s insight that capitalist accumulation generates its own dynamic sources of demand. I discussed this Keynes–Schumpeter tension in more detail in my earlier essay on Keynes in this series.

Share

Conclusion

Marx’s two principal mechanisms of collapse — declining profitability and structural underconsumption — therefore lose their inevitability. Capitalism may still experience crises, instability, and profound inequalities, but these outcomes do not follow from deterministic economic laws that guarantee the system’s eventual breakdown.

The economic foundations of Marx’s prediction of collapse have thus been fundamentally called into question. Yet this conclusion does not bring Tugan-Baranovsky’s inquiry to an end. It pushes him toward a deeper reconstruction of capitalist dynamics, while leaving his socialist convictions intact.

For Tugan, capitalism is not a system condemned to stagnation by its internal contradictions. Its evolution is driven by technological change, rising productivity, and the expansion of investment in the means of production. Under these conditions, profitability may persist and, in some cases, even rise, not despite but because of increasing mechanization. Accumulation generates its own markets; investment becomes a central engine of demand and growth.

These insights resonate strikingly with several later developments in economic thought. Tugan’s emphasis on expanding production through the means of production anticipates themes later formalized in Sraffa’s analysis of production systems.

His recognition of technological transformation and productivity growth as engines of capitalist development foreshadows Schumpeter’s theory of innovation and creative destruction. And his indication that investment, not savings, drives growth anticipates a core principle of Keynes’s economics.

Seen from this perspective, the contemporary debate on automation and artificial intelligence takes on a different meaning. Rather than heralding capitalism’s economic demise, technological transformation may instead reinforce the dynamics of accumulation, even as it intensifies social tensions and distributional conflict.

It is precisely at this point that Tugan-Baranovsky’s thought takes an unexpected turn. If capitalism is not destined to collapse economically, then socialism cannot be justified as the inevitable outcome of historical laws. It must instead be defended and built on ethical grounds, as a conscious socio-political project.

The reconstruction of capitalism’s dynamics and the corresponding transformation of socialism from scientific prophecy into an ethical project will be the subject of Part II.

Leave a comment

References

Barnett, V. 2004 ‘Tugan-Baranovsky, the Methodology of Political Economy, and the “Russian Historical School”’, History of Political Economy, 36(1), pp. 79–101.

Barnett, V. 2005. A History of Russian Economic Thought. London and New York: Routledge.

Burlamaqui L., 1986. A Heterodoxia Marxista Revisitada: Bernstein e Tugan-Baranovsky, Intérpretes Precoces do Capitalismo Maduro. Master’s dissertation. Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas da Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP).

Colletti, L. (ed.)1978. El marxismo y el derrumbe del capitalismo. México: Siglo XXI Editores.

Hansen, A. H. 1951. Business Cycles and National Income. New York: Norton.

Keynes, J M. 1936. 1930. A Treatise on Money (2 Vols.). London: Macmillan.

Keynes, J M. 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Macmillan, 1936.

Marx, K. Capital: 1980., Volume I, edited by David Fernbach. Penguin Classics.

Marx, K. Capital: 1981., Volume III, edited by David Fernbach. Penguin Classics.

Nove, A. 1972. “M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky (1865–1919).” Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 43, no. 2, 113–126.

Schumpeter, J. A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Routledge.

Schumpeter, J. 1954. A History of Economic Analysis. London: Allen and Unwin.

Sraffa, P. Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities: Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.

Tugan-Baranovsky, M. I. 1921. El socialismo moderno. Biblioteca Sociológica, volume XIII. Translated from the German edition by Ramón Carande Thovar. Madrid: Editorial Reus. ( Originally published in 1906)

Tugan-Baranovsky, M.I.1916. Los fundamentos teóricos del marxismo. Translated from the German edition by Ramón Carande Thovar. Madrid: Hijos de Reus. ( Originally published in 1905)

Tugan-Baranovsky, M. I. 1954. Periodic Industrial Crises: A History of British Crises. Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the United States 3(3), Spring pp. 745–802 (sometimes cited 745–820). Partially reproduced in Colletti, L (ed.)1978. El marxismo y el derrumbe del capitalismo. México: Siglo XXI Editores.

Preface

The first part of this essay examined Keynes’s attempt to reconstruct capitalism after the collapse of classical liberalism. It argued that the General Theory was not merely a technical contribution to macroeconomics but the intellectual foundation of a broader political project: the institutional reorganization of capitalism under conditions of mass politics.

This second part turns to the limits of that architecture. Two pressure points come into view. The first concerns the dynamics of capitalist accumulation — an area where Schumpeter’s analysis of innovation and creative destruction raises important questions for Keynes’s vision of economic maturity. The second concerns the functioning of democratic politics itself, where Schumpeter’s democratic realism and later public-choice critiques expose tensions that Keynes only partially confronted.

These critiques do not invalidate Keynes’s project. But they reveal the conditions under which it must be reconsidered and rebuilt.

Subscribe now

Introduction

It should be clear from the first part of this essay that my sympathy for Keynes’s intellectual and political project is considerable. If that was not sufficiently explicit, let me state it plainly. The legacy of the author of The General Theory — both theoretical and programmatic — remains, in my view, overwhelmingly positive.

But admiration does not place an author beyond criticism. Keynes’s framework raises important questions, and some of its assumptions deserve closer scrutiny. My objective here is not to dismiss the Keynesian project but to examine two of its structural vulnerabilities — criticisms that must be taken seriously if the project is to remain analytically and politically viable.

The first concerns Keynes’s understanding of the dynamics of capitalist accumulation. His analysis brilliantly illuminated the role of uncertainty, expectations, and liquidity preference in generating macroeconomic instability. But it paid comparatively little attention to the role of innovation and competitive restructuring in the continuous transformation of the economic landscape. The result is a framework that explains instability but says relatively little about the forces that repeatedly recreate scarcity and reorganize production. This is precisely the terrain on which Joseph Schumpeter’s analysis becomes indispensable.

The second concerns Keynes’s understanding of democratic politics. Keynes assumed that enlightened governments, equipped with the appropriate economic instruments, could deploy fiscal and financial policies in the public interest. Yet modern representative democracies operate under pressures that may complicate such rational coordination. Organized interests, electoral competition, and the incentives of political actors can distort or block policies designed to stabilize capitalism.

It is here that two very different lines of criticism emerge. One comes from Schumpeter, whose analysis of democracy as a competitive struggle for political leadership exposes tensions between mass politics and the rational administration of economic policy. The other comes from later neoliberal and public-choice theorists — most notably Buchanan, Tullock, and Wagner — who transformed this insight into a broader critique of the Keynesian state.

These critiques operate at different analytical levels and lead to very different conclusions. The neoliberal and public-choice tradition deploys them to question the legitimacy of Keynesian economic management itself. Schumpeter’s critique is more subtle and, in many respects, more illuminating. Rather than rejecting the Keynesian project outright, it reveals deeper tensions between capitalist transformation and democratic governance.

The discussion that follows examines these two pressure points in Keynes’s architecture: the dynamics of capitalist innovation and the realities of democratic politics. Both expose genuine limitations in Keynes’s framework.

Yet neither, I will argue, invalidates the broader project of reconstructing capitalism under the conditions of mass politics. On the contrary, recognizing these tensions clarifies what is actually at stake. The challenge is not to rely on electoral democracy to generate shared prosperity, but to reconstruct the institutional foundations of capitalism in ways that can produce it. When prosperity becomes broadly shared and development sustained, democracy may emerge not as a precondition of the process, but as one of its most important outcomes.

Creative Destruction and Keynes’s Approach to Economic Maturity

The first pressure point concerns Keynes’s view of the long-term dynamics of capitalist accumulation. Here, Schumpeter — Keynes’s contemporary, admirer, and relentless critic — provides the most powerful challenge.

Keynes’s reflections on long-term development sometimes suggest that sustained capital accumulation could gradually exhaust profitable investment opportunities. In the concluding chapter of The General Theory, he even entertains the prospect that the progressive abundance of capital might drive the marginal efficiency of capital toward zero. As Keynes famously put it:

“If I am right in supposing it to be comparatively easy to make capital goods so abundant that the marginal efficiency of capital is zero, this may be the most sensible way of gradually getting rid of many of the objectionable features of capitalism.” ( p.155)

The implication is striking. If capital were to become sufficiently abundant, the return on accumulated wealth would gradually disappear, transforming the economic and social structure of capitalism itself.

Schumpeter rejected this premise. For him, capitalist development is not a cumulative process that eventually runs out of momentum. It is a process of continuous structural transformation driven by innovation. In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy he famously described technological change and entrepreneurial competition as an “unmapped sea of economic possibilities,” continually opening new fields for investment and growth.

From this perspective, the productive structure of capitalism is never built once and for all. New technologies, industries, and forms of organization continually reorganize the economic landscape. As Schumpeter observed:

“The additions to the capitalist productive apparatus normally compete with the existing equipment. They destroy its economic usefulness. The task of producing equipment is therefore never completed once and for all.” ( 1942, pp 118-19).

Innovation thus continually recreates investment opportunities. Capital accumulation does not converge toward saturation; it repeatedly generates new technological and organizational frontiers.

Schumpeter pushed the argument even further. Economic expansion does not depend on the opening of geographical frontiers but on the creation of new technological ones:

“The conquest of the air may well be more important than the conquest of India was—we must not confuse geographical frontiers with economic ones.” ( 1942, pp 117).

Seen from this angle, the problem is not the exhaustion of investment opportunities but the opposite: the continuous transformation of the economic structure through innovation.

Daniel Bell later reinforced this Schumpeterian insight. Keynes, he argued, analyzed economic phenomena within a framework that implicitly assumed relatively stable production techniques. Schumpeter, by contrast, placed technological transformation at the center of capitalist dynamics:

“Keynes dealt with phenomena whose scope was limited by his premise that the techniques of production do not change. For Schumpeter, the decisive fact was precisely that in the capitalist system the techniques of production change rapidly… the system can survive only if it maintains the rewards for entrepreneurial innovation.” (Bell, 1960, p. 70)

This dynamic, the process Schumpeter termed creative destruction, implies that investment opportunities are continually recreated. Capital accumulation does not converge toward saturation; it repeatedly generates new technological and organizational frontiers. In this sense, Schumpeter’s perspective complicates Keynes’s horizon of economic maturity. If innovation constantly reorganizes production and opens new fields of investment, the arrival of a stable condition of capital abundance becomes far less straightforward. The capitalist economy is not simply accumulating toward a point of saturation; it is continuously transforming the very structure within which scarcity and opportunity are defined.

The same reasoning applies to consumption. Keynes’s “fundamental psychological law,” according to which rising income tends to reduce the propensity to consume, implicitly assumes a relatively stable structure of goods and desires. But capitalist development is characterized precisely by the opposite dynamic: the continuous transformation of both production and consumption. Innovation not only reorganizes industries; it also reshapes preferences, creates new products, and generates new forms of demand.

As Schumpeter emphasized, the process of creative destruction extends beyond production itself, constantly differentiating goods and redefining consumer aspirations. The horizon of demand, therefore, expands alongside the transformation of the productive structure. From this perspective, there is no theoretical reason to assume a stable ceiling for consumption desires. Capitalism does not simply satisfy existing wants; it continually recreates them.

Seen from this angle, the problem is not the exhaustion of investment opportunities but, rather, the permanent destabilization of the economic structure through innovation.

Recent developments in advanced capitalist economies even suggest something close to an inversion of Keynes’s “fundamental psychological law.” Instead of a declining propensity to consume as income rises, contemporary capitalism has often produced expanding consumption supported by credit and the continuous creation of new goods and lifestyles. The “too much stuff” phenomenon associated with late-consumer capitalism (Yamamura, 2018), together with the widespread expansion of household indebtedness (Nesvetailova, 2007; Feierstein, 2012), points toward a system in which consumption is continually stimulated rather than naturally saturating.

Yet this critique does not invalidate Keynes’s deeper concern with abundance. It reframes it. The issue is not whether capitalism runs out of opportunities for profitable investment. The issue is how societies organize the distribution and use of the wealth generated by a system capable of continuously expanding its productive possibilities.

In this sense, incorporating Schumpeter’s paradigm of creative destruction does not undermine Keynes’s broader horizon of abundance. It sharpens the question. The challenge becomes not the saturation of capital, but how the institutional framework of capitalism can reconcile continuous innovation with shared prosperity and social stability.

Democratic Realism and the Political Limits of Keynes

The second pressure point concerns the political feasibility of Keynes’s project. If Schumpeter challenged Keynes’s view of long-term accumulation, he also raised a deeper question about democracy itself.

It is sometimes argued that Keynes paid little attention to the political conditions under which full employment policies would operate. This criticism, however, is overstated. Keynes was acutely aware of the political tensions involved in maintaining full employment in democratic societies. In 1943, writing to Frank Graham, he posed the issue with characteristic clarity:

“How much otherwise avoidable unemployment do you propose to bring about in order to keep the trade unions in order? Do you think it will be politically possible when they understand what you are up to?” (Keynes, 1980, Vol. XXVII).

Later that same year, he observed that the problem of maintaining stable real wages in a full-employment economy was “a political rather than an economic problem.” By 1945, he admitted, somewhat disarmingly, that economists were often tempted to “turn a blind eye to the wages problem in a full employment economy.” (Keynes, 1980, Vol. XXVII).

These remarks make clear that Keynes understood the political tensions inherent in a full-employment regime. Organized interests, distributive conflicts, and pressure from powerful groups were not absent from his vision of capitalism. What Keynes did not do, however, was reconstruct democratic theory itself. His implicit view of politics remained broadly aligned with the classical liberal conception of democracy.

Schumpeter summarized this conception as the belief that democratic institutions allow society to discover and implement the “common good” through the electoral selection of representatives who articulate and execute the general will. Against this view, he proposed a radically different interpretation. Democracy, he argued, should be understood not as the expression of a coherent popular will but as:

“an institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote.” ( 1942, p 269).

In this formulation, political life resembles a marketplace of competing elites, where parties, leaders, and organized interests struggle for electoral support. Voters do not articulate a unified conception of the common good; they respond to competing political entrepreneurs.

Samuel Brittan later offered a compressed but insightful indication of how Keynes operated within a more classical liberal understanding of politics:

“He took it for granted that decisions would ultimately be made by a small group of the educated bourgeoisie, inspired by a disinterested concern for the public good. He assumed that wrong decisions were taken out of intellectual error or, at worst, narrowness of vision; and that if the correct ideas were promulgated with sufficient clarity and vigor, they would eventually win the day.” (Brittan, 1977, pp. 41–42)

The implication is that Keynes assumed a relatively strong synchrony between the economic and political spheres in mature, rationally organized capitalism. In other words, he largely set aside a problem that had been central to Weberian economic sociology: the potential conflict of rationalities within modern capitalism, where political incentives, institutional interests, and bureaucratic dynamics do not necessarily align with the requirements of economic coordination (Whimster and Lash, 1987).

Keynes would, as we have seen, briefly acknowledge this tension in his correspondence during the 1943–45 debates on full employment. Yet these remarks remained largely peripheral to his central theoretical framework.

This shift in perspective has important implications for Keynes’s project. If democratic politics operates through competitive struggles among organized interests, the rationality governing political behavior may diverge sharply from the rationality required for coherent macroeconomic management. Electoral incentives encourage short-term responsiveness to particular constituencies rather than the disciplined pursuit of long-term stabilization strategies.

Brittan captured the logic succinctly. In the political marketplace, organized groups pursue their interests with far fewer constraints than actors in ordinary markets. Voters and interest groups can demand larger shares of public resources without bearing the full costs of those demands, creating a structural incentive for the expansion of claims on the state:

“The political marketplace is characterized by the pursuit of self-interest by large groups, where personal budget constraints are absent… There is a strong incentive for the interest group to press its demands as forcefully as possible without any real discipline on the total of interest-group demands.” (Brittan, 1977, p. 45)

Brittan is flagging a clear conflict of rationalities. What is electorally rational for politicians and organized interests — responding to concentrated demands for benefits — does not necessarily align with the requirements of macroeconomic stabilization or long-term economic coordination.

It is precisely this tension that later became the foundation of the public choice critique developed by Gordon Tullock, James Buchanan, Richard Wagner, and others. The argument was stated with particular clarity in Buchanan, Burton, and Wagner’s pamphlet The Consequences of Mr. Keynes (1978), which questioned whether the fiscal instruments Keynes proposed to stabilize capitalism could in fact be deployed as intended within the incentive structure of electoral democracy.

The problem, they argued, was not Keynes’s technical economics but the political feasibility of his policy prescriptions. Keynesian stabilization assumed governments capable of alternating between deficits in recessions and surpluses in expansions. In democratic politics, however, the incentives run in only one direction.

As the authors observed, the real issue was whether “the instrument he devised to make [capitalism] stable — budget deficits — could be used by politicians in representative democracy to serve the purpose he intended.” In practice, they argued, electoral incentives make the symmetrical application of Keynesian policy highly unlikely: deficits are politically attractive, while surpluses are not. The very instrument designed to stabilize capitalism thus risks being deployed in ways that systematically undermine its intended purpose.

Yet this critique, while raising a genuine difficulty, does not invalidate the Keynesian project. What it exposes is a deeper tension within modern capitalism: the coexistence of economic coordination problems with political processes governed by competing interests and electoral incentives. Keynes recognized this tension but did not fully theorize it.

Schumpeter’s democratic realism, therefore, identifies a genuine limit in Keynes’s architecture. The success of Keynesian stabilization policies cannot be taken for granted in the context of mass politics and entrenched interest groups. The institutional alignment between economic rationality and political incentives must itself become an object of analysis and design.

Share

Conclusion

Schumpeter’s critique, therefore, does not invalidate Keynes’s project. It complicates it.

Keynes reconstructed the economic architecture of capitalism under conditions of uncertainty, revealing the central role of expectations, liquidity, and coordinated investment in stabilizing modern economies. Schumpeter’s analysis provides the critical lens through which the Keynesian project must be reassessed. It brings to light two forces that Keynes did not fully incorporate into his framework: the relentless structural transformation driven by innovation and the competitive dynamics of mass politics.

Taken together, these insights do not undermine the Keynesian project. They reveal the institutional complexity required for it to succeed.

For several decades after the Second World War, the advanced capitalist economies operated within something close to a Keynesian institutional order. That order, however, was progressively dismantled during the late twentieth century. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the brief unipolar moment that followed handed neoliberalism its greatest strategic victory. Already firmly entrenched in academic economics and policy circles across the West, the Hayek–Friedman–Buchanan intellectual coalition suddenly appeared to have eliminated all serious alternatives.

History, however, proved less accommodating.

The global financial crisis of 2008 exposed the fragility of the neoliberal order. At the same time, China — long underestimated and widely misunderstood — demonstrated that sustained growth, technological transformation, and large-scale investment coordination could be achieved under very different institutional arrangements.

The result has been a gradual but unmistakable erosion of the neoliberal consensus. The political consequences are visible across the Western world: the crisis of liberal electoral democracy, the rise of populist insurgencies, and the growing incapacity of established political systems to reconcile economic transformation with social stability.

Seen from this vantage point, the problem confronting contemporary capitalism is not the one imagined by Keynes's neoliberal critics. The challenge is not excessive state intervention but the absence of an institutional framework capable of coordinating innovation, investment, and social stability under conditions of mass politics.

The path forward may therefore lie not in abandoning Keynes but in completing his project. That completion requires incorporating the insights of his most perceptive critic. Keynes’s political economy of uncertainty must be coupled with Schumpeter’s analysis of capitalist transformation and democratic competition.

The result would be a reconstruction of capitalism capable of sustaining continuous innovation while generating broadly shared prosperity — a system in which democratic legitimacy emerges not from procedural formalities alone, but from the material success of the developmental process itself.

In that sense, the task is not to choose between Keynes and Schumpeter. It is to understand that if capitalism has a future, the reconstruction of its institutional scaffolding will depend on combining Keynes’s political economy of uncertainty with Schumpeter’s analysis of innovation — and on taking his insights on transformative democracy seriously.

Leave a comment

References

Bell, D. (1960). The End of Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties. Revised edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brittan, S. (1977). The Economic Consequences of Democracy. London: Temple Smith.

Buchanan, J. M., Burton, J., and Wagner, R. E. (1978). The Consequences of Mr Keynes. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.

Feierstein, D. (2012) ‘Consumption, credit and crisis’, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 34(4), pp. 645–666.

Keynes, J. M. (1980). The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, Vol. XXVII: Activities 1940–1944: Shaping the Post-War World — Employment and Commodities. Edited by Donald Moggridge. London: Macmillan for the Royal Economic Society, p. 323.

Keynes, J. M. (2013). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Palgrave Macmillan. (Originally published 1936)

Nesvetailova, A. (2007). Fragile Finance: Debt, Speculation and Crisis in the Age of Global Credit. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Schumpeter, J. A. (2010). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Routledge. (Originally published 1942)

Whimster, S. and Lash, S. (eds.) (1987) Max Weber, Rationality and Modernity. London: Allen & Unwin.

Yamamura, K. (2018). Too Much Stuff: Capitalism in Crisis. London: Allen Lane.

Preface: A Note on the Series

This Substack sits on the shoulders of giants — to borrow a famously overused phrase, quite deliberately. The giants in question are the classical masters of political economy and social theory: Marx, Weber, Keynes, Schumpeter, Polanyi, Minsky, and a few others.

The posts that follow inaugurate a new series devoted to rereading these thinkers. At first glance, this may appear to depart from the recent sequence on democracy. In fact, it does the opposite. The arguments developed there rest on analytical foundations laid by these authors. Revisiting them is therefore not a digression but a return to the conceptual sources of the Substack.

They are classics in a precise sense. As Harold Bloom once observed, a classic is a work that never exhausts itself — one that compels us to return to it because it continues to illuminate new problems under new historical conditions.

But they will not appear here as monuments to be admired from a respectful distance. They will be reread, reinterpreted, and occasionally pushed beyond their own conclusions. Their arguments will be reconstructed, their limits exposed, and their insights redeployed to illuminate the political economy of our time.

What follows, therefore, is not intellectual history. It is an attempt to expose the analytical scaffolding behind my interventions on contemporary capitalism, socialism, democracy, statecraft, and geopolitics.

If the exercise succeeds, familiar thinkers may begin to look slightly different — and perhaps the present as well.

Subscribe now

Introduction:

In 1919, in The Economic Consequences of the Peace, John Maynard Keynes did not merely criticize the Versailles settlement. He diagnosed the fragility of the entire nineteenth-century liberal order. The war had shattered more than empires. It had exposed the institutional exhaustion of a system built on free capital mobility, limited political participation, and the tacit assumption that markets could coordinate both prosperity and stability without sustained public direction.

Writing in the immediate aftermath of the war, Keynes captured the atmosphere of continental Europe with unusual bluntness. What observers in London or New York could still treat as temporary disorder appeared very differently on the continent. As he remarked:

“Certainly — he notes — only in England (and in the United States) is it possible to remain so unconscious. On the continent of Europe, the ground trembles. The problem is not the extravagances or ‘turbulence’ of labor. It is the fearful convulsions of a dying civilization.” (Keynes 1919, p. 8)

Keynes saw what many contemporaries preferred to ignore: the pre-1914 liberal order had depended on a delicate configuration — small electorates, disciplined labor, imperial resource flows, and a financial architecture centered on London. Once mass suffrage expanded, corporate capitalism consolidated, and geopolitical rivalry intensified, that configuration ceased to be self-stabilizing.

The crisis, in other words, was not accidental. It was structural.

Keynes grasped that a structural crisis demands a structural response. The question was no longer how to repair a malfunctioning mechanism, but how to redesign the institutional architecture of liberal capitalism under radically altered economic and political conditions.

Restoration was not an option. The nineteenth-century order had rested on a configuration — limited suffrage, social hierarchy, imperial reach, and the discipline of gold — that mass politics and industrial concentration had irreversibly transformed. But neither did Keynes embrace authoritarian reaction or revolutionary socialism. His ambition was more audacious and more pragmatic: to reconstruct liberal civilization so that capitalism could coexist with mass democracy without collapsing into chronic instability or coercive rule.

To grasp the depth of that ambition, one must set aside the familiar vocabulary of fiscal stimulus and demand management. Those are surface instruments. The real break lies deeper: in Keynes’s elevation of uncertainty and the fluidity of expectations to the organizing principles of capitalist instability.

Uncertainty, Expectations, and Instability

Keynes’s most decisive break with classical political economy lies in his theory of fundamental uncertainty. The future, he argued, is not probabilistically calculable. Economic actors do not operate under measurable risk but under conditions in which the structure of future outcomes is itself unknowable.

The fully articulated theoretical apparatus would only emerge later, most systematically in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. But the intellectual seeds were already visible much earlier. In The Economic Consequences of the Peace, Keynes displayed a keen sensitivity to the fragility of expectations — how political miscalculation could destabilize economic life by eroding confidence in the future. Throughout the 1920s, in the essays later collected in Essays in Persuasion, he repeatedly returned to the volatility of confidence, the psychology of investors, and the precariousness of financial conventions.

The theoretical vocabulary was still evolving. The diagnosis, however, was already clear: capitalism is governed not by calculable trajectories but by shifting expectations under uncertainty.

Investment, therefore, depends on fragile, socially formed, and continuously revisable expectations. Confidence rests on conventions — shared beliefs about the future that endure only so long as they remain collectively credible. Expectations are not anchored by equilibrium forces; they are stabilized by psychological and institutional supports.

This is the core instability of modern capitalism: production is organized around long-term commitments, while beliefs about the future are inherently provisional.

Once uncertainty becomes structural, a further consequence follows. If the future cannot be known with certainty, the ability to postpone commitments acquires value. Money, therefore, ceases to be merely a medium of exchange. Under uncertainty, it becomes an asset — a store of value that allows economic actors to wait.

The preference for holding such liquidity is what Keynes called liquidity preference. It is a rational strategy for investors and households confronting an unknowable future.

But when exercised collectively, liquidity preference has systemic consequences. The retreat into liquid assets reduces spending and investment in the economy, propagating instability throughout the supply–demand chain.

Liquidity Preference and the Sovereignty of Finance

Under uncertainty, liquidity acquires special significance. Money is not neutral; it is a refuge from the unknowable. The liquidity option becomes a structural response to uncertainty.

If expectations deteriorate, investors retreat from long-term commitments into liquid assets. Finance thus acquires a structural veto over productive investment. When liquidity preference rises, investment collapses.

This is not a cyclical accident. It is endogenous instability rooted in the interaction between uncertainty and expectations.

Investment Volatility and Involuntary Unemployment

Because investment determines effective demand, volatility in expectations produces volatility in output and employment. There is no automatic mechanism guaranteeing full employment. An economy can settle into a persistent underemployment equilibrium if private expectations remain subdued. Classical liberalism assumed that markets would self-correct. Keynes’s framework made visible that under fundamental uncertainty, expectations do not gravitate toward equilibrium. If coordination emerges, it reflects the temporary convergence of conventions, not the automatic operation of systemic forces.

The instability is structural. In a society of limited suffrage, it might be endured. In a mass-democracy society, it becomes politically explosive.

Mass Democracy as a Political Problem

The emergence of mass politics — organized labor, expanded electorates, and mobilized publics shaped by industrialization and war — transformed the political consequences of economic instability. Mass electorates subjected to prolonged insecurity would not indefinitely tolerate laissez-faire orthodoxy.

By the early interwar years, the political alternatives were already visible: authoritarian restoration, Bolshevism, or social disintegration.

Keynes understood that the survival of liberalism depended on its radical restructuring so that capitalism could be reconciled with democratic stability. The problem was not simply how to raise output. It was how to prevent economic volatility from destabilizing the political order. As he later wrote, reflecting on the task of what he called “new liberalism,” the challenge was nothing less than

“The transition from economic anarchy to a regime which deliberately aims at controlling economic forces in the interests of social justice and social stability.” (Keynes 1925)

Such a transition, Keynes emphasized, would be both technically and politically difficult. But it was unavoidable if liberal civilization was to survive the age of mass politics.

This is where Keynes’s project becomes revolutionary.

Socialization of Investment: The Foundations of Shared Prosperity

Keynes’s most misunderstood phrase — “the somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment” — must be read against the background of uncertainty and liquidity preference. In a world where the future is fundamentally unknowable, private investment decisions are governed by fragile expectations and the ever-present attraction of liquidity. When confidence falters, investors retreat into money and other liquid assets. The result is a contraction of investment that reverberates through the entire economic system.

Under such conditions, instability is not an occasional disturbance but a structural possibility. What is individually rational for investors — the preference for liquidity in uncertain times — can become collectively destructive. Declining investment reduces income, further weakens expectations, and reinforces the demand for liquidity. Left to itself, the system contains no automatic mechanism capable of reliably stabilizing long-term accumulation.

Keynes’s response was not the abolition of markets but their institutional reorganization. The aggregate level and strategic direction of investment could not be left entirely to decentralized private expectations. Public authority had to assume responsibility for coordinating and stabilizing long-term investment.

This is what Keynes meant by the socialization of investment. It did not imply universal state ownership or centralized planning of all economic activity. It meant that the state would act as the institutional counterweight to liquidity preference, ensuring that total investment remained sufficient even when private confidence faltered. The objective was to anchor expectations and prevent the collapse of accumulation during periods of financial retrenchment.

But Keynes’s formulation went beyond macroeconomic stabilization. He also recognized that the extraordinarily productive potential created by modern technology required a corresponding expansion of purchasing power. Coordinated investment and broad-based prosperity were therefore inseparable elements of the same institutional project.

As he wrote in 1931, reflecting on The Dilemmas of Modern Socialism:

“I am convinced that what is most urgent in practical terms — the central control of investment and the redistribution of incomes in order to provide purchasing power for the immense potential developed by modern technique — also tends to create a better model of society. Indeed, there is now much less opposition than before between the requirements of practical policy and the aspirations of the ideal.” (Keynes 1931, p. 197)

This passage reveals the broader horizon of Keynes’s project. The coordination of investment and the diffusion of purchasing power were not separate policy goals. They were two dimensions of a single institutional transformation: harnessing the productive power of modern capitalism while preventing its instability from producing stagnation, unemployment, and political crisis.

Shared prosperity, in this perspective, is not merely a distributive outcome. It is a structural condition for the sustainability of modern capitalism itself. Expanding productive capacity without expanding purchasing power generates chronic instability; coordinating investment while ensuring broad access to income allows the productive potential of modern technology to translate into sustained growth and social stability.

Markets continue to allocate resources within this framework. But the framework itself becomes an object of institutional design. The command center of capitalism — the structure and financing of investment — can no longer be left entirely to decentralized expectations governed by liquidity preference.

Seen from this perspective, Keynes’s proposal begins to look less like a technocratic macroeconomic adjustment and more like an institutional blueprint for aligning investment, technological potential, and mass purchasing power within a stable political order. Read today, the passage above carries an unexpected contemporary resonance: the emphasis on coordinated investment and broadly shared prosperity is a logic that present-day Chinese leadership would immediately recognize.

Disciplining Finance

Once investment is understood as expectation-driven and volatile, the disciplining of finance follows logically. Liquidity holders cannot be permitted to exercise structural veto power over employment and growth. As Keynes warned in Chapter 12 of The General Theory, speculation may be harmless “as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise.” The problem arises when the relation is reversed — when “the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino.” Under such conditions, the job of organizing long-term investment is unlikely to be done well.

Interest rates must therefore be managed, speculative excess constrained, and long-term capital formation favored over short-term arbitrage. Finance is not eliminated; it is subordinated.

Under such an architecture, liquidity preference is disciplined rather than eliminated, allowing accumulation to proceed without being continually destabilized by financial retreat.

Corporate Capitalism and Liberalism’s Institutional Exhaustion

Keynes also recognized that capitalism had already evolved beyond the world analyzed by classical liberalism. Corporate concentration and bureaucratic organization were structural features of modern production. The entrepreneur had increasingly given way to managerial capitalism.

The task was not to restore atomistic competition but to embed corporate capitalism within a framework aligned with public purpose. Large-scale organization would persist; its environment would change. Keynes understood that the emerging structures of corporate and coordinated capitalism were not anomalies to be reversed but historical developments that liberalism had to accommodate. As he argued in the 1920s, effective political direction required “a flexible mentality toward these forms of semi-socialism,” which he regarded as the natural tendencies of the age and whose potential had to be harnessed rather than resisted (Keynes 1926).

A closely related diagnosis appeared in the late 1920s in the work of Joseph Schumpeter. In his 1928 essay on the Instability of Capitalism, Schumpeter likewise observed that the competitive capitalism of the nineteenth century was giving way to a system increasingly organized around large corporations and bureaucratic management — a transformation later documented empirically by Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means in The Modern Corporation and Private Property (1932). Both thinkers recognized that the institutional environment of capitalism had already been fundamentally altered.

Yet their interpretations would diverge. Keynes sought to stabilize this new corporate capitalism through institutional coordination and macroeconomic management. Schumpeter, by contrast, would later interpret the same transformation as part of a deeper dynamic that could ultimately undermine capitalism’s own social and political foundations.

For Keynes, however, the problem demanded not resignation but reconstruction. His response was not merely analytical but political: a deliberate redesign of the institutional architecture within which capitalism could function under conditions of mass politics.

Keynes’s Political Project

The restructuring Keynes proposed rested on three interrelated pillars.

First, macroeconomic stabilization to counteract expectation-driven investment volatility.

Second, the subordination of finance prevents liquidity from exercising structural veto power over investment and employment.

Third, full employment and shared prosperity are embedded within citizenship, ensuring that democratic participation would not coexist with systemic insecurity. Keynes was explicit that the legitimacy of modern capitalism depended on addressing both unemployment and distribution. As he put it in Chapter 24 of The General Theory,

“The outstanding faults of the economic society in which we live are its failure to provide for full employment and its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth and incomes.” (Keynes 1936)

This was not a defensive adjustment within classical liberalism. It was a structural break from it. Keynes did not seek to preserve the nineteenth-century liberal order; he recognized that it had collapsed under the weight of mass politics, corporate concentration, and financial instability. The self-regulating market could no longer serve as the organizing principle of society. Investment, finance, and employment became matters of collective coordination.

This amounted to a break with liberalism as it had historically been constituted. What Keynes sought to preserve was not laissez-faire but constitutional democracy. He abandoned the classical liberal settlement to secure a democratic order in modern conditions. The reconstruction he proposed subordinated market autonomy to political stabilization so that freedom could survive mass democracy.

In this respect, Keynes stands in revealing proximity to other early twentieth-century diagnoses of liberalism’s exhaustion.

Like Karl Polanyi in The Great Transformation, he rejected the viability of the self-regulating market in a mass-democratic and financially integrated society. Both recognized that the nineteenth-century settlement could not survive the social and political transformations it had itself unleashed.

Yet decisive differences remain. For Polanyi, the self-regulating market was a utopian construction — never fully realized and always dependent on state enforcement even as it proclaimed autonomy. The crisis of liberalism was thus inherent in the very attempt to disembed the economy from society. At the same time, Polanyi’s account oscillates between treating the self-regulating market as a utopian ideological project and as a concrete historical process that structured the nineteenth-century order. This tension — between impossibility and historical operativity — will be examined in a later installment of this series.

Keynes’s historical sensibility was more evolutionary. Classical liberalism, in his view, had functioned tolerably under nineteenth-century conditions of limited suffrage and less concentrated finance. The problem was not that markets had never worked, but that the institutional and political environment in which they once operated had been transformed.

Equally important is the direction of agency. Polanyi narrates a protective counter-movement arising from society in response to dislocation. Keynes assigns a deliberate role to political authority. Stabilization would not emerge organically; it required conscious institutional redesign. Where Polanyi describes sociological re-embedding, Keynes outlines a strategy for state reconstruction.

A parallel proximity can be observed in the revisionist and Austro-Marxist traditions. Eduard Bernstein’s Evolutionary Socialism and Rudolf Hilferding’s analysis of Finance Capital marked a decisive departure from Marxism’s classical collapse theory. Capitalism, they argued, was not on the verge of an automatic breakdown but was undergoing profound institutional reorganization. Corporate concentration, financial coordination, and administrative structures signaled the emergence of what came to be described as organized capitalism.

With the expansion of suffrage and the consolidation of mass parties, the terrain of transformation shifted from insurrection to institutional reconfiguration. Mass democracy was not merely a tactical instrument but a structural achievement to be recognized and consolidated. The problem was no longer how to overthrow capitalism but how to govern its increasingly complex economic machinery.

This shift also produced proposals strikingly close to Keynes’s later emphasis on coordinated investment. Writing in July 1933 amid the deepening world depression, the Austro-Marxist leader Otto Bauer argued:

“It is imperative that we should explore new avenues. No economic revival can be hoped for from the free play of market forces. Great public works and investment orders alone can set the economy moving again. There is no lack of work to be done; the problem is how to find the money… Let the government raise a loan on the capital market or, if necessary, from the banks to pursue a wise policy of credit expansion… unperturbed by credit and currency doctrines from the past.”

Bauer’s formulation illustrates how widely the intellectual terrain had shifted by the early 1930s. Across different traditions — liberal, revisionist socialist, and Austro-Marxist — the emerging consensus was that modern capitalism required active coordination of investment and demand if mass democratic societies were to remain economically and politically stable.

Share

Mass Politics, Structural Change, and the Limits of Keynes’s Architecture

Yet this reconstruction rested on two fragile premises.

First, it assumed that democratic governance could be mobilized in a coherent and forward-looking manner. Keynes retained a largely liberal view of politics: enlightened leaders, once persuaded by sound economic reasoning, could deploy fiscal and monetary instruments in the public interest. He recognized distributive conflict and organized interests, but he did not reconstruct democratic theory itself. Whether mass electoral competition could reliably sustain long-term coordination, therefore, remained an open question.

Second, his conception of long-term accumulation remained structurally thin. His supply analysis retained a largely Marshallian character: techniques are given, cost conditions are relatively stable, and capital formation is treated primarily through expectations and demand rather than through endogenous technological transformation. Innovation and creative destruction do not operate as systemic forces within his analytical architecture. For Keynes, instability arises from uncertainty and liquidity preference. The relentless structural reorganization of production — what Schumpeter would later call creative destruction — lies largely outside his analytical architecture.

Keynes’s mature horizon therefore leans toward a managed capitalism approaching relative abundance, where stabilized expectations and public coordination dampen volatility. But if we shift the analytical assumption from relative abundance and stabilization — the horizon Keynes sketched in Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren — to continuous technological upheaval, from managed demand to endogenous creative destruction, then the durability of any institutional settlement becomes inherently provisional.

It is at these two pressure points — mass politics and innovation-driven long-term accumulation — that a more skeptical realism presses against Keynes’s design. Keynes broke decisively with liberal economics. But he never fully abandoned liberal assumptions about politics.

This asymmetry matters. It is precisely where the Keynesian architecture becomes most exposed. It is here that Schumpeter enters.

That is the subject of the next post in this series.

Leave a comment

References

Bauer, O. (1933) “Work for 200,000,” in Blum, M. E. and Smaldone, W. (eds.) Austro-Marxism: The Ideology of Unity, Vol. 2 – Changing the World. Leiden: Brill, 2017.

Berle, A. A. and Means, G. C. (1991). The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. (Original work published 1932).

Bernstein, E. (1993) Evolutionary Socialism: A Criticism and Affirmation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1899).

Hilferding, R. (1981). Finance Capital: A Study of the Latest Phase of Capitalist Development. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1910).

Keynes, J. M. (1932) ‘The Dilemma of Modern Socialism’, The Political Quarterly, 3(2), pp. 155–161.

Keynes, J. M. (2010). The Economic Consequences of the Peace. London: Penguin Classics. (Original work published in 1919).

Keynes, J. M. (2010). Essays in Persuasion. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (Original work published in 1931).

Keynes, J. M. (2018). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (Original work published in 1936).

Keynes, J. M. (2010) ‘Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren’, in Essays in Persuasion. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (Original work published in 1930).

Keynes, J. M. (2010) ‘Am I a Liberal?’, in Essays in Persuasion. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (Original work published in 1925).

Keynes, J. M. (2000) ‘The End of Laissez-Faire’ in Essays in Persuasion. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (Original work published in 1926).

Polanyi, K. (2001). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. 2nd edn. Boston: Beacon Press. (Original work published in 1944).

Schumpeter, J. A. (1989) ‘The Instability of Capitalism’, in Clemence, R. V. (ed.) Essays on Entrepreneurs, Innovations, Business Cycles and the Evolution of Capitalism. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. (Original work published in 1928).

Schumpeter, J. A. (2010). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Routledge. (Original work published in 1942).

Preface

This essay is the analytical counterpart to Democracy as an Outcome. That piece examined whether transformative development can generate democratic deepening; this one asks the inverse question: what happens when electoral competition persists but developmental embedding erodes?

Together, the two essays form a single stress test of contemporary democracy — not as a label, but as an institutional substance.

Introduction

This essay is the analytical mirror image of my previous post, Democracy as an Outcome.

There, democracy was treated not as a procedural axiom but as a developmental achievement. The central wager was structural: sustained material transformation — industrial upgrading, innovation, diffusion of prosperity, institutional adaptation — can generate the social foundations from which democratic legitimacy deepens over time. Electoral procedure, on that view, is not the origin of democracy but one institutional expression of a broader developmental process.

China served in that essay as a stress test — not as a case to be conclusively labeled, but as a structural inquiry into whether transformative development can generate cohesion, capability expansion, and institutional adaptation sufficient for democracy to emerge as an outcome rather than a premise.

The present essay reverses the lens.

If Democracy as an Outcome asked whether development can generate democratic deepening, this essay asks what shape democracy assumes under different regimes of accumulation and distribution. More specifically: can liberal–electoral democracy sustain democratic substance when the developmental regime that once stabilized it erodes?

The empirical focus now shifts to Western democracies, and most centrally to U.S. liberal-democratic capitalism. In previous posts, I argued that liberalism universalizes formal political equality while structurally limiting democratic reach into the core architecture of accumulation. Citizens participate as equal voters, yet the structural parameters shaping public policy — from investment and distribution to education, health, and housing — remain insulated from majoritarian recalibration.

Electoral alternation influences policy at the margins, but the core organization of accumulation and the distribution of income and wealth remain comparatively shielded. A structural veto limits substantive democratic oversight over the key domains of public interest: investment, ownership, and welfare. The configuration that follows generates the recurring cycle of “elect and regret.” That cycle is not an anomaly; it is a predictable outcome of institutional design.

Here, that configuration becomes the object of direct scrutiny.

The argument begins with a premise that sharply departs from much of the contemporary literature on the “crisis of democracy.” The problem is not that democracy has drifted from its proper form. It is not primarily a story of eroding norms, irrational voters, or populist contagion.

Liberal–electoral democracy has not evolved into a regime of political entrepreneurship. It has always been one.

From Schumpeter onward, democracy in its modern form has been understood as a method of selecting political leaders through competitive elections — a structured struggle among organized elites for political authority. Political entrepreneurship is not a distortion of democratic procedure; it is its defining mechanism.

What varies historically is not the method, but the institutional and economic regime within which it operates.

Under one accumulation regime, political entrepreneurship is embedded in transformative growth, disciplined finance, and the diffusion of prosperity. Under another, it unfolds within financialized structures that insulate accumulation from democratic recalibration and concentrate gains. The political form remains constant. The social and economic consequences do not.

The question, ultimately, is not whether democracy exists. It is what it produces.

Political Entrepreneurship as the Linchpin of Liberal Democracy

The realist tradition in democratic theory dispensed with metaphysical accounts of popular sovereignty early. Joseph Schumpeter’s formulation in 1942 was explicit: “democracy is a method by which individuals acquire decision-making power through competitive struggle for votes”1. Max Weber emphasized organized competition for leadership and the centrality of political selection2. Robert Michels demonstrated the oligarchic structure of mass organizations3. Stripped of romanticism, democracy appeared not as the direct rule of the people but as a regulated contest among elites for authority. This realism was descriptive rather than dismissive: it clarified how modern mass democracy actually functions under conditions of scale and complexity.

Under this lens, liberal electoral democracy is structurally constituted by political entrepreneurship.

Parties compete for electoral share. Leaders mobilize constituencies. Programs are strategic bundles calibrated for viability. Electoral campaigns translate heterogeneous demands into coalitions capable of winning office. Votes allocate governing authority, not as expressions of unified will, but as mechanisms of competitive selection. Political entrepreneurship is therefore not a distortion of democracy. It is the operating logic of its institutional design.

This has two immediate implications.

First, democratic politics is inherently tactical. Leadership selection rewards organization, persuasion, coalition-building, and responsiveness to prevailing incentives. Electoral competition selects for short-term mobilization under given structural constraints, not necessarily for leadership capable of reshaping those constraints.

Second, democratic legitimacy cannot be inferred from procedure alone. If political entrepreneurship is the linchpin of liberal democracy, the quality of democratic outcomes depends on the environment within which entrepreneurial competition unfolds.

The critical question is not whether democracy is entrepreneurial. It is under what structural conditions political entrepreneurship allows democratic substance to emerge — and under what conditions it erodes it.

Answering that question requires moving beyond electoral aggregates and partisan cycles. It requires situating political entrepreneurship within its broader political–economic embedding: the organization of production, and finance, the distributional structure of growth, and the institutional capacity to discipline concentrated economic power.

Political entrepreneurship is constant. Its consequences are not. The shape of democracy is conditioned by the regime within which entrepreneurial competition operates.

Embedded Industrial Capitalism: The Social–Developmental Shape

When Schumpeter wrote in the early 1940s, political entrepreneurship operated within an economic order that was about to be fundamentally reorganized. The decades that followed — roughly 1945 to 1975 — produced what came to be known as the “glorious thirty years”: a historically specific configuration in which liberal–electoral democracy was embedded within industrial expansion, rising productivity, and institutionalized social compromise.

In the United States, labor productivity grew at nearly 3 percent annually between 1947 and 1973, and real wages rose in tandem. Manufacturing employment expanded, infrastructure investment accelerated, and mass consumption became structurally integrated into growth. Western Europe experienced even more rapid catch-up growth, aided by reconstruction and technology transfer. Between 1950 and 1973, real GDP growth in countries such as France, Germany, and Italy averaged 4-6 percent per year.

Industrial upgrading was not incidental; it was the organizing principle of economic strategy. As Andrew Shonfield observed in Modern Capitalism, postwar Western economies did not rely on laissez-faire adjustment but on structured coordination between state institutions, financial systems, and industrial firms, particularly in Europe. The stability of this arrangement was inseparable from the international order analyzed by Fred Block in The Origins of International Economic Disorder, where the Bretton Woods system preserved domestic policy autonomy and embedded national development within a geopolitically structured monetary regime.

Finance, meanwhile, was present but constrained. The Bretton Woods system imposed capital controls, stabilized exchange rates, and preserved domestic policy autonomy. Banking was more tightly regulated; leverage ratios were lower; speculative flows were limited. Financial profits constituted a far smaller share of total corporate earnings than they would in the decades after 1980. Credit allocation operated within a framework oriented toward stability and productive expansion rather than short-term arbitrage. As Charles Kindleberger emphasized in A Financial History of Western Europe, the postwar monetary order constrained destabilizing capital movements and embedded finance within a system of managed exchange rates and regulatory oversight designed to prevent the speculative excesses that had characterized the interwar period.

This domestic settlement was inseparable from geopolitics.

The Marshall Plan, launched in 1948, transferred approximately $13 billion (over $150 billion in today’s dollars) to Western Europe, accelerating reconstruction and embedding American industrial capacity and technological leadership within allied economies. It was not simply humanitarian assistance; it was strategic integration. As Benn Steil argues in The Marshall Plan: Dawn of the Cold War, the program was designed as much to bind Western Europe into a U.S.-led economic and security architecture as to finance reconstruction. Reconstruction became a geopolitical project.

The Chinese Revolution in 1949 and the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 intensified the perceived global threat of communist expansion. The consolidation of the Soviet Union as a systemic rival transformed domestic economic policy into a matter of strategic competition. As Tim Weiner documents in The Folly and the Glory, the early Cold War was conceived not merely as military confrontation but as sustained political warfare. Within that context, full employment, industrial strength, and technological leadership were not merely social objectives; they were instruments of containment. As Chalmers Johnson later argued, the American national security state embedded industrial policy, defense procurement, and technological innovation within a permanent geopolitical competition.

Defense spending reflected this logic. During the Korean War, U.S. military expenditure rose from roughly 5 percent of GDP in 1950 to nearly 14 percent in 1953. Even after wartime peaks subsided, Cold War defense outlays remained structurally significant, supporting aerospace, electronics, and advanced research. Public R&D, often routed through defense channels, seeded entire innovation ecosystems — from semiconductors to computing to aviation.

What later came to be described as “military Keynesianism,” analyzed by Seymour Melman in The Permanent War Economy: American Capitalism in Decline, was not a temporary expedient but a structural pillar of the postwar growth regime, embedding defense procurement and public R&D within the logic of accumulation.

Under these conditions, industrial policy, state-supported innovation, and the institutional inclusion of organized labor in wage bargaining and policy negotiation were politically legitimate. Organized labor functioned as a counterweight to corporate power: union density in the United States exceeded 30 percent in the mid-1950s, and collective bargaining linked productivity gains to wage growth. In Europe, corporatist arrangements institutionalized negotiation between labor, capital, and the state.

As John Kenneth Galbraith argued in American Capitalism, large corporate power generated its own institutional counterweights; unions, regulatory agencies, and public institutions operated as forms of “countervailing power.” Welfare states expanded — pensions, health systems, unemployment insurance — embedding social protection within the structure of citizenship and reinforcing the balance between organized capital and organized labor.

Political competition did not disappear.

Parties contested elections vigorously; leadership alternated; ideological differences remained real. But competition unfolded within a regime that treated industrial upgrading, full employment, and social diffusion as shared premises. National development strategies were not stigmatized as distortions; they were expected functions of democratic governance.

As Sheri Berman argues in The Primacy of Politics, democratic stabilization in Europe did not arise from markets alone but from deliberate political efforts to tame capitalism through institutional reform. It was the result of deliberate political organization that embedded capitalism within institutions capable of mediating conflict and articulating public purpose. Industrial policy, welfare expansion, regulated finance, and labor incorporation were not ancillary reforms. They were constitutive elements of democratic consolidation.

This embedding was neither egalitarian nor universal. Racial exclusion, gender hierarchy, and colonial asymmetries remained deeply entrenched. Yet within its core industrial economies, the regime aligned productivity growth with wage expansion and institutional coordination in ways that stabilized democratic competition

Growth alone did not stabilize democracy. The late nineteenth century had produced rapid expansion alongside severe inequality and political turbulence. What distinguished the postwar settlement was growth mediated by institutions capable of disciplining corporate power, coordinating long-term investment, and diffusing gains across social strata.

Three conditions converged.

Growth was transformative, grounded in industrial upgrading and sustained innovation that expanded productive capacity rather than primarily inflating asset prices. Prosperity was broadly diffused, as rising wages and expanding middle strata limited polarization and reinforced the legitimacy of political competition. As Charles Maier demonstrated in The Politics of Productivity, postwar policymakers explicitly linked productivity growth to social stability and political legitimacy, treating economic expansion not merely as output maximization but as a foundation for democratic cohesion.

The public interest remained institutionally legible: infrastructure, education, employment, and social protection were central objects of policy rather than residual outcomes of market allocation

Within this configuration, political entrepreneurship operated differently. Electoral competition rewarded leaders capable of managing industrial expansion, negotiating social compromise, and sustaining long-term coordination. Corporate power was significant but politically negotiated. Finance was subordinated to development rather than dominating it. Political entrepreneurship did not hollow out prosperity; it operated within an environment that aligned electoral incentives with developmental capacity.

This settlement was historically contingent. It depended on reconstruction, capital controls, labor organization, technological diffusion, and the geopolitical pressures of systemic rivalry. As Barry Eichengreen has shown in Globalizing Capital, the Bretton Woods order rested on a delicate balance between domestic policy autonomy and international monetary stability — a balance sustained by capital controls and geopolitical discipline. Its coherence rested on the very embedding that would later erode.

The Structural Break: Neoliberal Reversal

The transformation that began in the 1970s did not alter the formal structure of liberal electoral democracy. Elections continued. Parties competed. Leadership alternated. What changed was the regime within which political entrepreneurship operated.

The first rupture was monetary. In 1971, the Nixon administration suspended dollar convertibility into gold, effectively ending the Bretton Woods system. As Jeffrey Garten recounts in Three Days at Camp David, the decision was taken abruptly and with limited consultation, marking a decisive shift from a rules-based monetary order to one increasingly defined by flexibility and financial discretion. Exchange rates floated. Capital controls eroded. Cross-border financial flows, which had been tightly constrained, expanded dramatically. Global financial assets, as a share of world GDP, were roughly 100 percent in 1980 and would exceed 350 percent by the early 2000s.

The oil shocks of 1973 and 1979 compounded the instability. U.S. inflation peaked above 13 percent in 1979; unemployment rose above 10 percent by 1982. The Keynesian policy framework that had underwritten postwar stability appeared unable to reconcile inflation and stagnation. The political legitimacy of demand management weakened. Yet, as David Spiro argues in The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony, recycling petrodollar surpluses through U.S. financial institutions reinforced the dollar's centrality and deepened global financial intermediation. What appeared as a crisis also accelerated the structural expansion of international finance, as petrodollar recycling deepened global financial integration.

By the late 1970s, major Western banks were recycling oil-export surpluses into sovereign loans across Latin America. When U.S. interest rates surged under Paul Volcker — the federal funds rate peaking above 19 percent in 1981 — debt servicing costs exploded. Mexico declared default in 1982. Brazil and others entered prolonged restructuring. A decade of “lost growth” followed in much of Latin America.

The Volcker shock marked more than an anti-inflation policy. It reoriented macroeconomic priorities. Inflation control and creditor confidence were elevated above full employment. As William Silber documents in Volcker: The Triumph of Persistence, the Federal Reserve’s aggressive tightening in 1979–82 was conceived as a decisive break with the inflation-tolerant policies of the 1970s. Central bank independence became institutional orthodoxy. Fiscal restraint hardened. The bargaining power of labor weakened sharply: U.S. union density fell from roughly 23 percent in 1980 to under 11 percent by 2000.

Simultaneously, the industrial geography of growth shifted. Manufacturing employment in the United States peaked at around 19 million workers in 1979; by 2000, it had fallen to roughly 17 million, and would decline further thereafter. Manufacturing’s share of total employment dropped steadily. Productivity continued to rise, but median real wage growth decoupled from productivity growth beginning in the mid-1970s. Between 1947 and 1973, productivity and median compensation rose in tandem; after 1973, productivity continued upward while median wages stagnated.

Financialization deepened. In the early postwar decades, financial sector profits accounted for roughly 10–15 percent of total U.S. corporate profits. By the early 2000s, that share exceeded 30 percent, reaching nearly 40 percent on the eve of the 2008 crisis. Asset markets — equities and housing — became central to wealth accumulation. The ratio of household wealth to disposable income rose sharply, increasingly tied to asset price inflation rather than wage growth. As Greta Krippner argues in Capitalizing on Crisis, the expansion of finance was not merely market-driven; it functioned as a political response to the breakdown of the postwar growth regime, displacing distributional conflict into credit expansion and asset appreciation.

The 1980s and 1990s did not stabilize the regime; they normalized volatility. The Savings and Loan crisis in the late 1980s cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $100–150 billion. The Mexican peso crisis (1994), the Asian financial crisis (1997), Russia’s default (1998), the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management, Brazil (1999), and Argentina (2001) reflected systemic fragility embedded in global capital mobility. As Hyman Minsky warned in Stabilizing an Unstable Economy, financial systems left to expand under deregulated conditions tend toward speculative excess and recurrent instability. The liberalization of capital flows and the expansion of leverage amplified precisely the dynamics he identified. More recently, William Quinn and John Turner have shown in Boom and Bust that financial liberalization across advanced economies systematically increases the frequency and magnitude of credit-driven asset bubbles. Each episode reinforced the destabilizing power of financial markets, threatening domestic policy coordination.

Geopolitics reinforced the shift. German reunification in 1990 accelerated European monetary integration, culminating in the Maastricht Treaty’s fiscal and monetary constraints. The collapse of the Soviet Union removed the systemic rival that had disciplined postwar capitalism. Defense spending as a share of U.S. GDP fell from Cold War peaks, but the geopolitical imperative that had legitimized industrial coordination and labor incorporation receded more profoundly.

The “end of history” moment — captured most famously by Francis Fukuyama’s claim that liberal democracy and market capitalism had reached their ideological culmination — suggested closure rather than contestation. Yet, as John Mearsheimer warned in the early 1990s, the disappearance of bipolar rivalry did not eliminate power politics; it merely altered its terrain. The ideological triumph of market liberalism, therefore, coincided with the erosion of the geopolitical pressures that had previously anchored developmental coordination.

Intellectually, neoliberalism consolidated hegemony. Friedman and Hayek provided the normative case for market primacy; Public Choice theorists such as James Buchanan reframed democratic governance as a site of rent-seeking distortion rather than as a site of collective problem-solving. As Nancy MacLean argues in Democracy in Chains, this intellectual project sought to constrain majoritarian influence over markets by redesigning constitutional and institutional rules. Philip Mirowski has likewise shown in The Road from Mont Pèlerin that neoliberalism functioned not as a spontaneous revival of classical liberalism but as a coordinated intellectual movement aimed at reshaping the relationship between state and market. Capital controls were reclassified as inefficiencies. Industrial policy became suspect. The public interest was increasingly reinterpreted through the metric of market efficiency.

Meanwhile, a structural divergence emerged between the geography of production and the geography of finance. The U.S.–China opening in the early 1970s, followed by China’s post-1978 reforms, integrated hundreds of millions of workers into global manufacturing networks. China’s share of global manufacturing output rose from under 3 percent in 1990 to over 20 percent by 2010. As documented in the “China Shock” literature — most prominently by David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson — import competition from China produced concentrated labor market disruptions in the United States, particularly in manufacturing-intensive regions. Industrial capacity migrated eastward even as financial centrality remained anchored in the Atlantic world.

By the end of the twentieth century, the embedded industrial regime had given way to one characterized by mobile capital, deregulated finance, weakened labor, and policy constraints institutionalized through inflation targeting and fiscal orthodoxy. Growth persisted, but it became more uneven. Between 1980 and 2020, the top 1 percent’s share of U.S. income more than doubled, rising from roughly 10 percent to over 20 percent. As documented by Thomas Piketty, this concentration reflected a broader structural shift in income and wealth distribution across advanced economies. The middle strata stagnated in many regions. Regional divergence widened.

Political entrepreneurship did not change in form. But it now unfolded within a regime in which transformative industrial coordination was more difficult, corporate power less easily disciplined, and distribution increasingly shaped by asset markets rather than wage growth.

The structural embedding had shifted decisively.

Share

Regime-Dependent Democracy

The preceding sections have traced two historically distinct configurations of liberal–electoral democracy. The political method — competitive leadership selection through electoral struggle — remained constant. The regime embedding within which it operated did not.

This distinction is the core claim of the essay.

Political entrepreneurship is not a deviation from democracy; it is its operational logic. Liberal democracy institutionalizes competition among organized elites for governing authority. That constant does not change across historical periods. What changes is the accumulation regime within which entrepreneurial competition unfolds.

Democratic quality is therefore regime-dependent. By democratic quality is not meant procedural compliance or electoral alternation. It refers to the capacity of political institutions to generate and diffuse shared prosperity, discipline concentrated economic power, and preserve institutional ability to pursue long-term public purpose. Electoral equality without economic recalibration may satisfy procedural criteria while hollowing substantive capacity.

Under embedded industrial capitalism — or, in John Ruggie’s classic formulation, under “embedded liberalism” — political entrepreneurship operated within a regime that aligned electoral incentives with developmental coordination. Ruggie described the postwar settlement as a compromise that combined an open international economy with regulated finance and domestic policy autonomy oriented to full employment and social protection. Within that settlement, productivity growth translated into rising wages, organized labor was institutionally incorporated, financial activity was subordinated to productive investment, and capital mobility was constrained. Electoral competition was embedded in this institutional architecture, but it unfolded within a structure that diffused gains and preserved institutional capacity for long-term coordination.

Between 1950 and 1973, productivity and median compensation in the United States rose broadly in tandem; income inequality narrowed relative to prewar levels; and union density exceeded 30 percent in the mid-1950s. Finance accounted for a modest share of corporate profits, and capital controls preserved domestic policy space. Electoral competition did not eliminate conflict, but it unfolded within a structure that diffused gains and preserved institutional capacity.

Social democracy represented the most developed expression of this embedding. In Western Europe, social democratic parties institutionalized labor bargaining, expanded welfare states, and treated industrial policy as a legitimate democratic function. In countries such as Sweden and Germany, coordinated wage bargaining and export-oriented industrial upgrading produced sustained growth alongside comparatively low inequality. Within this framework, electoral competition reinforced developmental coordination rather than displacing it.

Yet social democracy remained bound by liberal electoral form and private ownership of capital. It redistributed income and regulated markets, but it did not fundamentally restructure financial sovereignty or democratize corporate governance at scale. Its durability depended on the continued viability of the embedded industrial regime itself.

When that regime came under strain in the 1970s, a strategic fork emerged. Social democratic forces could attempt to deepen economic democracy — extending democratic authority into the organization of credit, capital mobility, and long-term investment — along the trajectory Karl Polanyi identified in The Great Transformation, where he wrote: “Socialism is, essentially, the tendency inherent in an industrial civilization to transcend the self-regulating market by consciously subordinating it to a democratic society.”4 Or they could adapt to the emerging neoliberal orthodoxy. In most cases, adaptation prevailed. Instead of subordinating markets to democratic society, democratic politics adjusted to the discipline of markets.

By the 1990s, privatization, fiscal consolidation, and financial liberalization had been internalized across party lines. As Margaret Thatcher later remarked when asked about her most significant legacy, “Tony Blair.” The statement was less anecdote than structural diagnosis: neoliberalism had reshaped the entire competitive field.

In the United States, a parallel signal came when President Bill Clinton declared in his 1996 State of the Union address that “the era of big government is over.” The remark did not inaugurate neoliberalism; it acknowledged its consolidation. Across the Atlantic world, center-left parties adapted to the same regime constraints they had once sought to discipline.

As Fritz Bartel argues in The Triumph of Broken Promises, the end of the Cold War reflected political decisions to stabilize capitalism by disciplining labor and honoring financial commitments under mounting economic strain. Seen from the perspective developed here, that outcome also exposed the internal contradictions of embedded liberalism: once geopolitical rivalry receded, and fiscal pressures intensified, the institutional compromise that had reconciled political entrepreneurship with developmental coordination unraveled.

The political form remains unchanged. The structural environment alters its effects.

This framework avoids two simplifications. It rejects economic determinism because accumulation regimes are politically constructed and institutionally sustained. But it also rejects political voluntarism, because leadership selection operates within structural constraints that shape what can be credibly pursued and maintained.

The relationship is interactive. Political competition influences economic policy; economic regimes condition the horizon within which political entrepreneurs operate. When growth is transformative and diffusion broad, electoral competition stabilizes democratic substance. When growth is uneven, financialized, and insulated from democratic recalibration, electoral competition can amplify fragmentation and polarization.

What is commonly described as a democratic crisis is therefore not primarily a matter of procedural decay. It is the political expression of regime transformation.

The United States provides the clearest contemporary stress test.

The United States as a Stress Test

By conventional standards — at least until the turbulence of the Trump era — the United States has been treated as the archetype of liberal democracy. Electoral competition is vigorous, constitutional forms remain intact, and leadership alternates between parties. Yet the decisive inflection point lies not in 2016 but in the neoliberal restructuring that began in the 1970s. Since that structural shift, the United States has operated as a paradigmatic case of political entrepreneurship embedded within a financialized accumulation regime that constrains democratic recalibration.

The political form persists. The embedding changed.

Financialized Accumulation and the Logic of Control

Thorstein Veblen identified the structural logic of advanced capitalism with striking clarity in The Theory of Business Enterprise. The problem was not inefficiency but control: business profits increasingly derived from the ability to restrict, withhold, or strategically manipulate production. Under such conditions, he wrote, “all business sagacity reduces itself in the last analysis to judicious use of sabotage.”

Contemporary U.S. capitalism has deepened rather than transcended this logic. Financial profits, which accounted for roughly 10–15 percent of total corporate profits in the early postwar decades, rose to over 30 percent by the early 2000s and approached 40 percent on the eve of the 2008 crisis. Asset price inflation — equities, real estate, leveraged instruments — became central to wealth accumulation. Meanwhile, manufacturing employment peaked at nearly 19 million in 1979 and declined sharply thereafter. Productivity continued to rise; median real wages did not keep pace.

As Anastasia Nesvetailova and Ronen Palan argue in Sabotage: The Hidden Nature of Finance, contemporary finance operates less as productive intermediation than as organized extraction and systemic destabilization — echoing Veblen’s insight that business profit often rests on strategic restriction and manipulation rather than productive expansion.

This is not a democratic collapse. It is accumulation insulated from democratic redesign.

As Quinn Slobodian argues in Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism, neoliberalism was not about shrinking the state but about redesigning it to “encase” markets and protect capital from popular sovereignty. Central bank independence, trade and investment treaties, deregulated capital flows, and constitutionalized property rights narrowed the policy frontier available to elected officials. Electoral competition continued, but within increasingly structured constraints.

Capital-Intensive Political Entrepreneurship

Political entrepreneurship adapts to regime conditions.

Federal election spending exceeded $14 billion in 2020 and nearly $9 billion in the 2022 midterms. Annual federal lobbying expenditures hover around $4 billion. Defense contractors, financial institutions, pharmaceutical firms, healthcare conglomerates, technology platforms, agribusiness, and energy firms are consistently among the largest spenders. The post–Citizens United environment institutionalized Super PACs and independent expenditure networks as decisive actors in electoral viability.

Under such conditions, competitive politics becomes capital-intensive. Access to funding networks, donor ecosystems, and organized interest support is not incidental but structural. Electoral equality at the ballot coexists with asymmetric influence over agenda-setting and policy design.

Foreign policy advocacy networks operate within the same framework. As John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argue in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, concentrated advocacy networks can exert significant influence over U.S. foreign policy and narrow the range of acceptable debate. Whatever one’s assessment of their broader thesis, the structural pattern is illustrative: concentrated, well-financed advocacy networks can narrow policy alternatives across domestic and external domains. Political entrepreneurship remains constant. Its environment is monetized.

Rentier Growth and Social Degradation

The regime’s internal logic is visible in the composition of growth itself.

Healthcare accounts for nearly one-fifth of U.S. GDP — significantly above other advanced economies — yet life expectancy lags behind OECD peers and has declined in recent years. Approximately 60 percent of American adults live with at least one chronic condition; roughly 40 percent live with multiple conditions. Tens of millions depend on federal food assistance programs. School meal programs serve nearly 30 million children.

These figures are not incidental. They reflect a growth model in which social distress becomes a revenue-generating activity. Hospitals, pharmaceutical distributors, insurers, and healthcare conglomerates rank among the largest firms by revenue. In Brett Christophers’ formulation, this is rentier capitalism: income derived from control of indispensable assets under limited competition.

As Angus Deaton and Anne Case document in Deaths of Despair, mortality from drug overdoses, suicide, and alcohol-related disease rose sharply among working-age Americans over the past two decades. Economic growth and social degradation increasingly move together.

Melinda Cooper’s work, particularly in Family Values: Between Neoliberalism and the New Social Conservatism, highlights the parallel privatization of social risk, as public provision retreats and households absorb volatility through debt, conditional assistance, and familial obligation. Homelessness reached approximately 771,000 individuals in 2024 — the highest recorded level — rising nearly 18 percent in a single year. Housing operates primarily as an asset class rather than a guaranteed social good.

Under these conditions, electoral politics becomes structurally polarized. Between 1980 and 2020, the top 1 percent’s share of national income more than doubled, while median wage growth stagnated relative to productivity. Political entrepreneurship operates within this tension.

Coercion as Substitute for Coordination

When developmental coordination weakens, governance shifts.

The United States maintains the highest incarceration rate among OECD countries. Aggressive policing, the criminalization of poverty, and intensified immigration enforcement function as substitutes for structural recalibration. As Loïc Wacquant argues in Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity, the retrenchment of social protection in the neoliberal era was accompanied by the expansion of the penal state, as social insecurity came to be managed through coercion rather than institutional redesign. Under such conditions, governance shifts from coordination to discipline: economic dislocation is absorbed not through developmental reconstruction but through surveillance, confinement, and punitive administration

External Projection and Structural Reinforcement

The internal regime has an external analogue. Sanctions, asset freezes, extraterritorial enforcement, and financial exclusion mechanisms characterize contemporary U.S. foreign policy. In Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy, Michael Hudson describes the contemporary system as economic warfare — the deployment of financial and institutional leverage to discipline rivals and preserve structural advantage.

In Chokepoints: American Power in the Age of Economic Warfare, Edward Fishman argues that U.S. power increasingly operates through control of financial infrastructure, sanctions regimes, and strategic economic bottlenecks. Externally as internally, power functions through the management of systemic leverage rather than through universalist norms.

The Stress Test Result

The United States does not lack electoral competition. It exemplifies political entrepreneurship under financialized neoliberal embedding.

Elections are competitive. Leadership alternates. Parties mobilize constituencies intensely. Yet the core architecture of accumulation — financial centrality, capital mobility, asset-driven growth, and concentrated corporate influence — has become structurally insulated from meaningful democratic redesign and progressively divorced from public-purpose governance.

What is commonly described as a democratic crisis is the political expression of economic hollowing within a liberal electoral system whose regime embedding has shifted.

The stress test confirms the central thesis: political entrepreneurship is constant. Its democratic consequences are regime-dependent.

Conclusion: Electoral Proceduralism and Democratic Substance

Political entrepreneurship is intrinsic to liberal electoral democracy. Competitive leadership selection is not a defect; it is the system’s operating logic. What varies is the regime within which it operates.

When electoral competition is embedded in an accumulation regime that diffuses prosperity, disciplines corporate power, and preserves institutional capacity for long-term coordination, democratic substance can deepen. When it is embedded in a regime that insulates accumulation from public redesign, concentrates influence, and privatizes social risk, electoral competition persists — but its substance thins.

This is the antinomy of electoral proceduralism. Under the neoliberal politico-institutional architecture, electoral equality coexists with the structural insulation of accumulation. Popular sovereignty confronts encased markets. Democracy promises self-government; yet when the economic regime narrows the scope of collective control, procedure alone cannot sustain substance.

Electoral competition without developmental embedding hollows prosperity; prosperity without diffusion and institutional discipline of concentrated power is not democratic.

The substance of democracy is not alternation. It is shared material advancement sustained by institutions capable of steering innovation, disciplining finance, and aligning accumulation with public purpose.

Substantive democracy is not assumed. It is constructed. It does not precede development; it emerges from the institutional embedding of competitive leadership selection within a regime that diffuses gains, disciplines concentrated power, and preserves collective capacity for long-term policy coordination.

The coming decade will test this proposition under conditions of systemic rivalry. The confrontation between the United States and China is not merely geopolitical. It is institutional — a contest between distinct political–economic models: one in which electoral competition operates within a financialized regime progressively insulated from democratic recalibration, and another in which developmental coordination precedes and conditions political reform.

The question is not which system calls itself democratic. The question is which can sustain shared prosperity, preserve institutional competence, and expand the sphere of personal autonomy.

Leave a comment

References:

Autor, D.H., Dorn, D. and Hanson, G.H. (2013) ‘The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States’, American Economic Review, 103(6), pp. 2121–2168.

Bartel, F. (2022). The Triumph of Broken Promises: The End of the Cold War and the Rise of Neoliberalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Berman, S. (2006). The Primacy of Politics: Social Democracy and the Making of Europe’s Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Block, F.L. (1977). The Origins of International Economic Disorder: A Study of United States International Monetary Policy from World War II to the Present. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Case, A. and Deaton, A. (2020) Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Christophers, B. (2020) Rentier Capitalism: Who Owns the Economy, and Who Pays for It? London: Verso.

Clinton, W.J. (1996). Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union. Washington, DC, 23 January.

Cooper, M. (2017). Family Values: Between Neoliberalism and the New Social Conservatism. New York: Zone Books.

Eichengreen, B. (2008). Globalizing Capital: A History of the International Monetary System. 2nd edn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Fishman, E. (2025). Chokepoints: American Power in the Age of Economic Warfare. New York: Penguin Press.

Fukuyama, F. (1989) ‘The End of History?’, The National Interest, Summer, pp. 3–18.

Galbraith, J.K. (1952) American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Garten, J.E. (2014). Three Days at Camp David: How a Secret Meeting in 1971 Transformed the Global Economy. New York: Harper.

Hudson, M. (2015) Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy. Dresden: ISLET.

Johnson, C. (2000). Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Kindleberger, C.P. (1984) A Financial History of Western Europe. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Krippner, G.R. (2011) Capitalizing on Crisis: The Political Origins of the Rise of Finance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

MacLean, N. (2017) Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America. New York: Viking.

Maier, C.S. (1987) ‘The Politics of Productivity: Foundations of American International Economic Policy after World War II’, in Maier, C.S., In Search of Stability: Explorations in Historical Political Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 121–152.

Mearsheimer, J.J. (1990) ‘Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War’, International Security, 15(1), pp. 5–56.

Mearsheimer, J.J. and Walt, S.M. (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Melman, S. (1974). The Permanent War Economy. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Michels, R. (1962). Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. Translated by E. and C. Paul. New York: Free Press.

Minsky, H.P. (1986). Stabilizing an Unstable Economy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Mirowski, P. and Plehwe, D. (eds.) (2009) The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Nesvetailova, A. and Palan, R. (2023). Sabotage: The Business of Finance. Bristol: Bristol University Press.

Piketty, T. (2014) Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Polanyi, K. (2001). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. 2nd edn. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. (Original publication 1944.)

Quinn, W. and Turner, J.D. (2020) Boom and Bust: A Global History of Financial Bubbles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ruggie, J.G. (1982) ‘International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order’, International Organization, 36(2), pp. 379–415.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1942) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Shonfield, A. (1965) Modern Capitalism: The Changing Balance of Public and Private Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Silber, W.L. (2012). Volcker: The Triumph of Persistence. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

Slobodian, Q. (2018). Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Spiro, D.E. (1999). The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Steil, B. (2018). The Marshall Plan: Dawn of the Cold War. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Veblen, T. (1978). The Theory of Business Enterprise. Clifton, NJ: Augustus M. Kelley. (Originally published 1904.)

Wacquant, L. (2009). Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Weber, M. (1946) ‘Politics as a Vocation’, in Gerth, H.H. and Mills, C.W. (eds.) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 77–128. (Original lecture 1919.)

Weiner, T. (2020). The Folly and the Glory: America, Russia, and Political Warfare 1945–2020. New York: Henry Holt.

Tip: This is a long post. If the newsletter is truncated in your email, click on "View entire message” to view the entire post in your email app.

Preface

The Bosch post was Carnival: inversion, excess, suspended order.

The Brissot essay was not. It was already a transition back — from allegory to diagnosis, from symbolic inversion to structural tension, from festivity to polycrisis. That detour was only half a detour.

Now we return fully to the trenches.

This essay resumes the central architectural project of this Substack. It addresses a theme at once overused and underexamined, invoked daily yet rarely interrogated at its foundations: democracy.

Not democracy as a slogan. Not democracy as ritual affirmation. But democracy as analytical problem.

More precisely, this piece advances a framework in which democracy meets China — not as a geopolitical provocation, but as a theoretical stress test. If democracy is understood not as a procedural axiom but as an outcome of the interplay between politico-institutional architectures and transformative development, then contemporary China becomes unavoidable. It is the world's largest real-time laboratory of structural transformation.

This is a longer essay than usual. It had to be. The argument cannot be made in fragments. It requires reconstruction, disassembly, and reassembly — of Schumpeter, of democratic realism, of the socio-political consequences of development, and of the conceptual hierarchy that places electoral procedure at the center of democratic legitimacy.

The result is not a declaration. It is a wager. And the wager is serious.

And this is not the end of it. If democracy is an outcome of transformative development, the next question concerns agency within that structure: the role of political entrepreneurship in shaping, accelerating, or distorting that trajectory. That is where we go next.

Subscribe now

Introduction

Democracy is among the most invoked and least interrogated concepts in modern political discourse. Its etymology — rule of the people — appears straightforward. Its contemporary meaning is anything but.

Theorists disagree not at the margins, but at the core. As Frank Cunningham recounts, shortly after the 1989 protests in Beijing, a student who had risked his life for democracy admitted he could not define democracy precisely1. The term mobilizes sacrifice even when its content remains uncertain. That paradox is not incidental. Democracy functions as a moral lodestar long before it is analytically clarified. What is treated as self-evident is conceptually unstable.

The task, therefore, is not to defend or denounce democracy, but to specify what we mean when we invoke it — and which institutional arrangements we privilege when we do.

Here, democratic realism becomes unavoidable.

Long before contemporary debates hardened into procedural orthodoxies, realist thinkers questioned the romantic equation of democracy with the unified will of “the people.” Max Weber emphasized leadership, organization, and the inescapability of elite competition. Robert Michels identified oligarchic tendencies even within mass parties. The democratic ideal, they suggested, could not be understood apart from institutional structure and power differentiation.

Joseph Schumpeter radicalized this move. In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942), he dismantled what he called the “classical doctrine” — the belief in a coherent general will, a common good transparently discernible, and a citizenry capable of expressing it directly. In its place, he offered a procedural definition: democracy as a method by which individuals acquire decision-making power through competitive struggle for votes.

This redefinition demystified democracy. It stripped away metaphysical claims and anchored political legitimacy in institutional competition. But over time, what began as a critical correction hardened into a new orthodoxy. Competitive electoral alternation came to be treated not merely as a democratic mechanism, but as democracy itself.

This essay begins from a different premise.

It asks whether democracy might be understood not as a starting point, but as an outcome — a political form that emerges from sustained material transformation, institutional evolution, and expanding social capability. Rather than treating electoral procedure as the defining essence of democracy, it examines the structural conditions under which legitimacy deepens over time.

From this perspective, the decisive questions shift. Does authority link itself to transformative development? Do material gains diffuse broadly enough to sustain cohesion? Do rising strata generate pressures for institutional adaptation? Under what conditions does transformation stabilize political order — and under what conditions does it destabilize it?

These questions will be explored through a reconstruction of democratic theory and, ultimately, through a contemporary stress test: the case of China. The purpose is not to label regimes, but to interrogate the hierarchy of principles embedded in prevailing democratic thought.

Democracy, once stripped of abstraction, may prove less a procedural precondition than a developmental achievement.

Democratic Realism

The argument that follows begins from a methodological clarification. What is at stake is neither a defense nor a denunciation of democracy, but a shift in how it is analyzed. By democratic realism, I mean a positive approach: democracy is described as it operates before it is judged normatively. It is treated not as the expression of a unified popular will or a moral axiom, but as a historically situated political process shaped by economic structure, institutional design, organization, and power.

This perspective belongs to a broader realist current in political sociology — associated with Weber and Michels, and anticipated by Tocqueville — that challenged romantic images of popular sovereignty. Against the Rousseauian general will, this tradition insisted on the structural inevitability of leadership, hierarchy, and elite competition in complex societies. Politics is mediated; organization generates differentiation; democracy produces elites.

Weber analyzed parliamentary politics as a struggle among leaders under conditions of mass organization. Michels formulated the “iron law of oligarchy,” showing that mass parties generate entrenched leadership strata. Tocqueville warned that democratic societies produce their own forms of conformity and administrative centralization. Each demystified popular sovereignty in a distinct way.

Schumpeter inherits and systematizes this tradition. In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, he does not begin by prescribing what democracy ought to be; he begins by observing how it functions. Elections select leaders; political entrepreneurs compete; citizens respond unevenly to organized appeals. The “will of the people” is not a pre-political force that guides outcomes, but rather something constructed within the competitive process itself. Democracy becomes a method—a mechanism for leadership selection.

What distinguishes Schumpeter is the integration of this realism into a broader theory of capitalist development. Democracy is redefined not merely as elite circulation, but as competitive leadership selection embedded within the dynamics of capitalism and innovation. The shift is conceptual: democracy is stripped of metaphysical content and rendered analyzable as an institutional process.

This lens diffused through postwar political science — most visibly in Anthony Downs’s economic model of electoral competition and in minimalist definitions of democracy as contestation and alternation. There was no dramatic rupture, only the steady consolidation of a Schumpeterian approach: democracy as structured elite competition under institutional constraints.

It is against this realist reframing that the classical doctrine must now be reconsidered.

The Classical Theory of Democracy Disassembled

Democratic realism immediately confronts a problem: democracy has long understood itself differently. Joseph Schumpeter’s critique begins from an unusual premise. The problem with democracy is not that it fails to live up to its ideals, but that its ideals are conceptually misleading. When democracy is treated as self-evident—when its legitimacy is assumed rather than examined—it becomes analytically unusable and politically dangerous. The task of theory is not to celebrate democracy, but to deflate it.

Schumpeter begins by reconstructing what he calls the classical doctrine. In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, he summarizes it in a canonical formulation:

“The democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions which realizes the common good by making the people themselves decide issues through the election of individuals who are to assemble in order to carry out their will.”2

This definition condenses a powerful normative vision. It presumes the existence of a common good identifiable beyond conflict; equates it with a unified popular will; and assumes that this will yields determinate answers to political questions. Disagreement appears residual—attributable to ignorance or manipulation—rather than constitutive of social life. Citizens are presumed capable of discerning the common good; elites are presumed sufficiently enlightened to implement it.

Schumpeter does not engage Rousseau exegetically. He reconstructs the classical doctrine as an ideal type—a dominant legitimating narrative embedded in democratic self-understanding. The familiar charge that he attacks a straw man misses the point. He is not refuting Rousseau; he is disassembling a belief structure.

The decisive break comes with his inversion of the popular will. The classical doctrine treats it as the motive force of politics. Schumpeter reverses the causality: the will of the people is produced within the political process, not prior to it. Electoral competition does not transmit a coherent collective purpose; it structures and often manufactures preferences. Citizens do not enter politics with fully formed programs awaiting execution. Their views are shaped by organization, leadership, and conflict.

This insight was later reinforced formally. In Social Choice and Individual Values (1951), Kenneth Arrow demonstrated that no aggregation rule can convert individual preferences into a stable and consistent collective ordering while satisfying a small set of reasonable conditions. The general will is not merely sociologically fragile; it is formally indeterminate. Schumpeter’s critique anticipated in political theory what social choice theory later established mathematically: collective coherence cannot be assumed.

For Schumpeter, the danger of the classical doctrine lies in its misidentification of legitimacy. Grounding democracy in an imagined collective will guarantees disappointment when outcomes diverge from moral expectations. Worse, it invites sanctification when leaders claim to embody that will. Democratic absolutism begins precisely here.

To escape this trap, Schumpeter redefines democracy deflationarily as a method of selecting leaders through competitive struggle for votes. The electorate does not govern; it chooses. Political elites do not execute a general will; they compete for support through programmatic appeals calibrated to electoral acceptability.

Once democracy is understood in these terms, its internal logic becomes visible. Programs are optimized for electoral appeal rather than long-term coordination. Accountability is episodic and bundled. What classical theory treats as pathology—instability, inconsistency, disappointment—appears as normal operation.

The divergence between the rationality of electoral competition and the rationality of long-term economic coordination is structural.

At this point, two trajectories open.

The first is procedural. If democracy is no longer the expression of a unified popular will, it can be stabilized analytically as a method of leadership selection and institutionalized contestation. This path became dominant in postwar political science. Democracy was progressively narrowed to competitive alternation; its moral claims were reduced; its institutional features specified and measured.

The second trajectory is transformational. If democracy cannot rest on an abstract popular will, and if electoral procedure alone cannot secure legitimacy, then durability must be anchored elsewhere. Under what material and social conditions does the competitive method function without exhausting its own legitimacy?

Schumpeter never articulates a fully developed second theory. What he offers are suggestive passages linking democratic viability to the material consequences of capitalist development itself. Democratic institutions survive, adapt, or erode in relation to shifts in stratification, mobility, economic organization, and expectation. Democracy appears not as a normative premise, but as a contingent outcome of structural transformation.

The first trajectory shaped modern political science. The second point toward a transformative conception of democracy.

We begin with the first.

The Emergence of a Schumpeterian Lens in Political Science

Schumpeter’s democratic realism did not produce an immediate rupture. Its influence diffused gradually through political science, where it was reformulated and normalized. What emerged was less a manifesto than a lens: democracy increasingly analyzed as structured competition among elites under institutional constraints.

The most systematic early extension appeared in Anthony Downs’s An Economic Theory of Democracy (1957). Downs formalized Schumpeter’s model of political competition, treating parties as vote-maximizing actors and voters as utility-maximizing agents. Elections became mechanisms of strategic competition in a political marketplace. The popular will did not precede competition; it emerged from it. Schumpeter’s inversion was rendered operational.

Robert Dahl’s theory of polyarchy further detached democracy from the language of popular sovereignty. In large-scale societies, democracy meant institutionalized contestation and pluralistic participation. The focus shifted from realizing a common good to maintaining competitive opposition. Democracy became a set of procedural guarantees rather than a substantive political project.

By the 1970s, this minimalist conception had become embedded in mainstream political science. Democracy was identified with contestation, alternation, and peaceful transfer of power. It became classifiable, comparable, and eventually indexable. The normative temperature dropped. What mattered was not whether the people ruled substantively, but whether institutional competition functioned.

This procedural consolidation extended beyond academia. The 1975 Trilateral Commission report, The Crisis of Democracy, framed democratic systems in terms of governability, authority, and administrative coherence under rising social demands. Whether one accepts its normative conclusions or not, its analytic posture was unmistakably realist. Participation became a variable to be managed; system capacity became central.

Contemporary democratic theory continues this trajectory. Adam Przeworski defines democracy minimally as a system in which parties lose elections and accept results. Empirical work by scholars such as Achen and Bartels underscores the limits of voter competence and the fragility of responsiveness. Democracy, in this register, is neither sanctified nor romanticized. It is analyzed as a competitive institutional arrangement.

Across these developments, the classical doctrine recedes. In its place stands a durable framework: democracy as organized elite competition under institutional constraints.

Yet this consolidation remains largely procedural. Democracy is defined by how leaders are selected and by the institutionalization of opposition. What remains underdeveloped is the analysis of how democratic legitimacy interacts with the material dynamics of capitalist development. It is here that Schumpeter’s second, less noticed register, becomes decisive.

Transformative Democracy

The deflationary move in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy does not exhaust Schumpeter’s reflections on democracy. Once stripped of its metaphysical claims, democracy reappears embedded within a broader analysis of capitalist development. Schumpeter never formulated a second theory of democracy. What he offers instead are scattered but suggestive remarks indicating that the viability of democratic forms is inseparable from the material transformations generated by capitalism itself.

The most vivid illustration appears in his well-known comparison:

“Queen Elizabeth owned silk stockings. The capitalist achievement does not typically consist in providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within the reach of factory girls in return for steadily decreasing amounts of effort.”3

He reinforces the point elsewhere:

“There is no doubt some things available to the modern workman that Louis XIV himself would have been delighted to have, yet was unable to have—modern dentistry, for instance.”4

These passages are not ornamental. They condense a developmental intuition. Capitalism expands productivity and diffuses material gains across broad strata. What was once privilege becomes commonplace. Hierarchies persist, but their material basis shifts. Standards of life rise; expectations recalibrate. Social transformation is continuous rather than episodic.

Here, Schumpeter’s democratic realism acquires a second register. Democracy, defined procedurally as competitive leadership selection, appears sustainable only under specific material conditions. Mass prosperity, organizational complexity, bureaucratic capacity, and the expansion of the middle strata reshape the terrain on which political competition unfolds. Democratic procedure does not float above social structure; it operates within it.

In this respect, Schumpeter stands within a developmental lineage rather than outside it. The Communist Manifesto portrayed capitalism as a force that incessantly transforms production and social relations. Eduard Bernstein rejected the collapse theory and reconnected socialism to capitalist maturation. Rudolf Hilferding’s concepts of cartelization and organized capitalism anticipated increasing concentration and administrative coordination as generating new institutional possibilities. Across these debates, the premise was developmental: political forms evolve alongside economic transformation.

Schumpeter radicalizes this lineage by integrating it into a general theory of economic evolution. He removes teleology while preserving the core insight: innovation-driven transformation restructures society from within. Productivity growth, bureaucratic expansion, cultural rationalization, and rising expectations alter the foundations of legitimacy. Democracy is neither timeless nor self-grounding. It is historically conditioned by the dynamics of development.

John Medearis is correct to observe that Schumpeter’s work contains two movements: the procedural method of leadership selection and a developmental trajectory grounded in social transformation. But Schumpeter never systematizes the latter into a second doctrine. He sketches a path rather than codifying a theory.

The task, then, is not to extract a hidden theory from the text. It is to clarify the logic implicit within it. If democracy cannot rest on an abstract popular will, and if procedure alone cannot secure legitimacy, then stability must depend on the material and organizational transformations that shape collective life. Innovation-driven growth, rising productivity, expanding middle strata, and administrative capacity are not external to democracy’s viability. They are enabling conditions.

From this perspective, democracy becomes not a moral premise but a possible outcome of structural transformation. Where development diffuses gains broadly and sustains credible expectations of advancement, competitive political forms may acquire durability. Where stagnation or exclusion prevail, procedural mechanisms alone cannot compensate.

This reframing does not discard democracy as a method; it relocates it. Democracy remains a competitive process of leadership selection. But its stability depends on how leaders are selected and on the structures that govern elite recruitment.

If access to competition depends primarily on money, private funding, and campaign machinery, economic power tends to shape political outcomes. If advancement depends on bureaucratic promotion, performance criteria, or institutional vetting, political authority is filtered through these mechanisms. The selection mechanism matters because it structures incentives and mediates the relationship between economic and political power.

Seen in this light, democracy cannot be evaluated by procedure alone. Its durability is anchored in the structure of elite recruitment and in the developmental trajectory of the society that sustains it.

Democracy as an Outcome: Structural Preconditions

If we take Schumpeter’s developmental trajectory seriously, democracy cannot be reduced to electoral procedure. Its viability is anchored in the material and social configuration generated by economic transformation. Political forms do not sustain themselves through institutional design alone; they endure only where development produces cohesion and a degree of material equality sufficient to sustain it.

Strikingly, this structural insight emerges across opposed intellectual traditions. On the illiberal end of the spectrum, Carl Schmitt argued that democracy presupposes a relatively homogeneous political community, where divisions become existential and permanent, democratic unity dissolves. On the egalitarian and deliberative side, Joshua Cohen and Joel Rogers have emphasized that democracy requires sustained material equality, since extreme disparities fracture the social basis of collective self-rule.

Their normative commitments diverge profoundly. Schmitt grounds cohesion in sovereignty and exclusion; Cohen and Rogers ground it in egalitarian inclusion and institutional fairness. Yet they converge on a structural proposition: democracy presupposes a level of cohesion and bounded inequality sufficient to sustain a competitive political order. Where economic transformation generates fragmentation, polarization, and entrenched disparities, political forms—whatever their constitutional architecture—become unstable.

This convergence reframes the comparative question. If democracy is developmentally conditioned, the decisive issue becomes the concrete social and material results produced by a political order. What matters is whether a trajectory of development is generating the cohesion and capability expansion that underpin durable legitimacy.

Schumpeter never articulated this as an explicit framework. But he sketched the path. The silk stockings and modern dentistry were not decorative metaphors; they signaled a developmental logic in which economic evolution reshapes social structure and, with it, the terrain of political legitimacy.

If democracy depends on cohesion sustained by bounded inequality and expanding capability, then evaluation must proceed developmentally. The central question becomes: which political–economic systems are building these conditions, and which are eroding them?

Rather than surveying all contemporary cases, it is analytically sharper to examine a single counterintuitive laboratory. China presents such a case. It explicitly links legitimacy—and what it describes as its own trajectory toward democratization—to reducing inequality, expanding and sharing prosperity, and constructing what it calls a “harmonious society.” Whether one accepts that framing or not, it makes visible a proposition Western political theory often suppresses: democracy is not sustained by procedure alone. It depends, crucially though not exclusively, on material transformation.

Democracy as an Outcome: The China Stress Test

Democracy as an Outcome (DO) refers to the generation of durable political legitimacy through sustained material transformation that builds social cohesion, diffuses opportunity, and stabilizes collective expectations. It does not abolish procedure; it relocates legitimacy from electoral mechanisms alone to the structural conditions that render political order socially sustainable.

China offers a contemporary stress test of this proposition. The claim is not that China is democratic in the liberal-procedural sense. It is that China presents a trajectory in which transformative development, institutional architecture, and legitimacy formation intersect in ways that make DO analytically plausible. What follows is a case highlight, not an exhaustive study.

Transformative Development: From Accumulation to Rebalancing

China’s post-1978 trajectory unfolds in three broad phases.

The Deng era prioritized accumulation under scarcity. Industrialization, export orientation, infrastructure expansion, and disciplined labor mobilization drove rapid growth. Sharing lagged accumulation. Yet foundational investments in education, land management, and physical infrastructure laid the groundwork for later diffusion. As Ezra Vogel’s detailed reconstruction of Deng’s strategy makes clear, the reform period was not improvisational liberalization but sequenced transformation: experimental decentralization, controlled opening, and institutional pragmatism under tight political oversight (Vogel, 2011).

Under Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao, growth accelerated, but imbalances emerged: corruption, financial fragility, regional disparity, and overreliance on investment-led expansion. The 2008 global financial crisis marked a turning point. Rather than retrench, China expanded infrastructure, pursued industrial policy, and strengthened social safety nets, absorbing external shocks while deepening administrative capacity.

Xi Jinping inherited both accumulated strength and structural risk. The first phase emphasized discipline: anti-corruption measures, the containment of shadow banking, and the deleveraging of real estate. The second pivoted toward qualitative transformation: “new productive forces” and “common prosperity” signal a shift from quantitative expansion toward innovation-driven upgrading and broader diffusion. As Kevin Rudd has argued in his recent analysis of Xi’s political economy, this phase reflects not mere consolidation of authority but an attempt to recalibrate China’s growth model under conditions of technological rivalry, financial vulnerability, and geopolitical pressure (Rudd, 2024).

Seen developmentally, this trajectory reflects Transformative Development in motion: material transformation precedes claims to legitimacy.

The Institutional Architecture Enabling Democracy as an Outcome

Four institutional pillars sustain this trajectory.

The Land Regime:

Urban land in China remains publicly owned; rural land is collectively held. Individuals and firms acquire long-term usage rights, not permanent freehold title. This is not an administrative technicality. It shapes rent distribution, inequality trajectories, and the relationship between property and political power.

To grasp the structural stakes, it is worth revisiting an unexpected source. Léon Walras — canonized as the architect of general equilibrium theory and routinely associated with market orthodoxy — argued explicitly that land should not be privately owned.

In Studies in Social Economics, he formulates the point without ambiguity:

“LAND is, by natural law, the property of the STATE.”5

For Walras, land is not a produced factor. Its value reflects scarcity and social development, not individual effort. Rent derived from it, therefore, lacks productive justification. Justice and efficiency converge, he argued, when land rent accrues to society rather than crystallizing into private hereditary wealth.

The irony is striking. The equilibrium model was canonized; the land reformism was quietly forgotten.

China’s land regime, while not derived from Walrasian doctrine, exhibits striking structural affinity with this neglected strand. As George Lin has shown in his work on China’s urban land system, post-reform development rests on state ownership combined with long-term transferable usage rights rather than freehold privatization. By preventing full privatization of urban land, the system limits the permanent capitalization of rent into entrenched monopoly wealth. Developers lease; they do not own the underlying asset in perpetuity. The state retains ultimate authority over allocation.

Speculation occurred, especially during the real estate boom. Inequality persists. But the institutional design inhibits the emergence of a politically entrenched land-based rentier aristocracy of the kind historically observed in fully privatized regimes.

Where land is fully financialized, appreciation becomes a private windfall. Rent compounds intergenerationally. Political influence tracks property. Corrective intervention becomes legally constrained.

Where land remains publicly owned, even under long-term leasehold, the state retains leverage: supply can be adjusted, speculation can be disciplined, land use can be redirected. Containing land-driven rent extraction is not anti-market. It is anti-rentier.

For DO, this matters fundamentally. Land regimes shape rent distribution; rent shapes inequality; inequality shapes cohesion. Cohesion conditions legitimacy.

The Public Banking System:

Orthodox theory assumes private banking allocates capital more efficiently than public systems. Both Western experience and China’s trajectory force a reconsideration.

Over four decades, China’s state-dominated banking system financed high-speed rail, urban transit, ultra-high-voltage grids, renewable capacity, advanced manufacturing clusters, and poverty alleviation. As Barry Naughton and Kellee Tsai have emphasized in their analysis of Chinese state-backed institutional architecture, this investment architecture rests on institutional adaptation and coordinated credit allocation rather than laissez-faire capital markets. These projects were funded through long-horizon, state-directed finance rather than short-term speculative calculus

The 2008 global financial crisis offers a revealing contrast. The crisis originated in highly financialized Western systems structured around securitization, leverage, and speculative real estate — dynamics that Adam Tooze has analyzed as systemic features of late transatlantic finance. China did not generate the crisis. It absorbed it. As Nicholas Lardy has documented, a massive state-directed stimulus — financed through the banking system — stabilized growth, accelerated infrastructure investment, and expanded social spending at a moment when Western systems required extraordinary state rescue to prevent collapse.

Speculation was not absent. The property boom — culminating in the Evergrande crisis — made that unmistakably clear. As Keyi Yan’s detailed study of the real estate debt spiral shows, leverage, shadow financing, and aggressive expansion produced precisely the kind of fragility that a Schumpeter–Minsky lens would predict. But when systemic risk accumulated, regulators moved to contain rather than accommodate it: tightening credit through the “three red lines” policy, restructuring developers, managing liquidity, and preventing a cascade of failures across the banking system. The result was a painful adjustment, but not systemic collapse.

Today, China’s banking system is the largest in the world by assets. Major banks are profitable. Non-performing loans remain manageable relative to system scale. Capital buffers are substantial. Capital controls limit contagion.

Efficiency, as measured by short-term returns, misses the structural question. The relevant metric for DO is whether finance sustains transformation and resilience rather than amplifying speculative fragility.

On that criterion, categorical dismissal of public banking collapses.

Industrial and Innovation Policy:

The dominant liberal narrative holds that decentralized markets are uniquely conducive to innovation. Yet even the United States relied heavily on state-supported R&D and mission-oriented procurement — a fact extensively documented by Fred Block and Mathew Keller , Linda Weiss, and Mariana Mazzucato.

The real distinction is not state versus market, but how creative destruction is structured. Schumpeter warned that instability accumulates during diffusion, when innovation scales through expanding finance. Financialization accompanies prosperity; fragility accumulates.

Western platform capitalism illustrates this pattern: network effects produce dominance; capital flows into speculative ecosystems; innovation consolidates within oligopolistic architectures vulnerable to financial drift.

China confronted similar dynamics in the late 2010s. Platform giants accumulated extraordinary scale and influence; fintech and property-linked speculation expanded rapidly. The response was intervention, not suppression.

As Angela Zhang argues in High Wire, China’s regulatory turn was a high-risk recalibration rather than a retreat from markets. Antitrust enforcement, fintech restructuring, and redirection of capital toward semiconductors, AI, renewables, robotics, and advanced manufacturing represented a form of managed creative destruction.

The emphasis on “new productive forces” marks a qualitative pivot. Innovation is treated as a coordinated developmental strategy rather than a spontaneous venture capital outcome. China leads in renewable deployment and electric vehicle production, maintains the world's largest high-speed rail network, and has rapidly expanded R&D expenditure.

This does not imply frictionless success. It demonstrates structural orientation: innovation embedded within strategic coordination rather than subordinated to speculative arbitrage.

For DO, sustained transformation requires disciplined finance and coordinated upgrading. Where innovation drifts into financialization, fragility rises. Where it remains strategically directed, transformation stabilizes.

Political Selection and Performance Legitimacy:

Leadership does not emerge through multiparty electoral competition but through hierarchical cadre evaluation within the Party-state. Advancement depends on performance, administrative experience, and Party review.

This system is hierarchical and internally political. It is not random. Promotion criteria include growth management, infrastructure delivery, poverty reduction, environmental targets, and innovation metrics. Governance experience is cumulative.

Daniel A. Bell describes this as political meritocracy. Bruce Dickson shows how the Party has incorporated entrepreneurs and professionals into its structure, integrating rising strata rather than producing automatic bourgeois opposition.

Legitimacy rests on delivery.

Performance legitimacy is contingent. Administrative failure and corruption impose consequences within the hierarchy. Anti-corruption campaigns reinforce that rent-seeking is punishable. Internal discipline substitutes for electoral sanction.

From the perspective of DO, the decisive question is whether authority is structurally tied to sustained transformation — and whether transformation expands social capability: reduced insecurity, wider life chances, educational access, cultural participation, time autonomy, and institutionalized channels through which criticism becomes consequential and corrective.

Whether this trajectory deepens or stabilizes remains open. Transformative development generates expectations. Those expectations may press for expanded participation or consolidate within hierarchical coordination. But institutionally, the mechanism linking authority to performance — and incorporation to continuity — is operative.

These pillars establish the structural conditions within which Democracy as Outcome is taking shape.

Conclusion: Outcome Indicators, Diffusion, and Cohesion

If Democracy as an outcome rests on the diffusion of material gains and the expansion of social capabilities, then outcomes must be measurable. The question is not abstract legitimacy. It is an observable transformation. Over the past four decades, and especially since the early 2000s, China has produced changes of a scale and speed unprecedented in peacetime development.

By official measures, extreme rural poverty was eliminated in 2020, lifting roughly 800 million people out of poverty since the reform era began. Even allowing for methodological debate, the magnitude of income diffusion is historically extraordinary. For DO, the key point is not the headline number but the structural shift: hundreds of millions moved from subsistence vulnerability into wage employment, urban residence, and expanding participation in consumption.

That transformation permanently alters expectations.

Higher education has shifted from elite to mass enrollment over the past two decades. China now graduates roughly 11–12 million university students per year, including large cohorts in engineering, science, and applied technology. Gross tertiary enrollment has risen from single digits in the 1990s to over 50 percent. This is not merely credential expansion. It represents the rapid enlargement of the educated middle strata — precisely the social groups Schumpeter associated with rising expectations and political consciousness.

China operates the world's largest high-speed rail network — over 40,000 kilometers — linking secondary and tertiary cities to major economic hubs. Urban metro systems span dozens of metropolitan regions. Ultra-high-voltage grids and digital infrastructure integrate provinces at an unprecedented scale. Transport costs — in time and money — have fallen sharply. Regional isolation has diminished. Mobility across regions has expanded dramatically.

Infrastructure here functions as capability expansion: access to employment, education, healthcare, and cultural life becomes geographically less constrained.

Near-universal basic health insurance coverage has been achieved. Centralized pharmaceutical procurement has significantly reduced drug costs. Pension coverage and minimum income guarantees have expanded, albeit unevenly. Social insurance systems remain imperfect but are far broader than they were two decades ago. Household vulnerability to catastrophic health expenditure has declined. This is freedom-from in concrete form.

Urban homeownership rates exceed 80 percent, though often with high debt burdens and varying quality. Public and social housing programs expanded significantly, particularly after 2008. Real estate volatility has introduced stress, but widespread access to housing remains structurally embedded.

China leads the world in renewable energy installations and electric vehicle production. Air pollution levels in major cities have declined markedly over the past decade following regulatory tightening. Investment in green infrastructure and grid modernization continues at scale. Environmental improvement directly affects public health, life expectancy, and urban livability.

China now possesses one of the world’s largest middle-income populations by absolute size. Domestic tourism is massive; outbound travel volumes before COVID were among the highest globally and rebounded rapidly thereafter. Citizens travel domestically and abroad, and overwhelmingly return. Exit is possible; mass emigration is not occurring. That fact matters for cohesion analysis.

Museums, libraries, performing arts centers, and urban cultural districts have proliferated across major cities. University campuses, research parks, and innovation clusters are integrated into urban planning. Cultural consumption and production have expanded significantly. These are not decorative achievements. They reflect widening access to symbolic and intellectual life and contribute to what Weiwei Zhang has described as the reassertion of China as a “civilizational state” — a polity that understands its contemporary modernization as continuous with a deep historical-cultural identity (Zhang 2012).

None of this implies homogeneity or the disappearance of social differentiation. Rapid transformation inevitably produces dispersion, uneven development, and sectoral strain. The relevant analytical question is not whether inequality vanishes — no large modern society achieves that — but whether dispersion remains bounded within a trajectory of broad diffusion and rising collective capabilities.

For Democracy as Outcome, the test is cohesion under transformation. Does sustained development widen life chances across strata, integrate new social groups, and prevent the crystallization of entrenched rentier dominance?

On this criterion, the Chinese trajectory compels a rethinking of democracy itself.

Leave a comment

Coda — Democracy Beyond Electoral Procedure

If democracy is defined exclusively as competitive electoral alternation, then the preceding analysis must be dismissed from the outset. It proceeds from a different conception of democracy. On a strictly procedural definition, the debate ends before it begins. China is not democratic, and no amount of transformative development alters that verdict.

But procedural minimalism is not a neutral baseline. It is a theoretical choice — one that elevates a specific institutional mechanism into the essence of democracy. It assumes that electoral competition is both necessary and sufficient for political legitimacy. Alternation becomes the defining democratic act.

The argument developed here begins elsewhere.

It asks whether authority is structurally tied to sustained material transformation; whether that transformation diffuses capability; whether rising strata are incorporated rather than excluded; whether performance conditions elite survival; and whether expanding capability generates pressure for institutional adaptation. On this view, democracy is not reducible to procedure. It is a dynamic relationship among development, capability, expectation, and institutional evolution.

This reframing clarifies a distinction contemporary debate often obscures: the distinction between freedom-from and freedom-to.

Freedom-to — to vote, assemble, publish, oppose — occupies the visible center of liberal democratic theory. It is formalized and measurable. Yet it presupposes a deeper layer of social conditions that are less theatrically democratic but no less foundational: freedom-from want, illiteracy, chronic insecurity, preventable disease, and structural exclusion.

This insight was not alien to the Western democratic tradition. In 1944, Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a Second Bill of Rights grounded not in electoral procedure but in economic security — the right to employment, housing, medical care, and education. Political democracy, he argued, could not endure without economic democracy. Formal liberty without material security is fragile. As Cass Sunstein has shown, Roosevelt’s proposal was not symbolic excess but a constitutional vision: an attempt to anchor democratic legitimacy in substantive economic guarantees rather than procedural form alone.

The New Deal can thus be understood as an episode of transformative democracy — a moment in which institutional reform and material reconstruction were treated as conditions for democratic stabilization. As John Medearis has argued, it reconfigured the relationship between economic structure and democratic legitimacy. Political democracy was preserved by transforming its social foundations.

Without freedom-from, freedom-to risks becoming formal permission without substantive capability. Electoral choice does not compensate for economic precarity; expressive liberty does not substitute for educational access; alternation does not guarantee transformation.

Transformative development expands freedom-from. It enlarges life chances, reduces vulnerability, extends education, builds infrastructure, and creates time autonomy. In doing so, it alters expectations. Development generates pressure.

In this light, China’s recent emphasis on “Common Prosperity” can be read not as a rhetorical ornament but as an analogous claim: that long-term political stability requires the recalibration of distribution, opportunity, and social expectation.

Like the New Deal in its own context, the Common Prosperity campaign signals an attempt to realign growth with diffusion — to prevent wealth concentration, financial excess, and regional divergence from eroding the social foundations of legitimacy. Whatever its imperfections or political constraints, it reflects a recognition that sustained transformation must be socially shared if it is to remain politically sustainable.

The democratic question, therefore, is not which freedom counts more. It is whether political systems can convert expanding capability into institutionalized channels through which dissatisfaction becomes consequential and corrective.

Democracy as an outcome presupposes political meritocracy. This collides directly with classical democratic equality. The principle of one person, one vote treats all citizens as formally equal in the selection of rulers. Meritocratic selection differentiates. It filters. It ranks.

The tension cannot be dissolved. It must be ordered.

Once democracy is understood as an outcome of transformative development, the question becomes which principle is prior to its endurance and expansion: symmetrical participation in elite selection, or the capacity to sustain the transformation upon which democratic deepening depends.

If democracy rests on sustained transformation, then competence in governance becomes foundational. Industrial upgrading, financial coordination, environmental transition, and technological advance are not peripheral to democratic survival. They are its material infrastructure. A political order structurally incapable of selecting for strategic thinking and administrative competence risks undermining the transformation upon which democratic deepening depends.

Classical procedural equality privileges symmetrical participation in elite selection. Democracy as Outcome privileges the symmetrical expansion of capability across society. The collision is real. The hierarchy of priority is the argument.

The stress test posed in this essay is therefore not about labeling regimes. It is about sequencing and structure. Does sustained transformation generate the social foundations from which democracy deepens? Or does it stabilize without institutional evolution?

China represents a contemporary laboratory of that question. Its trajectory does not fit the procedural template. Nor does it fit the caricature of static authoritarianism. The decisive issue is whether performance-conditioned authority, capability diffusion, and incorporation of rising strata continue to generate adaptive pressure over time.

If they do, democracy may emerge not as an imported institutional script, but as a developmental outcome. If they do not, transformative capacity alone will not suffice.

That is the wager. And it is not a small one.

The next post will examine the mirror image of this argument: what happens when electoral democracy persists, but developmental embedding erodes.

Share

References

Achen, C. H. and Bartels, L. M. (2016) Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Ang, Y. Y. (2020). China’s Gilded Age: The Paradox of Economic Boom and Vast Corruption. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley.

Bell, D. A. (2015). The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bernstein, E. (1993) Evolutionary Socialism: A Criticism and Affirmation. Edited and introduced by Henry Tudor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Block, F. and Keller, M. R. (eds.) (2011) State of Innovation: The U.S. Government’s Role in Technology Development. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Cohen, J. and Rogers, J. (1983) On Democracy. New York: Penguin.

Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Dickson, B. J. (2003). Red Capitalists in China: The Party, Private Entrepreneurs, and Prospects for Political Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dickson, B. J. (2016). The Dictator’s Dilemma: The Chinese Communist Party’s Strategy for Survival. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.

Hilferding, R. (1981) Finance Capital. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (English translation.)

Hilferding, R. (1927 [1981]) ‘Organized Capitalism’, in Bottomore, T. (ed.) Classes, Power and Conflict: Classical and Contemporary Debates. London: Macmillan.

Huntington, S. P., Crozier, M. and Watanuki, J. (1975) The Crisis of Democracy: Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral Commission. New York: New York University Press.

International Energy Agency (IEA) (various years) World Energy Outlook. Paris: IEA.

Lin, G. C. S. (2009). Developing China: Land, Politics and Social Conditions. London: Routledge.

Lardy, N. R. (2012). Sustaining China’s Economic Growth After the Global Financial Crisis. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics. (First published 2011.)

Mazzucato, M. (2013). The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths. London: Anthem Press.

Medearis, J. (2001) ‘Two theories of democracy in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy’, Political Theory, 29(2), pp. 231–258.

Michels, R. (1911). Political Parties. English edn. 1962. New York: Free Press.

Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (various years) Statistical Bulletin of National Education Development. Beijing: MOE.

National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBS) (various years) China Statistical Yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press.

Naughton, B. and Tsai, K. S. (eds.) (2015) State Capitalism, Institutional Adaptation, and the Chinese Miracle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (various years) Education at a Glance. Paris: OECD.

People’s Bank of China (PBoC) (various years) China Financial Stability Report. Beijing: PBoC.

Przeworski, A. (1991) Democracy and the Market. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Przeworski, A. (2000) Democracy and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Przeworski, A. (2019). Crises of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roosevelt, F. D. (1944) ‘State of the Union Address’, 11 January. Washington, DC.

Rudd, K. (2024). On Xi Jinping: How Xi’s Marxist Nationalism Is Shaping China and the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schmitt, C. (1923). The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. English edn. 1985. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper.

Sunstein, C. R. (2004). The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever. New York: Basic Books.

Tocqueville, A. de (1835–1840) Democracy in America. English edn. 2000. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tooze, A. (2018) Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World. New York: Viking.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (various years) Human Development Report. New York: UNDP.

Vogel, E. F. (2011). Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Walras, L. (2010). Studies in Social Economics. Translated by J. van Daal and D. A. Walker. Abingdon: Routledge.

Weber, M. (1919) ‘Politics as a Vocation’, in Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. W. (eds.) (1946) From Max Weber. New York: Oxford University Press.

Weiss, L. (2014) America Inc.? Innovation and Enterprise in the National Security State. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

World Bank (2022) Poverty and Shared Prosperity 2022: Correcting Course. Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank (various years) World Development Indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Yan, K. (2023). The Debt Crisis in China’s Real Estate Industry: Evidence from Evergrande. Singapore: Springer Nature.

Zhang, W. (2012). The China Wave: Rise of a Civilizational State. Hackensack, NJ: World Century Publishing.

Zhang, A. H. (2024). High Wire: How China Regulates Big Tech and Governs Its Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Preface

My previous post — a socio-political reading of Bosch written in the spirit of Carnival — opened a line of inquiry that refused to close. What began as an interpretation of abundance, desire, and repression in a late medieval universe revealed something more structural: how instability is staged, sequenced, and made visible within a civilization.

That thread led, unexpectedly but decisively, to Jacques Brissot.

Once encountered, the connection proved impossible to ignore. Brissot’s 1973 triptych does not merely echo Bosch’s Garden of Earthly Delights; it reactivates it under late modern conditions, compressing into a single visual field the tensions that Bosch unfolded across a socio-politically charged theological sequence.

Bridging the two triptychs brought unexpected clarity to the central concerns of this interpretation of late modernity.

The movement from Bosch to Brissot turned out not to be a departure but a return to this Substack’s central range of inquiry: how societies generate material expansion, how they struggle to integrate and distribute it, and how the governance of resulting tensions determines whether prosperity consolidates or corrodes. Brissot’s composition, at once brilliant and strangely neglected, proved too precise to leave unexplored.

If the argument persuades, the reader will understand why.

Introduction

In 1973, Jacques Brissot produced a triptych unmistakably modeled on Hieronymus Bosch’s Garden of Earthly Delights yet titled after The Hay Wain. The gesture is neither playful nor derivative. It is deliberate, intellectual, and historically charged.

Brissot was not merely an eccentric surrealist revisiting medieval imagery. He was an artist of unusual conceptual force and a sharp social and political observer, deeply shaped by Freud’s analysis of civilization’s discontents and Nietzsche’s diagnosis of cultural exhaustion. His work engages the unstable architecture of modern civilization with a clarity that borders on philosophical argument. And yet he remains virtually unknown. No substantial monographs. No sustained theoretical discussion. No serious placement within debates on modernity, crisis, or barbarism. His oeuvre occupies a curious blind spot between art history and socio-political thought.

This neglect is puzzling.

Because Brissot does something rare: he translates a dense constellation of ideas — Freud’s drive structure, Marx’s crisis dynamic, Nietzsche’s cultural exhaustion, Hobbes’s problem of order, Luxemburg’s barbarism — into a single visual architecture. He does not illustrate theory. He condenses it.

The 1973 triptych is the clearest expression of that condensation. By invoking Bosch while renaming him, Brissot signals a shift in civilizational diagnosis. Bosch staged instability as a sequence: Creation gives way to Plenitude, which gives way to Inferno. Brissot no longer believes in sequence. He stages instability as a condition.

What Bosch unfolded temporally, Brissot compresses structurally.

And at the center of that structure — literally elevated above the proliferating chaos — sits Freud. This is not decorative homage. It is diagnostic positioning. The triptych establishes its account of psychic instability before it reveals its institutional outcomes.

The work deserves attention not as a pastiche but as an intervention. It reads today with an unsettling clarity. It speaks to a civilization in which expansion outruns integration, in which mediation thins, and in which barbarism consolidates not as breakdown but as structure.

That such a work remains largely undiscussed is not a minor oversight. It is a gap.

This essay begins to address that absence.

Subscribe now

I. The first panel- Creation: Libido and Threat

Bosch’s left panel presents oriented presence. Desire exists, but within a theological horizon that stabilizes it. Creation precedes fracture. The divine gaze anchors meaning. Innocence is assumed, even if fragile.

Brissot denies that interval. In his first panel, desire is not latent. It is explicit, charged, and already bordering on sinfulness. Nudity is not symbolic purity; it is exposure. Sexuality is not background; it is atmosphere. The bodies are not tranquil inhabitants of a harmonious creation; they are tense, aware, unsettled. The erotic is not waiting to be awakened. It is already active.

And directly above this activation stands the angel — sword drawn, poised, unmistakably threatening. Repression does not arrive after transgression. It precedes it. The threat of punishment, even of emasculation, hangs over the naked male body before any narrative of fall has unfolded. Authority is not responding to corruption; it anticipates it. The sacred does not shelter desire. It disciplines it.

This is not theological Eden. It is the Freudian insight that desire and prohibition emerge together, rendered pictorially.

Human society does not begin in innocence. It begins in tension between libido and prohibition. Civilization is not the corruption of a pure origin; it is the management of the structuration of an unstable drive. The pleasure principle is present from the start — but so is the mechanism that constrains it.

Brissot intensifies this tension almost to the point of caricature. The sexual charge feels excessive, amplified beyond classical balance. It is as if the pleasure principle has been placed on display, pushed toward exhibition. But repression is equally amplified. The angel’s sword is not a symbolic ornament; it is a coercive instrument. It does not promise guidance. It threatens mutilation.

Here, Freud’s insight is not quoted; it is embodied. The drive is primary. Authority is reactive. Law does not emerge from harmony; it emerges from anxiety. The sacred functions less as an anchor than as an enforcement. And corrosion is already inscribed in this structure.

Because desire and prohibition appear simultaneously — both intensified, both theatrical — the condition is not balanced tension. It is an unstable confrontation. The bodies do not inhabit a secure order; they perform under threat.

This is not fragility. It is volatility. Repression appears overarmed, and each force intensifies the other. Authority does not calm libido; it sharpens it. Law does not pacify instinct; it provokes it.

Creation, in Brissot’s hands, is not equilibrium between freedom and constraint. It is defiance and fear coexisting in the same frame.

II. The Central Panel: Abundance Unleashed

The civilization Brissot paints in the central panel is not merely expanding; it is overflowing. Freud’s elevation here is not ironic. It is structural. He presides not as ornament but as diagnosis. What unfolds beneath him is not growth in motion but abundance without mediation.

Material scarcity has been overcome. The field is dense with bodies, objects, fragments of cultures and epochs layered upon one another. Production is no longer the problem. The problem is orientation. Consumption circulates without telos; repetition substitutes for fulfillment. What appears as plenitude reveals itself as compulsion

At this point, the image acquires a sharper intellectual edge. One might recall André Gorz’s horizon of liberated abundance—a society in which productivity reduces necessity and creates space for autonomy, qualitative time, and self-determined activity. Brissot stages the inversion of that promise. Abundance is present, but it does not emancipate. It does not release time. It does not deepen agency. It multiplies stimuli. The paradise of post-scarcity appears but is emptied of direction.

Waste becomes structural rather than accidental. Excess does not transform; it accumulates. Technical capacity has outrun cultural form. Production exceeds symbolic integration. The scene does not breathe; it swells.

What intensifies this saturation is the layering of civilizations within the same pictorial field. Motifs overlap without hierarchy. Historical fragments coexist without synthesis. The composition feels global — yet not as harmonious cosmopolitanism, but as simultaneity without integration. Distinctions blur. Boundaries soften. Syncretism no longer produces enrichment; it produces drift.

Here, Weber’s diagnosis deepens the scene. This is disenchantment accelerated. Rationalization has triumphed materially, yet meaning has thinned. The world is organized, productive, technically formidable — and spiritually unanchored. The iron cage is no longer austere; it is fluorescent.

Nietzsche’s shadow lengthens within this condition. When expansion loses orientation, multiplication ceases to signify vitality. It becomes restlessness. Intensification substitutes for depth. Movement substitutes for purpose. What appears exuberant begins to feel compulsive.

Freud remains central, though no longer solitary. Desire is amplified rather than restrained. Yet amplification without transformation produces volatility rather than fulfillment. Stimulation intensifies even as satisfaction recedes. Desire outruns the structures meant to contain it.

And beneath this proliferation lies something more troubling: crisis without rupture. The panel does not depict collapse; it depicts the simultaneous occurrence of strain. Economic excess coexists with insecurity. Cultural density coexists with disorientation. Authority persists, but legitimacy thins. Edgar Morin’s notion of polycrisis takes visual form here: multiple tensions intersect without converging into a resolution. The system does not break; it convulses.

In the far margins — nearly invisible unless one searches — the figure of Hitler appears. Barbarism is not external to abundance; it incubates within it. Luxemburg’s alternative is not deferred to the final panel; it is seeded in the center.

This is the moment when Leviathan does not disappear but begins to hollow out. Mediation weakens while intensity persists. Abundance continues, but integration falters.

It is the point at which Behemoth becomes thinkable.

III. The Final Panel- Behemoth: Polycrisis Without Horizon

The final panel is not an allegory. It is contemporaneity condensed — combustion without horizon.

The Nazi figures are not historical decoration. They anchor the image in Franz Neumann’s sense of Behemoth: power fragmented, violent, and structurally unstable, yet capable of terrifying consolidation. Not sovereign mediation, but organized domination without a unifying moral horizon. The Third Reich was not Leviathan. It was Behemoth institutionalized. Brissot places that genealogy inside the present.

But the scene exceeds fascist memory. The nuclear age hovers as a background condition. Apocalypse is no longer theological; it is technical. Anne Jacobsen’s scenario of nuclear escalation reads less like fiction and more like latent infrastructure. The inferno is not flames of damnation; it is a thermonuclear possibility embedded in geopolitics. Destruction is now procedural, timed in minutes.

Heat radiates through the composition. Not metaphorical heat — planetary heat. David Wallace-Wells’ The Uninhabitable Earth and Christian Parenti’s Tropic of Chaos describe climate stress as an accelerant of instability: drought, migration, and militarization. Brissot’s panel feels atmospherically similar. The world does not end in fire from above; it overheats from within. Climate is no longer a backdrop. It is pressure.

The hybrid creatures, half-organic, half-mechanical, can no longer be read purely as Boschian fantasy. They resemble automated systems—weaponized techniques. Richard Bitzinger’s work on the emerging arms industry captures this mutation: warfare shifting toward autonomous platforms, algorithmic targeting, and industrialized lethality. Violence scales when machines execute it.

The boundary between inside and outside appears to have collapsed. Coercion no longer protects a perimeter; it circulates within the field itself. Guards in ICE-like posture patrol this internal fracture. Barbara Walter’s How Civil Wars Start suggests that societies erode not when chaos erupts from outside, but when internal legitimacy fractures and violence becomes normalized.

And the erotic does not disappear. It persists inside militarization. Bodies exposed amid fully armed figures evoke not liberation but degradation. Pleasure turns abrasive, almost punitive. The mood approaches a late-Sadean register — not libertine play, but pleasure fused with humiliation and self-inflicted suffering. In The 120 Days of Sodom, excess becomes systematic cruelty. In Brissot’s panel, desire is no longer festive; it is entangled with domination.

All of this converges. War. Heat. Automation. Internal fracture. Degraded eroticism. This is not a single crisis. It is Edgar Morin's polycrisis on steroids—crises interacting, amplifying, and refusing resolution. No master contradiction. No decisive rupture. Just systemic strain intensifying across domains.

The atmosphere recalls Blade Runner: technological brilliance amid civilizational decay, neon rationality illuminating existential exhaustion. The critical essays gathered in Judith B. Kerman’s Retrofitting Blade Runner read Scott’s dystopia as a meditation on corporate sovereignty, ecological depletion, and the erosion of human boundaries. Brissot’s inferno inhabits a similar register. Andrei Martyanov’s Disintegration describes imperial overreach hollowing military and political credibility from within. Peter Frase’s Four Futures speculates about worlds after capitalism — some emancipatory, some authoritarian, some ecologically catastrophic. Brissot’s panel seems like a composite of their darker futures—not speculative, but already ambient.

This is Behemoth in late modern form: not the breakdown of order, but its slow decomposition, held together by force, technics, and permanent emergency. The inferno is not what comes after failure. It is what modernity looks like when crisis becomes structure.

IV- Conclusion

Brissot’s triptych does not update Bosch by changing costumes. It updates Bosch by changing the diagnostic object. The problem is no longer sin and punishment. It is abundance without mediation, crisis without resolution, and barbarism no longer as an event but as a condition.

That is why the work stands not as a stylistic experiment but as an analytical tour de force — a rare instance of civilizational autopsy rendered in paint.

And that diagnosis is uncannily precise. Brissot, still strangely absent from serious art-historical and socio-political discussion, anticipates with disturbing clarity the tensions that define our moment. His ghostliness is itself puzzling. Few works have rendered so vividly the entanglement of abundance, instability, and coercion. And yet his oeuvre remains largely unexamined. That such a diagnosis remains peripheral may be the most revealing fracture in contemporary debates on engaged art.

What the triptych ultimately forces into view is not merely collapse, nor merely excess, but contradiction: the difficulty of transforming material expansion into durable prosperity; the fragility of sharing that prosperity without eroding its foundations; and the political strain of governing the conflicts that inevitably arise in the process. Civilizations do not fail simply because they grow. They falter when growth outruns integration, when prosperity ceases to consolidate legitimacy, and when conflict becomes structural rather than episodic.

Brissot died in 2020. He lived long enough to witness the full deployment of the tensions he rendered in paint — yet not long enough to see his diagnosis properly recognized. When his work is finally confronted and discussed with the seriousness it warrants, it will stand as one of the sharpest instances of art functioning as socio-political analysis.

Share

References

Bitzinger, R.A. (2015) Towards a Brave New Arms Industry? London: Routledge for the International Institute for Strategic Studies (Adelphi Series).

Brissot, J. (1973) The Hay Wain. In Larkin, D. (ed.), Temptations. London: Peacock Press.

Brissot, J. https://www.jacques-brissot.com

Frase, P. (2016). Four Futures: Life After Capitalism. London: Verso.

Freud, S. (1930) Civilization and Its Discontents. Translated by J. Strachey. London: Hogarth Press.

Gorz, A. (1985) Paths to Paradise: On the Liberation from Work. London: Pluto Press.

Hobbes, T. (1994). Leviathan. Edited by E. Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.

Hobbes, T. (2010). Behemoth. Edited by P. Seaward. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jacobsen, A. (2024) Nuclear War: A Scenario. New York: Dutton.

Kerman, J.B. (ed.) (1991) Retrofitting Blade Runner: Issues in Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner and Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press.

Luxemburg, R. (2004). The Crisis of German Social Democracy (The Junius Pamphlet). In: Hudis, P. and Anderson, K.B. (eds.) The Rosa Luxemburg Reader. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Marx, K. (1981) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume III. London: Penguin/New Left Review.

Martyanov, A. (2021). Disintegration: Indicators of the Coming American Collapse. Atlanta, GA: Clarity Press.

Morin, E. and Kern, A.B. (1993). Terre-Patrie. Paris: Seuil.

Neumann, F. (1942). Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nietzsche, F. (1996). On the Genealogy of Morality. Edited by K. Ansell-Pearson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Parenti, C. (2011). Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence. New York: Nation Books.

Sade, Marquis de (1966 [1785]) The 120 Days of Sodom and Other Writings. New York: Grove Press.

Silver, L. (2006) Hieronymus Bosch. New York: Abbeville Press.

Wallace-Wells, D. (2019). The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming. New York: Tim Duggan Books.

Walter, B.F. (2022). How Civil Wars Start: And How to Stop Them. New York: Crown.

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Edited by G. Roth and C. Wittich. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Weber, M. (2002). The Protestant Ethic and the “Spirit” of Capitalism and Other Writings. Edited and translated by P. Baehr and G.C. Wells. London: Penguin.

Preface:

Rio de Janeiro, where I write, has already surrendered to Carnival.

In that spirit, this post takes a deliberate detour from the main thread of this Substack, moving through art, iconography, and moral imagination. The detour is not ornamental. Carnival has always been the sanctioned moment when order loosens, excess surfaces, and submerged logics briefly become visible. It is in that register that this essay turns to Hieronymus Bosch — not as an art-historical curiosity, but as a diagnostician of pleasure, abundance, and their darker reversals.

Carnival approaches. Masks go on. Boundaries soften. Bosch knew what could follow when suspension forgets to end.

This essay can stand on its own. But attentive readers will recognize familiar concerns beneath the surface: abundance and its discontents, pleasure and discipline, freedom and constraint. What is largely absent from Bosch’s universe — and decisively so — is sovereignty: no authority capable of converting abundance into order, pleasure into socially sustainable practice, or freedom into a durable political form.

Regular writing will resume after Carnival.

Subscribe now

Introduction

Hieronymus Bosch is one of those artists whose name is widely recognized, while the logic of his work remains oddly underexamined. His paintings are often approached through fragments—monsters, grotesques, infernal machines—treated as eccentric fantasies or medieval moral curiosities. What is usually missed is that Bosch was not painting isolated vices or individual temptations. He was constructing worlds.

Those worlds operate according to a logic immediately recognizable to anyone familiar with the cultural grammar of Carnival: temporary regimes of inversion, excess, and suspension, in which ordinary restraints are loosened, and alternative forms of social life briefly come into view. Bosch’s originality lies in pushing that logic far beyond festivity, turning it into a sustained analytical device.

In Mikhail Bakhtin’s classic formulation, Carnival names precisely this temporary suspension of hierarchy, norm, and restraint—a collective reorganization of the social world around excess, inversion, and embodied pleasure.

Nowhere is this clearer than in The Garden of Delights. The triptych does not unfold as a conventional moral progression from innocence to sin to punishment. It stages three distinct regimes of social life, each governed by a different relationship between creation, pleasure, authority, and restraint.

Only then does the core claim come into focus. Bosch is not interested in scarcity. He is interested in what happens after pleasure becomes possible at scale—and in what follows when that pleasure is later criminalized, inverted, and punished. The triptych must therefore be read as a sequence of psychic and moral regimes rather than as a linear sermon on virtue and vice.

Read this way, The Garden of Delights is less a sermon than a moral, social, and political experiment: a staged diagnosis of what happens when desire and abundance are unleashed without mediation, and authority withdraws rather than governs.

What is at stake here is not excess, but the violent oscillation between freedom and repression.

A lens on the triptych: Creation, Perverted Abundance, and Corrosion

Bosch’s triptych stages three distinct worlds, each governed by a different relation. Creation anchors the world. Abundance detaches it. Corrosion dissolves it.

The first panel is a world of Creation. God is present. Meaning is given, not produced. Desire exists, but it is not yet autonomous, social, or amplified. There is no circulation, no excess, no conflict. History has not yet begun.

The second panel is a world of Abundance—but of perverted abundance. Pleasure becomes public; desire circulates without guilt or prohibition. Enjoyment is no longer bound by divine presence, law, or hierarchy. Abundance enters the scene abruptly, as a rupture: not as fulfillment, but as destabilization.

The third panel is a world of Corrosion. Pleasure is no longer tolerated, redirected, or sublimated. It is attacked, inverted, and destroyed through torture, humiliation, and cruelty. Repression does not preserve abundance, nor does it restore order. It annihilates life.

The analytical key is this: abundance is not an innocent gift. It is a destabilizing amplifier. It expands the space of desire faster than inherited meanings can orient it—and in doing so, prepares the ground for repression once that expansion becomes intolerable.

The first panel: peaceful scarcity and the prehistory of pleasure

The left panel is not a scene of abundance. It is a world of scarcity—but of peaceful scarcity. Creation is complete, but not excessive. Nothing overflows. Nothing circulates. Adam and Eve have what they need, and no more. God is present, and that presence orients the world.

Nothing needs to be produced, accumulated, or organized because nothing has yet entered history. There is no social life, no temporal horizon, no deferred gratification, and no collective drama. Scarcity is not experienced as lack because desire has not yet become autonomous.

The decisive feature of this world is not material sufficiency, but orientation. Meaning is not constructed; it is given. Desire exists, but it is not yet a social force. It remains within a theological framework that assigns it a place and limits.

Paradise, therefore, is neither a socioeconomic baseline nor a model to be recovered. It is prehistory: the world before pleasure becomes autonomous and before abundance becomes thinkable.

Yet Bosch does not depict innocence as naïve purity. Even here, erotic potential is unmistakably present. Desire appears as amoral energy—neither virtuous nor sinful, neither repressed nor unleashed. This is the deeply religious and deeply Freudian hinge of the panel. Desire is not evil. But it is not innocent either. It is powerful.

The first panel thus already carries a warning. Once the divine presence withdraws, this energy will not disappear. It will expand. A modern reworking can go further: it can stage this warning inside Creation itself, where desire and its containment appear together, as if disenchantment had already begun. This is precisely what Jacques Brissot produced in 1973—a link to which we will return in closing this essay.

From Creation to Unleashed Abundance: The Rupture from Religion and the Turn to Pleasure

The transition from the first panel to the central panel is deliberately abrupt. Bosch offers no gradual moral drift, no slow degeneration. He stages a structural rupture.

Divine presence withdraws. In its place appears a human world saturated with enjoyment. Pleasure ceases to be a bounded possibility and becomes a public environment. Abundance arrives not through labor, technique, or discipline, but as if by miracle. Scarcity is suspended without explanation—and that is precisely why the new world is so seductive and so dangerous.

This abruptness is essential. Bosch wants the viewer to feel the shock: a leap from oriented innocence to proliferating pleasure, from presence to plenitude. Abundance appears first as liberation—free of guilt, free of prohibition, free of open violence. Only later will its tensions be revealed.

This is why the next transition will be different. The passage from plenitude to Inferno will not be abrupt. It will be prepared.

The central panel: perverted abundance without guilt

The central panel depicts a world in which abundance persists after divine withdrawal, but before punishment, repression, or moral codification. Bodies, pleasures, food, and objects circulate freely. There is no visible coercion, no organized violence, and no scarcity. In experiential terms, this world appears peaceful, playful, and strikingly non-traumatic.

What defines this panel is not excess, but the absence of guilt.

Pleasure here is transgressive — but not because it violates norms. It is transgressive because no binding codes of conduct are in operation. Desire is not repressed, deferred, or disciplined; it is social, visible, and normalized. Pleasure does not justify itself because it does not need to. It simply exists — and becomes the linchpin of social life.

In this sense, Bosch stages a world uncannily close to what much later thinkers such as André Gorz or Wilhelm Reich would imagine: abundance beyond scarcity, enjoyment beyond repression, social life freed from the moral economy of guilt.

There is no labor discipline, no accumulation imperative, no future-oriented sacrifice. Time is not organized around production, redemption, or deferred reward. Pleasure circulates in the present tense. It structures interaction, rhythm, and meaning — even as it quietly begins to exhaust them.

This is why the central panel must not be read as already pathological. It is not yet a world of corrosion. But neither is it innocent. It is a world of unmediated abundance in which perversion is already visible — not as deviance, but as saturation.

Bosch’s wager is not that pleasure destroys order. It is that abundance without mediation cannot sustain order over time. The problem is not enjoyment, but the absence of institutions, codes, and symbolic frameworks capable of transforming abundance into durable forms of meaning and structured social interaction.

The central panel, therefore, represents a suspended moment: abundance without guilt, but also without sovereignty or future orientation. Perverted abundance. It is neither Paradise nor Hell. It is a fragile interlude—historically impossible to stabilize yet not intrinsically pathological.

Only later does this suspension collapse.

Moral corrosion, not rebellion

What matters here is that Bosch does not depict revolt, transgression, or conscious sin. He depicts forgetfulness. The inhabitants of the Garden do not reject God; they simply live as if restraint were unnecessary. Pleasure becomes self-justifying. This is a deeply moral and social claim. Enjoyment without mediation is not neutral. It corrodes the very capacity for restraint.

Unbounded enjoyment does not collapse immediately into violence or guilt. It first dissolves differentiation. Boundaries weaken: between bodies and objects, means and ends, subject and instrument. Nothing is forbidden, but nothing is firmly anchored either.

Bosch signals this shift visually through hybrid figures already present in the central panel. These forms are not fantasies, nor anticipations of punishment. They are diagnostics. Monstrosity appears when categorical distinctions erode, and social orientation loses grip—an interregnum in which inherited forms no longer organize conduct and emergent ones have not yet taken shape.

The world of abundance remains playful and largely non-traumatic. Pleasure is still social, visible, and unsanctioned. Yet the emergence of hybrid bodies indicates that abundance has begun to corrode the forms that once structured behavior, identity, and meaning. The central panel is not yet a world of repression or cruelty. It is a fragile equilibrium in which abundance remains joyful but increasingly formless.

The monsters of the central panel are therefore not punishments. They are harbingers.

The final panel - Inferno: the Hobbesian world after abundance

Inferno is neither the return of God nor the restoration of order. It is the violent arrival of repression in a world that had previously lived without it. Bosch does not depict authority reasserting itself; he depicts repression imposed where no legitimate authority ever existed. The central panel showed a society portrayed as free: abundance without guilt, enjoyment without prohibition, life without punishment. But it also exhibited early symptoms of instability—boundary erosion, hybridization, and the loss of durable forms.

What enters the scene is repression in its purest form: torture, destruction, humiliation. Not law, not hierarchy, not sovereignty — only force. Pain does not discipline; it annihilates. Violence does not coordinate; it fragments. No norms are restored. No order is stabilized. What emerges is not authority, but terror.

This is a Hobbesian world—not because a sovereign rules, but because no sovereign exists. A war of everyone against everyone unfolds, fueled not by scarcity alone, but by the wreckage of destroyed abundance. The remnants of pleasure reappear as instruments of torment. What was once playful becomes sadistic. What was shared becomes predatory.

In Marxian terms, this is not a transition but a breakdown. The forces unleashed by abundance are not reorganized into new social relations. They are crushed. Echoing a familiar twentieth-century diagnosis, Bosch offers a stark verdict: not paradise after abundance, but barbarism. Inferno is barbarism after abundance. Repression without emancipation, destruction without transformation. Bosch’s Hell is therefore not moral punishment. What Bosch stages, finally, is a familiar dystopia: Hobbes without the Leviathan, and Freud without sublimation.

Share

Conclusion: A Familiar Dystopia

Bosch stages a stark and unforgiving logic. Abundance, when not mediated by restraint, discipline, or moral codes, does not generate a higher form of social order. It generates a collapse. Abundance without mediation corrodes; without transformation, it collapses. And collapse produces a Hobbesian world ruled not by God, but by cruelty.

This is not creative destruction. It is destruction without exit.

Inferno is not static. It is frenetic, overcrowded, and violently active. But nothing that happens there opens space for renewal. Movement does not generate transformation; activity does not build. There is no escape. Excess turns inward and becomes punitive. Corrosion annihilates possibility rather than redirecting it toward new forms. Authority returns but stripped of meaning and orientation. What survives is not order, but vengeful repression.

Bosch’s final warning is therefore stark. Abundance alone saves nothing. Without institutions capable of disciplining freedom and transforming excess into durable forms of meaning, coordination, and authority, success destroys the very world that produced it. That is why the triptych ends not in renewal, but in Hell.

Therefore, Bosch keeps returning.

In 1973, the French artist Jacques Brissot reworked Bosch’s triptych logic in explicitly modern terms. Freud occupies the center; the organized violence of the twentieth century saturates the final panel. The structure is unmistakably Boschian, but the vocabulary is contemporary. This is not a quotation or homage. It is a radical rekindling—and it will be the subject of a later post.

What matters here is Brissot’s first panel. Creation is no longer a scene of oriented innocence. It is already highly erotic, already shadowed by surveillance and threat. Desire is present from the start, but so is the apparatus that contains it: the angel with the sword appears not as the end of the story, but at its beginning. In Weberian terms, the world starts already disenchanted—creation itself marked by tension, control, and incipient repression.

Brissot’s imagined world collapses Bosch’s sequence. What Bosch stages as a progression across panels, Brissot compresses into a single regime in which pleasure and repression are born together. Modernity no longer allows the slow unfolding from presence to abundance to corrosion. It begins already fractured.

Seen this way, Bosch is not a medieval curiosity but a theorist of abundance whose relevance has only intensified. What he diagnosed as a temporal sequence now confronts us as simultaneity. That is why The Garden of Delights no longer reads as an artifact of the past, but as a mirror held uncomfortably close to the present.

References

Bakhtin, M. (1984). Rabelais and His World. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Bosch, H. (c.1490–1510). The Garden of Delights. Oil on oak panels. Museo del Prado, Madrid.

Brissot, J. (1973). The Hay Wain. In Larkin, D. (ed.), Temptations. London: Peacock Press.

Brissot, J. (n.d.). Courbettes. Paris: Élica. [Illustrated artist’s pamphlet / Portfolio.]

Dixon, L. S. (2003). Hieronymus Bosch. London: Phaidon Press.

Silver, L. (2006). Hieronymus Bosch. New York: Abbeville Press.

Freud, S. (1930). Civilization and Its Discontents. London: Hogarth Press.

Gorz, A. (1985). Paths to Paradise: On the Liberation from Work. London: Pluto Press.

Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. London.

Reich, W. (1942). The Function of the Orgasm: Sex-Economic Problems of Biological Energy. New York: Orgone Institute Press.

Reich, W. (1945). The Sexual Revolution: Toward a Self-Governing Character Structure. New York: Orgone Institute Press.

Weber, M. (1919). Science as a Vocation. Munich.

Preface:

This essay is part of a broader research program on the Political Economy of Liquidity and Innovation. Its purpose is not to “apply” Joseph Schumpeter, but to use him as a point of departure for reconstructing a theory of capitalist transformation in which liquidity, innovation, and public authority are analytically inseparable.

Within that architecture, the Entrepreneurial State is not an institutional anomaly or a contingent policy choice. It is a structural component: the organizational form through which societies mobilize liquidity, coordinate innovation and investment, and manage creative destruction in ways that advance the public interest.

Schumpeter occupies a special place in this reconstruction. Long before contemporary debates on state capacity, industrial policy, or developmental states—beginning with The Theory of Economic Development (1911), and The Crisis of the Tax State (1918)—he advanced a proto-theory of the Entrepreneurial State. That proto-theory was fragmented, historically grounded, and never fully systematized, but unmistakable in substance.

The task of this essay is therefore twofold: to recover that proto-theory from across Schumpeter’s work, and to recast it as a coherent analytical object capable of supporting a broader theory of capitalism, socialism, and state-sponsored structural transformation. Subsequent extensions of this framework will integrate complementary insights from John Maynard Keynes on the socialization of investment and from Hyman Minsky on the containment of financial instability. Here, as the state is integrated organically into the analysis, the focus remains deliberately Schumpeterian, with a measured debt to Max Weber.

Introduction: Creative Destruction, Rewired

This post deepens an argument developed across earlier essays on creative destruction, financial instability, and the limits of market-led capitalism. The focus here is not a new theme but a missing one: the state within Schumpeter’s theory—not as a regulator or ex post corrector, but as an entrepreneurial organizer of structural transformation.

The question is simple, but its implications are not:

What precisely is the Schumpeterian Entrepreneurial State—and why does Schumpeter come to see it as the linchpin of his argument that a reorganization of capitalism through state action could coordinate innovation, competition, and structural change more efficiently than corporate capitalism? Addressing this question requires going beyond Schumpeter as a theorist of innovation and competition alone. It requires placing the state as entrepreneur-in-chief: coordinating innovation, shaping and disciplining competition and finance, and acting as the central institution governing income and wealth distribution—that is, situating the argument squarely within a political economy of liquidity and innovation.

From this perspective, creative destruction is never purely technological or market-driven. It is always mediated by liquidity creation, credit allocation, balance-sheet management, and institutional control over finance. Innovation advances not simply because entrepreneurs exist, but because purchasing power is created, risks are absorbed, failures are contained, and obsolete structures are unwound without triggering systemic collapse.

This is where Schumpeter’s scattered reflections on the state acquire contemporary relevance, and where they must also be extended.

The argument developed here treats Schumpeter as a foundational guide rather than a final destination. His insights into innovation, competition, and the internal dynamics of capitalism provide the point of departure. But once liquidity, finance, and state capacity are placed at the center of the analysis, a broader architecture comes into view—one in which the entrepreneurial function is institutionalized, investment is socialized, and creative destruction is rewired through public authority.

In this sense, the Schumpeterian Entrepreneurial State is not simply a reinterpretation of Schumpeter. It is a building block of a wider framework: a Political Economy of Liquidity and Innovation, in which development hinges on who controls liquidity, how investment is directed, and how structural transformation is managed over time.

What emerges is no longer “Schumpeter applied,” but a distinct analytical synthesis—one that treats capitalism, socialism, and state power not as fixed institutional configurations, but as evolving systems and organizational complexes shaped by liquidity, innovation, and political choice.

That is the architecture this post begins to make explicit.

The Standard Misreading: Schumpeter Without the State

Schumpeter is usually read as the theorist of heroic entrepreneurs, private risk-taking, and innovation unleashed by markets. The state, when it appears at all, is treated as marginal—an external constraint, a fiscal appendage, or, at best, a background institution.

This reading is wrong.

It persists not because Schumpeter ignored the state, but because his reflections on state action are dispersed across texts written over three decades, under radically different historical conditions, and for different analytical purposes. There is no single chapter titled “The State” in his work. Instead, there is a hidden, fragmented, yet coherent agenda that becomes visible only when his writings are read together. Once reconstructed, that agenda reveals something striking:

Schumpeter did not merely theorize the dynamics of capitalism. He also sketched—often implicitly—a theory of state entrepreneurship and, with it, a distinctive conception of socialism. Let’s unpack that.

From Individual Entrepreneur to Institutional Entrepreneurship

In The Theory of Economic Development, innovation appears to be driven by individual entrepreneurs financed by bank credit. The state plays almost no explicit role, which has led many readers to assume that Schumpeter’s framework is intrinsically market-centric and institutionally thin.

This reading, however, rests on a misunderstanding of what entrepreneurship means in Schumpeter’s theory. Entrepreneurship is not a psychological trait, nor a sociological type. It is a function: the introduction of new combinations that disrupt existing structures. Nothing in that definition requires the entrepreneurial function to be permanently lodged in individuals.

Once this functional definition is taken seriously, an important implication follows. As capitalism evolves, entrepreneurship does not disappear, but it migrates. Schumpeter himself insists that the locus of entrepreneurial activity shifts historically: first from individual proprietors to large corporations, then from owners to professional managers, and eventually from persons to complex organizations. What matters is not who innovates in a personal sense, but which institutional actors are capable of mobilizing resources, bearing uncertainty, and reorganizing production.

At this point, a further step becomes unavoidable. If entrepreneurship is a function rather than a personality, there is no analytical reason to exclude the state from performing it under certain institutional conditions. Schumpeter first gestures toward this possibility in The Crisis of the Tax State, where he draws a sharp distinction between entrepreneurial states and rentier states. Fiscal systems, he argues, are not neutral containers for redistribution. They actively shape industrial structures, condition development paths, and influence the tempo and direction of structural change.

In this perspective, the state is not merely an external constraint on markets. It is a structural agent. Through taxation, spending, and institutional design, public authority can accelerate innovation, sustain obsolete structures, or reorient accumulation altogether. The question, at this point still largely implicit and unanswered, is not whether the state intervenes, but how its institutional capacities might be organized and deployed once entrepreneurship is understood as a function rather than a personal attribute.

This shift already marks a departure from any view of capitalism driven solely by unfettered market dynamics. Once innovation and structural transformation are placed at the center of the analysis, coordination problems emerge that markets alone cannot resolve. It is here that the possibility of institutionalized entrepreneurship—performed not by individuals, but by organizations, including public ones—enters Schumpeter’s framework.

This insight sets the stage for the next move. If entrepreneurship can be institutionalized, and if the state can act as a structural agent, then the boundary between market coordination and public authority is no longer fixed. It becomes a historical and institutional question. That question comes fully into view when Schumpeter turns, first tentatively and then explicitly, to the role of credit, monetary authority, and state coordination in guiding innovation and managing structural transformation.

The Crucial Shift: From Unfettered Markets to Managed Transformation

In The Theory of Economic Development, innovation is driven by entrepreneurs financed by bank credit. The state plays almost no role. Yet Schumpeter’s position in that book is less Austrian-orthodox than it is often portrayed. In a striking and frequently overlooked passage, he explicitly entertains the possibility of a selective credit policy conducted by the central bank itself, differentiating between forms of credit that merely sustain existing structures and those that enable genuinely new combinations. This is a decisive move.

Schumpeter observes that, in principle, a central bank could distinguish between the “normal” phenomena of the business cycle and those that are functionally destructive, and therefore protect and sustain innovative activity through targeted credit allocation. Such a policy would constitute a form of economic planning—one that increases the influence of political and institutional factors on development—but he is clear that this does not render it incoherent or impossible.

This passage is remarkable for its prescience. Long before postwar debates on industrial policy, Schumpeter anticipates what would later become known as window guidance in Japan, the use of development banks and directed credit in East Asia, and, more recently, the strategic deployment of public banking and central-bank instruments in China. Credit here is not neutral liquidity supplied to markets; it is purposefully created and steers purchasing power, explicitly geared toward innovation and structural transformation.

What matters analytically is not whether Schumpeter framed this proposal as a normative program, but that he treated it as a feasible and coherent policy innovation. In The Theory of Economic Development, the idea of a selective credit policy conducted by the central bank is not dismissed as a chimera. On the contrary, he explicitly insists that such a policy is theoretically possible. It establishes that, once innovation, uncertainty, and systemic risk are taken seriously, there are dangers in leaving credit allocation to unfettered market dynamics.

Monetary authority may be required to differentiate between credit that merely sustains existing structures and credit that enables genuinely new combinations. In other words, the entrepreneurial function can migrate—not only from individuals to corporations, but from private finance to public monetary authority itself.

From Theoretical Insights to Concrete Historical Discussion

What is often missed is that Joseph Schumpeter later recognized the practical realization of this very possibility. What appears in The Theory of Economic Development as a feasible policy innovation reappears in Business Cycles as a historical reality. There, Schumpeter dispenses with any residual ambiguity regarding the historical role of the state in processes of industrial transformation. Surveying the experience of late-developing economies, he raises a question that cuts against market-centric narratives: who, in fact, initiated modern industry? His answer—especially, but not exclusively, in the German case—is unambiguous. It was often the state, rather than private entrepreneurs, that assumed the initiating role.

Railways, mining, heavy industry, large-scale finance, and core infrastructure repeatedly appear in Schumpeter’s historical account as sectors in which public authority acted as initiator, financier, and coordinator, reshaping the institutional environment in which private enterprise subsequently operated. The state did not merely regulate markets or correct failures ex post; it performed the entrepreneurial function itself, mobilizing resources, directing investment, and accelerating structural change when private actors were unwilling or unable to do so.

This argument reaches its most provocative and most explicit form in Schumpeter’s discussion of Germany in the 1930s. His appraisal of the recovery repeatedly emphasizes the agility of a state that mobilized liquidity, coordinated investment, and restored employment amid private-sector paralysis1. The continuity with his earlier insight, first articulated in 1911, is unmistakable: the selective, purposive use of credit to reactivate innovation and restructure the economy is no longer a hypothetical policy innovation. It is an accomplished fact.

Carefully separating economic analysis from political judgment, Schumpeter emphasizes the German state's entrepreneurial agility during the recovery from the Great Depression. What impressed him was not ideology or regime form, but state capacity: the speed with which idle resources were activated, liquidity was mobilized, investment was coordinated, and employment was restored after the paralysis of the early 1930s. The figure who embodied that role in practice was Hjalmar Schacht.

Serving simultaneously as President of the Reichsbank (1933–1939) and Minister of Economics (1934–1937), Schacht functioned as the chief architect of Germany’s economic recovery from the Great Depression. His actions extended well beyond narrowly conceived monetary stabilization. Through credit creation, innovative financial instruments, and the strategic use of public banking, he coordinated investment across industry, infrastructure, and employment programs, reactivating idle capacity and restoring growth at remarkable speed.

For Schumpeter, the analytical significance of this episode lay not in personal leadership but in functional substitution. When private capitalism proved structurally incapable of initiating recovery, the entrepreneurial function migrated to public authority. Finance became an instrument of systemic reorganization rather than a passive intermediary. Liquidity was created, directed, and absorbed in ways that bypassed private paralysis and re-established the conditions for accumulation.

This reading does not imply political endorsement. Schumpeter is explicit that his analysis is economic, not normative. Schacht himself opposed elements of Nazi rearmament insofar as they violated international constraints and, in his judgment, destabilized the economy and undermined long-term growth. This tension only reinforces Schumpeter’s core insight: state entrepreneurship is not a function of ideology or regime type, but of institutional capacity to mobilize liquidity, coordinate investment, and reorganize production under uncertainty.

Seen through this lens, Business Cycles provides the clearest bridge between Schumpeter’s early theory of innovation and the emergence of the Entrepreneurial State as a central actor in processes of structural transformation. The lesson is not that markets should be suppressed, but that capitalist dynamics can be reorganized through institutional coordination when private actors are unable, or unwilling, to lead transformation. What matters, above all, is state capacity: the ability to mobilize liquidity, coordinate investment, and sequence restructuring at the level of the system as a whole.

In this sense, the German case illustrates a proposition that becomes explicit only later in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy: capitalism’s dynamics can be reorganized without being extinguished. Competition, innovation, and large organizations remain central—but the entrepreneurial function itself can be institutionalized and socialized. The state, under specific historical conditions, can act not as a regulator standing outside the system, but as an entrepreneur at the level of the system as a whole.

The Linchpin: Cleansing Without Financial Turmoil and Managed Creative Destruction

At the center of Schumpeter’s mature vision lies a subtle but decisive distinction—one that is often lost in popular invocations of “creative destruction.” What development requires is not destruction per se, but the removal of failure and obsolescence. Destruction occurs. Bankruptcies happen. Firms fail. But uncontrolled destruction is neither necessary nor efficient.

When liquidation propagates blindly, the result is not renewal, but functionless loss: destroyed productive capabilities, wasted knowledge, broken supply chains, political destabilization, and social backlash. Schumpeter is explicit on this point. In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, he argues that socialism could outperform capitalism precisely because it can discard obsolete structures, reallocate resources, and reorganize production without the paralysis and collateral damage associated with laissez-faire liquidation.

This is the true meaning of managed creative destruction. The Schumpeterian Entrepreneurial State separates necessary economic cleansing from unnecessary destruction. That separation is its efficiency advantage. By sequencing restructuring rather than allowing it to cascade through crisis dynamics, the economy can shed obsolete forms while preserving productive capacities, organizational knowledge, and social stability.

This logic also clarifies Schumpeter’s evolving conception of competition. In The Theory of Economic Development, competition is certainly present, and “free competition” is frequently invoked. Yet it enters the analysis largely as an assumed background condition rather than as an object of sustained theoretical inquiry. Competitive forces are expected to operate as a mechanism of restoration, reabsorbing the disruptive effects of innovation and guiding the system back toward equilibrium once new combinations have been introduced. Competition thus functions less as an explicit analytical problem than as a deus ex machina

that silently guarantees order once innovation has occurred.

As Schumpeter turns from the largely ahistorical framework of The Theory of Economic Development to the explicitly historical and empirical analysis of Business Cycles, this implicit assumption begins to break down. In Business Cycles, competition re-enters the scene not as an abstract market mechanism, but as a systemic process embedded in finance, institutions, and large-scale organization.

Only in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy does “creative destruction” fully enter Schumpeter’s lexicon, alongside a transformed understanding of competition itself. There, Schumpeter explicitly rejects the textbook fiction of perfect competition. He argued instead that modern capitalism operates through competition through innovation, not price competition among atomistic firms. As capitalism matures, rivalry shifts toward large organizations with access to finance, technology, and organizational capacity, operating within structured—and often oligopolistic —market structures.

From this perspective, the issue is not whether competition should exist, but how it should be institutionally organized. As contemporary experience makes clear, under financialized capitalism, unfettered market dynamics tend to turn competition into speculative races, asset inflation, and recurrent financial instability. Properly organized, however, competition can be redirected toward innovation, productivity growth, and structural upgrading.

This is precisely where the Schumpeterian Entrepreneurial State fully comes into view—and where it becomes the linchpin of Schumpeter’s conception of socialism. It does not abolish competition; it reprograms it. Competitive pressures are redirected away from speculative finance and toward productive investment. Innovation races replace asset bubbles as the dominant arena of rivalry. Entry, exit, and restructuring continue—but they are sequenced and timed, rather than unleashed through destabilizing crises.

This is not planning versus markets. It is institutionalized rivalry under public coordination. Historical experience provides concrete illustrations of this logic. The postwar Asian developmental states—and, more recently, China—demonstrate how competition can be preserved and intensified while being institutionally programmed through credit direction, industrial coordination, and active state sequencing of restructuring. Competition remains the engine of transformation, but its destructive excesses are contained. Innovation continues to drive selection, but without the socially wasteful collapse of productive structures. In this sense, managed transformation does not negate capitalism’s dynamic forces; it reorganizes them.

In this sense, Schumpeter’s socialism is neither the abolition of corporations nor the suppression of competition. It is an institutional pattern in which the organization of investment and structural change moves into the public sphere. Corporations continue to operate, innovation continues to occur, and rivalry persists. What changes is who organizes the process. The Entrepreneurial State is the institutional core of this reorganization.

Share

Conclusion

Once capitalism becomes financialized, unfettered market dynamics become a largely destructive force—hollowing out production and naturalizing financial instability. Left to their own devices, financialized markets tend to channel liquidity toward rent extraction, speculative cycles, and asset inflation rather than innovation and productive transformation. States that retreat from entrepreneurial coordination, and from the public interest, do not get “free markets.” They enable rentier capitalism, hollowed-out production, and political backlash.

Schumpeter never treated this outcome as inevitable. His mature work points toward an alternative trajectory, one in which creative destruction can be managed rather than unleashed, competition can be reprogrammed rather than suppressed, and innovation can be institutionally organized rather than left to crisis dynamics. This logic culminates in his conception of socialism—not as an external negation of capitalism, but as an organizational transformation that unfolds from the workings of an Entrepreneurial State anchored in public authority and a Weberian bureaucracy understood as administrative capacity, rather than as the private capture of the commanding heights.

In this sense, the Schumpeterian Entrepreneurial State is not an institution exclusive to socialism2[. It is the negation of rentier capitalism.

References

Henderson, H. (1943). ‘Note on the problem of maintaining full employment’. Reprinted in Henderson, H. (1955) The Inter-War Years and Other Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Keynes, J.M. (1936): Preface to the German edition of The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Schacht, H. (1953). Account Settled: The First Seventy-Five Years of My Life. London: Oldbourne.

Schacht, H. (1967). The Magic of Money. London: Oldbourne.

Schefold, B.1980. “The General Theory for a totalitarian state? a note on Keynes’s preface to the German edition of 1936.” (in Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1980.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1911). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Harvard University Press, 1934.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1918). ‘The Crisis of the Tax State.’ In: Swedberg, R. (ed.) Joseph A. Schumpeter: The Economics and Sociology of Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991, pp. 99–140.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1928) ‘The instability of capitalism’, The Economic Journal, 38(151), pp. 361–386.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1939). Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process. 2 vols. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1941/1991) ‘An economic interpretation of our time’, in Swedberg, R. (ed.) Joseph A. Schumpeter: The Economics and Sociology of Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 395–400.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1954). History of Economic Analysis. Edited by E.B. Schumpeter. London: Allen & Unwin.

Weber, M. (1905). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Routledge.

Weber, M. (1922). Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Preface:

This essay is not an exercise in intellectual synthesis or erudite exhibition. The movement across economics, sociology, psychology, and cultural theory is forced by the problem itself, not by a desire to showcase interdisciplinarity. The object under examination—capitalism understood as an evolutionary system of innovation, liquidity creation, and structural transformation—cannot be adequately grasped within the confines of any single disciplinary lens.

This essay begins with Joseph Schumpeter’s analysis of capitalism as an evolutionary system driven by innovation and structural transformation. Its purpose is not to revise that analysis, which was the subject of a previous post1 . This one seeks to render a fully intelligible explanation of Schumpeter’s thesis that capitalism becomes a victim of its own success. That explanation is extended here by engaging Weber on rationalization, Freud on repression and discipline, and Nietzsche on the cultural exhaustion of meaning under prolonged success—not as alternative frameworks, but as complementary mechanisms required to ground Schumpeter’s diagnosis at the institutional, psychic, and cultural levels.

Once capitalism is understood as a dynamic process, economic change can no longer be treated as a purely technical or isolated phenomenon. Innovation reshapes institutions, time horizons, expectations, forms of authority, and the cultural resources through which social order is justified and contested. The political economy of liquidity and innovation thus emerges not as a specialized subfield, but as a point of entry into a broader analysis of modern society.

The essay, therefore, dispenses with disciplinary silos not out of eclecticism, but because the dynamics under scrutiny traverse economic, institutional, behavioral, and cultural domains simultaneously.

What follows should be read neither as a theory of inexorable decay nor as a teleological account of capitalism’s fate. It is an attempt to clarify the internal logic through which capitalism’s achievements transform the social, psychic, and cultural foundations on which they depend—and to explain why any serious discussion of political alternatives must begin from that clarification rather than presume it.

In short, Creative Destruction meets Financial Instability analyzes how economic success generates political conflict and financial instability; Crumbling Walls examines its cultural and institutional counterparts.

***

They warned us. We rationalized anyway.

Introduction

In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Joseph Schumpeter advanced a counterintuitive, and still insufficiently absorbed, thesis in political economy: capitalism is unlikely to collapse because it fails, but because it succeeds. Its defining achievements generate tensions that accumulate within the system itself. The walls crumble from within.

Schumpeter’s argument was not confined to economics. He did not predict falling profits, exhaustion of innovation, or systemic breakdown driven by scarcity. On the contrary, he insisted that capitalism would remain materially productive even as it became politically and culturally vulnerable. What capitalism undermines, through its very achievements, are the dispositions, values, and forms of legitimacy required for its own reproduction.

This essay takes Schumpeter’s diagnosis as its point of departure and extends it along two dimensions that Schumpeter himself only sketched: the psychic foundations of discipline, developed by Sigmund Freud, and the cultural exhaustion produced by prolonged success, diagnosed by Friedrich Nietzsche. The aim is not to fuse these thinkers into a grand synthesis, but to show how Freud and Nietzsche supply complementary mechanisms that render Schumpeter’s “crumbling walls” thesis fully intelligible—and fit for our time2

Schumpeter: Crumbling Walls — Capitalism Undermined by Its Own Success

Schumpeter’s core claim is that capitalist evolution transforms the very conditions of its own reproduction. Early capitalism relied on a distinctive social carrier: the bourgeois entrepreneur, disciplined by necessity, oriented toward long-term commitment, and embedded in a cultural ethos that valued effort, discipline, and risk-taking. Capitalist development gradually dissolves this foundation.

What Schumpeter describes is not merely an economic process, but a civilizational one. Capitalism evolves by routinizing innovation, bureaucratizing entrepreneurship, and subordinating creative disruption to calculability and administrative control. In doing so, it transforms innovation itself from an exceptional, conflictual force into a rationalized, procedural activity. This process closely parallels what Max Weber analyzed as “the iron cage of modernity”: the expansion of formal rationality, rule-bound organization, and instrumental calculation across economic, political, and social domains.

Seen through this lens, Schumpeter’s “crumbling walls” are best understood as the historical outcome of a Weberian dynamic internal to capitalist success. The mechanisms that make capitalism efficient also enclose it within an iron cage of routinized action, preserving entrepreneurial initiative functionally while hollowing it out culturally and eroding the ethical foundations of discipline. Capitalism becomes increasingly rational and materially productive, yet increasingly unable to reproduce the social and cultural energies that once animated it.

Schumpeter thus radicalizes Weber’s diagnosis. Rationalization does not merely trap individuals in an iron cage; it undermines the social carriers of capitalist dynamism itself. Capitalism continues to function economically; it becomes even more efficient, but it loses its capacity to generate legitimacy, commitment, and tolerance for the outcomes of creative destruction. The walls do not fall because rationalization fails, but because it succeeds too thoroughly.

Schumpeter was fully aware that this erosion of legitimacy did not operate in a social vacuum. In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, he devotes a central section to what he called the destruction of the protecting strata: the gradual dismantling of the institutional, social, and political buffers that once sheltered capitalism from direct popular contestation. Capitalist evolution did not simply eliminate pre-capitalist or semi-capitalist groups. In many cases, their economic position was preserved, transformed, or even consolidated. What was eroded was something more subtle and more consequential: their political and cultural function as mediators, shock absorbers, and defenders of the social order.

The manor, the guild, and the landed aristocracy transformed into agrarian capitalist landlords; the clergy, small farmers, artisans, and local notables did not disappear overnight, nor were they uniformly dispossessed. Rather, as production was rationalized, authority centralized, and economic life reorganized around calculability and scale, these groups were progressively displaced from their role as custodians of hierarchy, ritual, and legitimacy. They ceased to translate inequality into status, conflict into deference, and economic disruption into politically manageable forms. Their privileges could persist, but their capacity to anchor loyalty, provide meaning, and defend the status quo eroded steadily.

This was the deeper paradox Schumpeter identified. The same rationalization that emancipated capitalism from feudal constraint also dissolved the institutional layers that had rendered capitalist development socially tolerable. Once the protecting strata were neutralized—not abolished, but sidelined—creative destruction lost its political insulation. Economic success increasingly confronted society without mediating buffers, exposing capitalism directly to mass critique, electoral volatility, and organized opposition. Capitalism thus emerged stronger in its productive capacities and weaker in its ability to secure consent.

From this perspective, the political vulnerability of advanced capitalism is not the result of elite collapse or popular irrationality. It is the endogenous outcome of a process in which economic rationalization preserves privilege while stripping it of legitimating function. The walls begin to crumble not because capitalism destroys its former allies, but because it renders them politically redundant.

As incomes rise and insecurity declines, innovation becomes routinized and bureaucratized. Large organizations increasingly replace individual entrepreneurs. Risk is progressively socialized, while responsibility becomes diffuse. Entrepreneurial initiative survives functionally but loses its exceptional status. The cultural prestige once attached to entrepreneurial disruption declines, even as society remains structurally dependent on its outcomes3. Capitalism becomes administratively efficient and socially normalized but culturally hollowed out.

The very process of economic rationalization transforms the conditions of social, intellectual, and cultural life. The expansion of formal organization, scientific inquiry, and rule-bound reasoning does not produce social conformity; it produces systematic critique. The Enlightenment impulse toward rational explanation, once radicalized and institutionalized, generates an expanding stratum of intellectuals, professionals, and cultural intermediaries whose social function is precisely to question, demystify, and problematize existing arrangements. Capitalism thus breeds not merely economic rationalization, but an organized culture of criticism.

Here again, Schumpeter’s diagnosis converges with that of Max Weber. In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber showed how capitalism originally relied on specific ethical and cultural carriers—discipline, deferred gratification, and the moral legitimation of inequality—rooted in religiously grounded forms of inner-worldly asceticism. In Economy and Society, he generalized this insight into a broader theory of rationalization: the expansion of formal rationality, bureaucratic organization, and impersonal rule across economic and social life.

From this perspective, rationalization dissolves substantive meaning even as it enhances formal efficiency. The same scientific-rational mode of inquiry that makes capitalist organization productive also strips it of unquestioned authority and ethical grounding. Capitalism succeeds in organizing production but increasingly fails to reproduce the cultural legitimacy required to defend creative destruction—and the inequalities it generates—against sustained critique.

It is at this juncture that Freud and Nietzsche become especially illuminating. Freud shows how rationalized authority migrates inward, transforming discipline into guilt and anxiety. Nietzsche illuminates how the same erosion of unquestioned meaning reappears culturally as resentment, moralization, and hostility toward excellence.

What Schumpeter does not fully explain is why prosperity systematically undermines discipline, tolerance for disruption, and acceptance of hierarchy. That explanation requires moving beneath institutions and into the psychic and cultural terrain. This is where Freud and Nietzsche enter — not as alternatives to Schumpeter, but as extensions of his argument.

Freud: Civilization, Repression, and the Psychic Costs of Success

In works ranging from Civilization and Its Discontents to earlier and subsequent anthropological and religious studies such as Totem and Taboo and Moses and Monotheism, Sigmund Freud develops a structural account of civilization grounded in repression, internalized authority, and guilt. Human beings seek pleasure, the reduction of tension, and the expression of instinctual drives. Civilization, however, requires the opposite: restraint, delayed gratification, discipline, and the internalization of norms that constrain instinctual expression in the name of social stability and cooperation.

For Freud, civilization is therefore not an achievement that can be optimized, but a condition that must be continually enforced at psychic cost. Its core mechanisms — law, morality, social norms, and institutional authority — operate through repression and sublimation. Aggression cannot be eliminated; it is redirected inward and disciplined through the formation of the superego. Order is maintained by producing subjects who punish themselves internally through guilt, anxiety, and self-surveillance.

Freud insists that this is not a trade-off between happiness and security that can be fine-tuned through policy or moral reform. It is a constitutive paradox. Reducing repression weakens civilization’s capacity to contain violence and disorder. Intensifying repression preserves order but deepens unhappiness and discontent. Civilization has no stable equilibrium point. Its stability depends on mechanisms that simultaneously undermine subjective well-being and erode the legitimacy of the very institutions that sustain it. Civilization, in Freud’s account, is a historical byproduct of repression.

As civilization advances, this paradox intensifies. Economic development, technological progress, and institutional complexity expand the range of available pleasures and expectations, while simultaneously increasing the demands placed on psychic self-regulation. Desire proliferates faster than the mechanisms designed to contain it. The superego must become increasingly demanding, and guilt increasingly pervasive, to sustain social cooperation.

It is precisely this passage—from internalized guilt to its cultural externalization—that Friedrich Nietzsche helps illuminate. Where Sigmund Freud diagnoses the psychic costs of repression, Nietzsche diagnoses the cultural consequences of a civilization that has lost affirmative sources of meaning. The disciplined but frustrated subject does not become only a moral critic of inequality; he also confronts a vacuum of value in which discipline, hierarchy, excellence, and creativity can no longer be grounded in shared meanings.

Nietzsche: Nihilism and the Cultural Limits of Rationalized Civilization

If Schumpeter diagnoses the institutional contradictions of capitalism, and Freud uncovers its psychic tensions, Friedrich Nietzsche addresses its cultural consequences. Across works such as The Gay Science, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and On the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche develops a diagnosis of modern civilization centered not on crisis or collapse, but on nihilism: the erosion of shared values that give meaning to discipline, hierarchy, suffering, and creation itself.

Nietzsche’s famous pronouncement of the “death of God” is not a theological claim, but a cultural one. It names the collapse of transcendent sources of purpose that once justified restraint, inequality, and sacrifice. Rationalization dissolves inherited meanings faster than new affirmative values can emerge. What remains is not chaos but a civilization that continues to function procedurally, lacking shared criteria for worth, purpose, or affirmation. Discipline persists, but belief erodes.

Modern civilization, by institutionalizing violence and normalizing uncertainty, disorganizes the active, expansive drives that once fueled creation and replaces them with reactive orientations—resentment, moralization, proceduralism, and critique. What emerges is not barbarism, but what Nietzsche famously called the “last man”: comfortable, risk-averse, and averse to distinction. Cultural life becomes organized around minimizing discomfort rather than pursuing creation.

***

This diagnosis completes Schumpeter’s argument. A culture oriented toward procedural normality increasingly struggles to accept the gales of creative destruction, even as it remains dependent on them. Capitalism is undermined not only institutionally and psychologically, but culturally. Innovation becomes simultaneously necessary and contested: required for growth, yet stripped of meaning, legitimacy, and affirmation.

Nietzsche also sharpens Freud’s insight. Prolonged repression and pacification do not merely contain instinct; they transform it. The inward turn of aggression analyzed by Freud reappears culturally as nihilism and, at times, as reactive moralization. What remains is not unregulated desire, but a depleted will—inclined toward immediate comfort and moral reassurance rather than sustained creation and self-overcoming.

From this perspective, the multiplication of pleasure under modern capitalism is not an economic or psychological phenomenon but a cultural one as well4 . Capitalism becomes the first social order to institutionalize pleasure as a systemic imperative while simultaneously requiring discipline, risk-taking, and deferred gratification to sustain production. Nietzsche exposes the deepest contradiction of this arrangement: pleasure alone cannot supply purpose, and rationalized order alone cannot generate meaning.

Synthesis: Material Prosperity, Rationalization, the Multiplication of Pleasure, and Repression

What ultimately unifies Schumpeter’s economic and institutional diagnosis, Freud’s psychic analysis, and Nietzsche’s cultural critique is a single, internally contradictory mechanism: the structural expansion of material prosperity, pleasure, comfort, and security, and the corresponding intensification of repression, discipline, and self-regulation required to contain their destabilizing effects. Capitalist modernity advances by rationalizing economic and social life, multiplying stimuli, desires, and expectations, while simultaneously tightening the psychic constraints necessary to sustain production, cooperation, and social order.

From this perspective, prosperity does not relax repression; it provokes it. As Freud shows, the proliferation of pleasure and excitation demands ever stronger mechanisms of internal control, which increasingly take the form of guilt, anxiety, and self-surveillance. Schumpeter shows that this same process undermines the institutional carriers of capitalist dynamism, while Nietzsche shows that once shared criteria of valuation erode, neither repression nor pleasure can supply meaning. What Weber described as the iron cage of rationalization thus acquires its full significance: a social order that functions procedurally and efficiently, while progressively disorganizing the ethical, psychic, and cultural foundations on which its own dynamism depends.

Later analyses, most notably those of Michel Foucault, would trace how these pressures are no longer imposed primarily through external authority, but are internalized through diffuse regimes of discipline, normalization, and self-management—extending Freud’s insights into a fully institutionalized logic of governance.

From this perspective, the three diagnoses converge with striking precision. Schumpeter shows that capitalism produces the material conditions for pleasure more quickly than it can sustain discipline and the entrepreneurial ethos. Freud argues that civilization produces desire more rapidly than it can regulate it through repression and sublimation. Nietzsche shows that prolonged comfort, once detached from affirmative meaning, erodes values and disorganizes instincts themselves. What Weber described as the iron cage of rationalization thus acquires a deeper significance.

The result is a shared structural paradox. Hedonism, understood not as excess but as a social orientation toward immediate gratification and comfort, disorganizes the psychic, cultural, and institutional foundations of productive activity. Discipline, deferred gratification, and tolerance for risk do not disappear; they persist in fragmented, routinized, and increasingly fragile forms. Yet capitalism relies structurally on this very orientation toward pleasure to sustain accumulation, consumption, and social consent.

This is not a contingent contradiction that can be resolved through moral exhortation or technocratic adjustment. It is a self-reinforcing loop. Capitalism must continually expand pleasure in order to reproduce itself, even as this expansion corrodes the subjective, cultural, and social capacities on which it depends. A process that Richard Sennett has described as the erosion of character under contemporary capitalism. The walls crumble not because rationalization fails, but because it succeeds—too thoroughly.

Coda: Why the Walls Crumble — and What Follows from Understanding It

This is the deeper meaning of Joseph Schumpeter’s often-cited claim that capitalism becomes a victim of its own success, a phrase frequently repeated but rarely dissected. Success, in Schumpeter’s sense, does not mean growth nor full employment alone. More precisely, it stems from the rationalization of economic and social life, the cumulative transformation of culture and values, and the rising expectations that this success produces. Capitalism increasingly struggles not to function, but to reconcile continuous structural transformation with social stability, and to reproduce the social, psychic, and cultural conditions of its own continuity.

Freud and Nietzsche help us see why this erosion is not accidental and why it is difficult to reverse. Psychic repression intensifies rather than resolves tension; cultural meaning is depleted rather than renewed. The result is a civilization that continues to generate novelty, inequality, and disruption, but increasingly lacks the resources to justify, integrate, or legitimate them. Economic stability increasingly feeds cultural dissatisfaction, producing a proliferation of critique without resolution rather than episodic crisis. This paradox was further explored by Tibor Scitovsky, building on a broadly Schumpeterian diagnosis of affluence, who showed that affluent economies generate comfort more efficiently than satisfaction.

Clarifying why the walls crumble is therefore not merely an intellectual exercise. It is a precondition for understanding what Emmanuel Todd has labelled The Defeat of the West, and for conjecturing about what lies ahead. In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Schumpeter posed the question of whether socialism might emerge not as capitalism’s negation, but as a reconfiguration of its institutional, financial, and cultural architecture.

Read together, Schumpeter, Weber, Freud, and Nietzsche are not prophets of collapse. They are analysts of internal corrosion: of systems that succeed in their own terms while eroding the institutional, cultural, and psychic foundations that once sustained them. That, more than any external shock, describes the condition of the contemporary West.

From this perspective, socialism appears not as a utopian leap, nor as a historical inevitability, but as a response to a clarified problem: how creative destruction might be governed and legitimized once capitalism’s own cultural carriers have been exhausted—specifically, how material prosperity can be translated into common prosperity in ways that restore political legitimacy and reconstitute the cultural conditions of shared valuation and purpose.

That question does not precede the crumbling of the walls; it succeeds it. To pose it meaningfully, however, we must first understand why those walls crumble at all. It is at this point—and only at this point—that the discussion of Socialism with Schumpeterian Characteristics becomes fully grounded.

References

Bell, D. (1976). The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. New York: Basic Books.

Foucault, M. (1977.) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by A. Sheridan. New York: Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. (1991). ‘Governmentality’, in Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (eds.) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 87–104.

Freud, S. (1913). Totem and Taboo. London: Routledge.

Freud, S. (1930). Civilization and Its Discontents. London: Hogarth Press.

Freud, S. (1939). Moses and Monotheism. London: Hogarth Press.

Nietzsche, F. (1882). The Gay Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nietzsche, F. (1883–1885). Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nietzsche, F. (1887). On the Genealogy of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1928) ‘The instability of capitalism’, The Economic Journal, 38(151), pp. 361–386.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1991) ‘An economic interpretation of our time’, in Swedberg, R. (ed.) Joseph A. Schumpeter: The Economics and Sociology of Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 395–400.

Scitovsky, T. (1976). The Joyless Economy: An Inquiry into Human Satisfaction and Consumer Dissatisfaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sennett, R. (1998). The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism. New York: W.W. Norton.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Todd, E. (2024). The Defeat of the West. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Weber, M. (1905). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Routledge.

Weber, M. (1922). Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

New here? Start with this short guide, which lays out the analytical framework underlying the arguments developed across this Substack.

This guide distills the analytical framework developed in my previous post Creative Destruction Meets Financial Instability. It is not a summary of that essay, nor a substitute for it. Its purpose is to orient readers to the core logic of the Political Economy of Liquidity and Innovation: a framework that treats innovation, finance, liquidity, instability, and state capacity as interconnected dimensions of a single evolutionary process.

The starting point is simple but disruptive for the vast majority of academic economists (shocking, perhaps). Modern economies are not best understood as systems tending toward equilibrium, occasionally disturbed by shocks. They are monetary-production economies driven by innovation, financed by credit, operating under fundamental uncertainty, and destabilized by their own successes. Growth, fragility, and crisis are not separable phenomena; they are different expressions of the same underlying dynamics.

Why standard frameworks fail

Most economic and political frameworks fail because they separate what should be analyzed together.

Orthodox economics treats liquidity as neutral, innovation as exogenous, and finance as a veil. Liberal political economy proceduralizes democracy while insulating accumulation and finance from public authority. Much heterodox analysis, while critical of markets, still has not fully detached itself from equilibrium as an organizing reference — even when that equilibrium is explicitly rejected in general-equilibrium form — and tends to fragment into schools and traditions (Neo-Keynesians, Post-Keynesians, Neo-Ricardians, Neo-Schumpeterians) that rarely speak to one another.

These approaches struggle to explain why some systems innovate successfully. The difficulty becomes acute when innovation is accompanied by chronic financial fragility, and decisive when systems generate repeated speculative booms disconnected from production, or when financial liberalization persistently produces fragility rather than development[1].

The Political Economy of Liquidity and Innovation begins from a different premise: Liquidity precedes allocation, investment precedes saving, and innovation is the main fuel of competition. Development is shaped not by abstract market efficiency, but by how liquidity is created, directed, and governed in relation to innovation.

1. Innovation and competition as the engine of systemic transformation

Following Schumpeter, innovation is not marginal improvement but the outcome of competitive struggle. It introduces new products, processes, organizational forms, and markets that challenge incumbents and reconfigure existing structures. Creative destruction is not the engine itself but the result of competition over rents, markets, and technological trajectories. It is conflictual by nature: it creates new rents while destroying old ones, displacing firms, reorganizing hierarchies, and reshaping sectors and regions.

Innovation in this process is credit-financed. Credit is not the mobilization of prior savings, but the creation of new purchasing power that enables challengers to bid resources away from established uses. Control over credit allocation, therefore, becomes decisive: it determines which competitive strategies are financed, which innovations are scaled, and ultimately how the structure of the economy evolves.

For this reason, innovation is never merely technological. It is political: It reallocates power, income streams, and control over future production. In short, innovation creates winners and losers.

2- The secondary wave: innovation breeds financial fragility

Schumpeter’s most neglected contribution is the secondary wave.

Innovation-led expansion does not stop at productive investment. As innovations diffuse, credit creation spreads beyond new production into asset markets, real estate, financial speculation, and balance-sheet expansion along existing lines. Rising activity validates optimistic expectations, which justify further credit creation. Expansion becomes self-referential.

This is not a moral story about “bad finance.” It is a structural mechanism. Credit-financed innovation sets off cumulative processes in which expectations, asset prices, and leverage reinforce one another. Financial fragility accumulates endogenously.

This insight dissolves the crude distinction between “good” bubbles associated with innovation and “bad” bubbles driven by speculation. Innovation-driven expansion itself generates macro-financial dynamics that can mutate into instability.

3- Uncertainty, liquidity preference, and endogenous instability

Keynes provides the missing analytical bridge. Capitalism is a monetary-production economy operating under fundamental uncertainty. The future cannot be known probabilistically. Expectations are conventions that contingently stabilize action in the face of ignorance.

Liquidity, under these conditions, is not a friction. It is a strategic asset. Liquidity preference reflects the desire to retain flexibility in an uncertain world. Investment, by contrast, is a commitment of resources that becomes illiquid over time.

As long as expansion persists, liquidity appears abundant. Risk premia compress. Balance sheets stretch. But the same uncertainty that enables innovation also makes finance structurally prone to fragilization.

Minsky completes this logic by showing how periods of stability reorganize financial structures themselves. Hedge finance gives way to speculative and Ponzi finance. Stability breeds fragility. Crises are endogenous outcomes, not external shocks.

What Minsky did not fully integrate — and what Schumpeter had already intuited — is that fragility can originate in innovation-driven expansion itself, once innovation diffusion is mediated through credit, expectations, and balance sheets.

4- The state, democracy, and managed creative destruction

Once innovation and instability are understood as endogenous, conflict-ridden governance and politics become unavoidable.

Stability is not a natural property of innovation-driven economies. It is an institutional architecture. Public authorities, financial regulation, and institutional constraints are not obstacles to development; they are conditions for its sustainability.

Here, the framework becomes explicitly political. The state is not external to creative destruction; it is internal to it. It can create liquidity, shape expectations, direct credit, finance innovation, and contain instability. And the state is never neutral: it is constituted by interest groups and bureaucratic factions that struggle over power and direction.

Keynes’s socialization of investment and Minsky’s Big Government and Big Bank are not discretionary policy preferences. They are structural and political responses to economies driven by innovation under uncertainty.

Schumpeter’s move in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy reinforces this point. Innovation becomes routinized within large organizations and public institutions. The entrepreneurial function can be institutionalized. Creative destruction can be managed.

From this perspective, procedural–electoral democracy appears less as a guarantor of collective outcomes than as a competitive arena for political entrepreneurs seeking votes under radically constrained horizons. What moves to the foreground instead is economic–transformative democracy: the capacity to shape investment, innovation, and the direction of creative destruction itself in the public interest—a theme developed more fully elsewhere in this series.

What this framework lets us see

This framework shifts analysis away from static dichotomies such as market versus state or planning versus competition. Contemporary systems, including hybrid architectures such as China’s, are best understood as experiments in governing creative destruction under conditions of uncertainty and global instability.

They are attempts to manage:

• the allocation of liquidity,

• the direction of innovation,

• and the destabilizing power of finance.

For this reason, the framework generalizes beyond capitalism itself. Its core object is monetary production economies, capitalist or not. Innovation is future-oriented. Production is time-consuming. Finance bridges time. Liquidity is that bridge.

Because liquidity and innovation are jointly constitutive of development, the political economy of liquidity is inseparable from the political economy of innovation.

[1] Post-Keynesian economics constitutes the clear exception in heterodox debates on financial fragility, particularly through the Minskyan tradition of financial Keynesianism. Outside this lineage, most heterodox approaches treat finance as secondary, episodic, or derivative, rather than as a central source of endogenous instability.

Preface

Today, I publish a foundational contribution to this Substack’s intellectual trajectory: Creative Destruction Meets Financial Instability. This long-form essay lays out the core architecture of the Political Economy of Liquidity and Innovation — an integrated framework that situates liquidity as a political-institutional construct, redefines financial instability through innovation dynamics, and reorients macro-financial analysis away from equilibrium constraints toward endogenously unstable processes, for which regulation is not corrective but constitutive.

This piece is designed for readers who seek a rigorous grounding in the theoretical scaffolding that underpins our discussions of capitalism, socialism, and democracy, with finance, innovation, competition, and institutional change treated as their common analytical core. Its structure backs the previous posts, and anticipates subsequent analyses, critiques, and empirical applications that will populate this space in the coming months.

To aid navigation, the argument is organized into sections with interpretive signposts and conceptual summaries. I encourage readers to engage with this work as the reference point for what follows.

A concise guide will follow shortly to help orient readers who want the essentials in a streamlined format.

Introduction

This post begins where the previous one ended: with a promise to step back from China, geopolitics, and political debate, and expose the theoretical scaffolding underneath them. The last two contributions were not political analyses alone but framework-oriented essays. Exercises in organizing the political debate along logical, intelligible lines within my broader analytical architecture.

The wager was simple. If China’s managed creative destruction is not an anomaly but a frontier institutional form, then we need a framework that treats innovation, competition, credit, liquidity, financial fragility, and state capacity as parts of a single conceptual arch. Crucially, China does not merely challenge orthodox development narratives; it unsettles the very categories through which we have framed politics and society. It disrupts conventional binaries of Left and Right, unsettles presumed relationships between Democracy, Liberalism, Nationalism, and Socialism, and exposes the inadequacy of disciplinary silos that separate political analysis from macro-financial dynamics.

In short, China is a giant laboratory for the social sciences. A living counterfactual that forces us to rethink foundational concepts rather than bend them to fit pre-existing models. The next move, therefore, cannot be another case. It must be architecture.

My departure point here is the persistent misconception in political economy that innovation and finance, not to mention financial instability, belong to different analytical worlds. Innovation is treated as real, productive, technological, while instability appears as monetary, speculative, pathological. Joseph Schumpeter is usually placed firmly on the first side of this divide, Hyman Minsky on the second, with John Maynard Keynes hovering ambiguously between them, closer to investment and effective demand than to innovation and structural transformation.

This separation is mistaken.

Once Schumpeter’s work is reconstructed properly, across The Theory of Economic Development, Business Cycles, and Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, a different architecture comes into view. Innovation, credit creation, expectations, and financial fragility are not separate mechanisms. They are components of a single evolutionary process. Financial fragility and financial instability are not external disturbances to creative destruction; they are among its endogenous outcomes.

This post lays out the theoretical scaffolding behind that claim. It is not a survey. It is not a history of ideas for its own sake. It is a reconstruction aimed at one goal: showing why creative destruction must be understood as a macro-financial, political, and institutional process, and why Schumpeter, Keynes, and Minsky belong in the same analytical frame. Once this is done, the seeds of a Political Economy of Liquidity and Innovation will emerge.

The argument unfolds in four movements: first, a reconstruction of Schumpeter’s theory of development and its unresolved tensions; second, the recovery of his secondary wave as a macro-financial hinge; third, the integration of Keynesian uncertainty and Minskyan fragility; and finally, the synthesis into a Political Economy of Liquidity and Innovation.

Schumpeter Before Creative Destruction: Theoretical Innovations Trapped in Equilibrium

In The Theory of Economic Development, Schumpeter introduced a set of concepts that remain radically subversive to this day.

Development, for Schumpeter, is endogenous. It does not arise from population growth, capital deepening, or exogenous shocks. It arises from innovation: new combinations of products, processes, markets, organizations, and sources of supply. These innovations disrupt what he called the circular flow of routine economic life.

The first critical move comes here: Schumpeter’s development is not a smooth adjustment. It is discontinuous. It does not merely reallocate resources. It reorganizes production structures and the firm hierarchy. That means development is conflictual by nature: it creates winners and losers, new incumbents and displaced incumbents, new rents and destroyed rents.

Just as importantly, Schumpeter placed finance at the center of this process. Credit is not the mobilization of prior savings; it is the creation of new purchasing power. Bankers, therefore, are not neutral intermediaries. They are the gatekeepers of development, or of its absence. “The money market is the headquarters of the capitalist system”, he wrote.

This already implies a deeply political economy of development, structured by several enduring tensions. In fact, the most underused richness in TDE is precisely the set of conflicts and asymmetries it implies.

First, the conflict between old and new. Innovation is not marginal improvement but an assault on established routines, firms, and valuation standards. To innovate is to challenge incumbency, not merely to compete within given rules.

Second, the tension between interest and profit. Interest is not the natural reward of abstinence but a permanent claim on the surplus generated by innovation. It functions as a brake on development and as a tax on entrepreneurial profit. The interest rate is therefore not a neutral price but an institutional arrangement that encodes creditor power and shapes the distribution of future income.

Third — and this is a genuinely foundational rupture rather than a mere departure from equilibrium reasoning — Schumpeter breaks with the near-universal commitment to profit equalization that unites otherwise opposed traditions in economic theory. Classical political economy, Marxian profit equalization via surplus-value redistribution, Walrasian general equilibrium, Neo-Ricardian and Sraffian revivals, the neoclassical synthesis, and rational-expectations macroeconomics disagree on almost everything: value, prices, distribution, dynamics, and crisis. Yet they converge on one core proposition: competitive forces tend, in one way or another, to equalize profit rates across sectors, whether through capital mobility, gravitation mechanisms, or long-run equilibrium conditions.

Schumpeter’s innovation-centered theory decisively disrupts this shared premise. Profits are not temporary deviations from a normal, equalized state; they are the outcome of an economy driven by qualitative change. Profits arise as innovation rents - temporary monopolies created by new combinations - and erode only as imitation diffuses unevenly across firms and sectors. Because innovation is discontinuous, asymmetric, and credit-dependent, there is no systematic tendency toward profit equalization. Returns diverge not accidentally but structurally, reflecting uneven capabilities, unequal access to finance, and differentiated positions in the innovation process. What most theories treat as a transient disequilibrium, Schumpeter treats as capitalism’s permanent condition.

A fourth, quieter conflict sits beneath the others: debtor versus creditor. If capital is not a stock of goods but a social relation mediated by credit, then development is always also a struggle over who controls credit allocation, who bears risk, and who captures the upside. As in Marx, Capital is power.

Taken together, these elements mean that TDE is already more political than most interpreters frame it. The book portrays development as innovation financed by credit, operating through conflict, generating temporary but recurrent monopoly profits, and structurally embedding a debtor–creditor tension within the engine of change.

Yet this radical vision was embedded in a contradictory theoretical shell. Schumpeter attempted to reconcile innovation with equilibrium economics. Development begins from equilibrium, is disturbed by innovation, and then supposedly returns to a new equilibrium. Recessions are therapeutic. The system heals itself.

The problem is not a minor inconsistency. Equilibrium and innovation are not complementary concepts. They are opposites. Innovation is irreversible, conflictual, and historically contingent. Equilibrium presupposes reversibility and closure. Schumpeter himself later admitted as much, but the damage was done: innovation was conceptually imprisoned inside a framework that could not contain it.

This is the first major hinge for the synthesis: if we strip away the equilibrium scaffolding, Schumpeter’s early work becomes far more compatible with Keynes and Minsky than the textbook Schumpeter ever was.

Business Cycles: Failure, Goldmine, and the Hidden Macro-Finance

Schumpeter’s Business Cycles is usually remembered as a failure, and rightly so. Its attempt to fuse equilibrium theory with nested cycles collapsed under its own weight. Contemporary reviewers were brutal, and posterity agreed. But dismissing Business Cycles entirely misses its most important contribution. Buried deep inside the book is a neglected concept that changes everything: the secondary wave.

The primary wave is familiar from The Theory of Economic Development: innovation financed by credit leads to investment, employment, and rising output. The secondary wave describes what happens next. As innovation diffuses, credit creation spreads beyond productive investment. Schumpeter’s point is blunt: loans increasingly finance consumption, real estate, asset speculation, and expansion along old technological lines. Balance sheets stretch. Expectations extrapolate recent success into the indefinite future.

Implicit in this description is a multiplier mechanism that Schumpeter never formalized but clearly intuited. Credit-financed innovation sets off a series of cumulative rounds of spending, valuation, and balance-sheet expansion that extend well beyond the original investment. Income, asset prices, and collateral effects reinforce one another. Rising activity validates optimistic expectations, which in turn justify further credit creation. Expansion thus becomes self-referential: not because productivity continues to rise proportionally, but because credit and expectations amplify one another.

At this point, credit becomes progressively detached from productivity. This is the moment when Schumpeter becomes, in effect, a macro-financial theorist of capitalist evolution. The secondary wave is not a footnote about speculative excess; it is a mechanism: the transmission through which innovation-led expansion becomes credit-led expansion, and then over-indebtedness, fragility, and crisis. Schumpeter was explicit: “During the secondary wave, many loans finance activities that do not increase productive capacity at all. Prosperity feeds on itself. Each loan induces another loan; each price increase induces another increase.” Fragility accumulates. Structurally, endogenously.

In those conditions, when expectations reverse, the system flips. Collateral values fall. Debt becomes unserviceable. Liquidation spreads. What follows is not a gentle adjustment but what Schumpeter called an 'abnormal liquidation': the destruction of viable firms alongside speculative excess.

This is not Minsky’s story grafted onto Schumpeter. It is Schumpeter’s own macro-financial theory. Long ignored, badly placed, and never fully developed.

The critical lens applied here highlights that Schumpeter’s secondary wave also reframes the moralized distinction between good and bad finance. The financial dimension of the secondary wave is not a pathology caused by a few reckless actors. It is a systemic drift: credit spreads from financing innovation to financing business in general, then to financing asset price appreciation, then to financing leveraged positions premised on continued appreciation. The system creates its own temptations. It manufactures the very conditions under which speculation becomes rational from the standpoint of individual agents.

This is the deepest reason the secondary wave matters for the synthesis: it makes fragility an endogenous byproduct of innovation and development, not an external accident.

At this point, it becomes necessary to step back from chronology and adopt a different analytical perspective. The argument that follows is not an intellectual history of Schumpeter’s writings, but a theoretical reconstruction aimed at clarifying the architecture of creative destruction once its macro-financial implications are taken seriously.

The secondary wave already reveals that innovation, credit, and fragility cannot be cleanly separated. To understand this interaction fully, however, Schumpeter must be read through conceptual lenses that he himself only partially developed. This requires bringing Keynesian uncertainty and liquidity preference, and Minskyan financial fragility, into the analysis — not as external add-ons, but as elements that complete the logic implicit in Schumpeter’s own work.

Only after this reconstruction will it be possible to return to Schumpeter’s later writings and assess both their breakthroughs and their silences.

Keynes Matters: Uncertainty, Expectations and Liquidity Preference

The missing analytical bridge between Schumpeter’s secondary wave and modern macro-finance runs through Keynes.

Keynes’s central contribution was not stimulus policy or deficit spending. It was the redefinition of capitalism as a monetary-production economy operating under fundamental uncertainty. The future cannot be probabilistically known. Expectations are conventions, socially produced stabilizers that allow action in the face of ignorance. Liquidity preference is not a friction; it is a rational response to an unknowable future.

Once this is acknowledged, the secondary wave becomes not merely plausible but structurally organic — the mechanism through which innovation-led expansion is translated into broader credit expansion, and through which development and financial fragilization become analytically inseparable. Credit expansion during innovation-led booms rests on fragile expectations about future income and profits.

As long as expansion persists and conventions hold, liquidity appears abundant. Asset prices rise. Risk premia compress. Balance sheets expand. But the same uncertainty that innovation creates also makes finance bound to fragilization. Keynes stopped here, but he supplies what Schumpeter lacked: a theory of expectations and liquidity that explains why prosperity built on credit diffusion is inherently unstable.

However, Keynes also needs a critical lens here, because Keynes was not a “Schumpeterian”. His main object was not innovation, but the level of effective demand and the conditions for investment under uncertainty. In that sense, Keynes is structurally more attentive to capital accumulation than to structural transformation through innovation. He analyzes a world where investment fluctuates without necessarily transforming the production structure.

So, what does Keynes add to Schumpeter, and what does he not? Keynes adds three decisive elements.

First, uncertainty is the ground condition. Schumpeter understood novelty, but Keynes conceptualized uncertainty as a non-reducible feature of the system. This is what turns finance from a neutral veil into a central battlefield. Under uncertainty, holding money and liquid claims becomes a strategic option. The interest rate ceases to be a marginal productivity price and becomes the premium that mediates the struggle over holding liquid wealth under conditions of uncertainty.

Second, liquidity preference emerges as a key financial strategy. Liquidity is not a stock. It is a hierarchy and a social relation: who can obtain means of payment on demand, at what cost, and under which institutional protections. When liquidity preference shifts, it reorganizes the entire investment landscape and creates winners and losers, because investment is a commitment of resources today -becoming illiquid - based on conjectures about tomorrow.

Third, the socialization of investment as a stabilizing institutional device and policy tool. Keynes’s most politically charged contribution is not a policy recommendation but a structural insight: left to itself, private investment under uncertainty will be too volatile to sustain stability. Some mechanism must therefore stabilize long-term expectations—whether through public investment, public guarantees, or institutional arrangements that reduce the penalty of uncertainty.

What Keynes intuited at the level of macroeconomic stability, Schumpeter would later generalize at the level of systemic transformation. In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, written shortly after The General Theory, Schumpeter approaches the same problem from a different angle, treating the governance of investment and innovation as an institutional question rather than a purely private one. This move, and its implications for the socialization of investment, will be taken up explicitly below.

Here, the bridge to an emerging synthesis already becomes visible — but it is not yet complete. Schumpeter gives us innovation as the engine of transformation; Keynes provides uncertainty as the core, and liquidity as the condition of motion and the site of potential paralysis. Innovation is inherently future-oriented, but liquidity-constrained. Under conditions of uncertainty, the future is not precisely priceable in any final sense. As a result, the system oscillates between exuberance and caution, between liquidity extension and liquidity preference.

What Keynes does not yet provide is a theory of how these oscillations accumulate into systemic financial fragility. Keynes explains why expectations shift, why liquidity preference rises, and why investment collapses — but he stops short of a balance-sheet theory of financial instability. He does not trace how periods of apparent stability reorganize financial structures, progressively increasing leverage, maturity mismatch, and vulnerability to reversal.

That missing step is supplied by Hyman Minsky. Minsky shows how expansion under uncertainty translates into evolving financial positions and why stability itself becomes a generator of fragility. In doing so, he converts Keynesian uncertainty and liquidity preference into a dynamic theory of financial fragility and indicates how it can metastasize into financial instability.

Minsky, Financial Instability, and the Mysterious Silence on Schumpeter

Minsky formalized the dynamics of the path towards financial fragility. Hedge finance gives way to speculative finance, then to Ponzi finance. Stability breeds instability. Crises are endogenous. Yet, despite having Schumpeter as his adviser, Minsky repeatedly treated him as marginal. This is one of the great puzzles in twentieth-century political economy.

It is a puzzle because the affinity is obvious: Minsky knew Schumpeter’s theory up close, and both treat capitalism as an evolutionary process driven by finance and destabilized by success. Both treat stability as fragile and institutional. Both understand that credit creation is not neutral mediation but the lever of expansion. So why the silence?

One possible — though ultimately unconvincing — explanation is intellectual positioning. Minsky built his project as a radicalization of Keynes against neoclassical equilibrium theory. Schumpeter, especially in his early works, appeared too entangled with equilibrium language, while Business Cycles seemed overly mechanical. Minsky’s aim was to show how prosperity itself, through balance-sheet repositioning, generates financial fragility.

But this is precisely what the secondary wave already captures. Schumpeter had traced the path from financing innovation to speculative finance. The mechanism was there. The bridge was available. It was simply neglected.

Minsky made it clear that financial fragility can and often does arise from financial excess and regulatory failure. What Minsky did not integrate—and what Schumpeter had already intuited—is that fragility can also originate in innovation-driven expansion itself, once innovation diffusion becomes mediated through credit, expectations, and balance-sheet dynamics. In contemporary debates over financial instability, this channel has largely been lost, replaced by a crude distinction between “good” bubbles associated with innovation and “bad” bubbles driven by speculation.

The key point here is that the real economy and the financial system are not separable domains. From a Keynesian or Minskyian perspective, this is already well established. What is far less commonly recognized is that innovation and competition themselves cannot be stripped away from the dynamics of financial fragilization. Innovation restructures balance sheets, expectations, and liquidity conditions. New technologies do not simply generate new products; they generate new valuation, new collateral structures, new asset classes, and new speculative possibilities. Competition and financial innovation then amplify these possibilities, often detaching them from their original productive foundations.

Once Schumpeter’s secondary wave is placed at the center, Minsky’s financial instability hypothesis appears not as an alternative framework but as a refinement of a deeper Schumpeterian logic. The transition from hedge to speculative to Ponzi finance becomes the balance-sheet expression of a broader process in which innovation diffusion and credit diffusion interact under uncertainty.

This is where the synthesis begins to take a distinct and consequential shape. Schumpeter supplies the engine of transformation; Keynes provides the architecture of uncertainty–liquidity within which investment decisions are made; Minsky identifies the endogenous fragility mechanisms that emerge as innovation, credit, and expectations interact over time. Taken together, they imply that instability is not an episodic failure of regulation, but a structural feature of a monetary production economy driven by innovation.

Once instability is understood as endogenous, Minsky’s most radical proposals follow directly rather than contingently. The state as employer of last resort and the insistence that stable employment itself stabilizes cash flows and expectations are not policy preferences but institutional and political responses to structural fragility. If instability is generated internally by innovation-led expansion under uncertainty, then stabilization cannot be limited to crisis management. The state cannot merely mop up after crashes; it must shape the conditions under which innovation unfolds, so that development does not systematically mutate into speculative fragility.

Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy: A New Paradigm with an Unfinished Financial Architecture

In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Schumpeter finally broke with equilibrium reasoning. Capitalism is redefined as an evolutionary process driven by creative destruction. Competition is no longer a price adjustment mechanism. It is an existential rivalry between old and new. Disequilibrium is the norm.

Three conceptual innovations matter most.

First, the shift from cycles to waves. Schumpeter stops treating capitalism as a recurring oscillation around equilibrium and instead treats it as a series of successive industrial revolutions that reshape the structure of production and society. This is not merely a narrative change. It is a conceptual revolution: change becomes the system’s only constant, and analysis must begin from transformation rather than from balance.

Second, the redefinition of competition. Competition is not about many small firms producing homogeneous goods. It is about innovation-driven monopolization: temporary market power created by new products, new processes, and new organizational forms. This is why Schumpeter’s capitalism is structurally oligopolistic. It is not a deviation from competition. It is how competition actually works when innovation is central. Schumpeterian competition thus provides the foundation for a general theory of capitalist evolution.

Third, the routinization of innovation and the transformation of the entrepreneurial function. In CSD, the heroic entrepreneur recedes. Innovation becomes institutionalized inside corporations, laboratories, procurement systems, bureaucracies, and eventually the state. This is where Max Weber enters Schumpeter's framework. Not as decoration but as scaffolding: rationalization, bureaucracy, calculability, and organizational power become central to the system’s innovative capacity.

It is at this point that the bridge to China becomes analytically unavoidable. This is also where Schumpeter’s socialism argument becomes politically explosive. Socialism is not defined here as a moral ideal or as tyranny. It is defined as the extension of rationalized control over finance, investment, and innovation. Schumpeter’s claim that big business becomes the pacemaker of socialism is not a provocation for effect; it is a theoretical diagnosis. The organizational preconditions for non-market coordination of innovation are produced inside capitalism itself.

Now the puzzle: finance nearly disappears.

The banker-entrepreneur conflict central to The Theory of Economic Development vanishes. Credit creation fades into the background. Creative destruction appears to operate without a monetary foundation. This silence is interpreted here, not as a rejection of finance, but as an unfinished synthesis.

To complete it, creative destruction must be re-embedded in the macro-financial dynamics Schumpeter himself had already uncovered. The secondary wave is the missing hinge. It shows how innovation diffuses through credit creation, how prosperity mutates into fragility, and why financial instability is not an accident but a structural outcome of capitalist development.

From Creative Destruction to a Political Economy of Liquidity and Innovation

The silence in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy also had consequences. By evacuating finance and liquidity from the mature theory of creative destruction, it made it easier for later interpreters to strip Schumpeter of his monetary and financial foundations and to recast creative destruction as a purely technological parable. Innovation could then be read as a neutral force rather than as a conflict-ridden reallocation of power, claims, and control over the future. In this way, Schumpeter’s most radical insights were gradually domesticated.

Recovering the full implications of creative destruction, therefore, requires moving beyond Schumpeter’s final synthesis without abandoning it. Once reconstructed, the Schumpeter–Keynes–Minsky triangle yields a powerful analytical result — but also reveals the need for a further step. The synthesis must be explicitly extended toward the state, liquidity, and the governance of innovation over time - managed creative destruction.

The baseline claim is straightforward. Capitalism is not a system tending toward equilibrium, periodically disturbed by shocks. It is an evolutionary system propelled by innovation, financed by credit, structured by institutions, and destabilized by its own successes. Growth, fragility, and crisis are not separable moments; they are different expressions of the same underlying dynamics.

From this starting point, a political economy of liquidity and innovation can be articulated around six core pillars.

First, innovation is systemic transformation and competitive displacement. Innovation is not limited to technology. It encompasses organizational forms, business models, legal architectures, and financial instruments. Creative destruction is therefore not a story of gadgets replacing gadgets; it is a process of competitive reordering in which new combinations displace old ones, redesign institutions, and reallocate power.

Competition in this framework is not price adjustment among equals but rivalry over control of innovation, markets, finance, and organizational capabilities. Innovation is inherently political because it reshapes who survives, who exits, and who controls production, finance, and the future.

Second, credit creation is the lever of development. Credit is not prior savings mobilized for investment. It is new purchasing power created to redirect resources toward new combinations. For this reason, the allocation of credit shapes the contours of structural transformation — it shapes the future. Whoever governs credit governs the direction, pace, and social content of development, or its absence.

Third, uncertainty and liquidity are the elements shaping motion. Under fundamental uncertainty, liquidity becomes the strategic asset. Liquidity preference is not a friction or anomaly but a core determinant of valuation and investment. Liquidity is not a stock; it is created, allocated, and contested through institutions. It is hierarchical, political, and never neutral.

Fourth, fragility and instability as endogenous outcomes. Schumpeter’s secondary wave, Keynes ’ liquidity preference, and Minsky’s balance-sheet dynamics converge on a single conclusion: innovation disrupts stability, enables financial fragility, and fragility can metastasize into systemic instability. Financial crises are not exogenous shocks. They are moments when innovation and investment-driven expansion collides with its own leverage, expectations, and liquidity constraints.

Fifth, stability is not a natural property of monetary-production economies, but a contingent and precarious institutional achievement. In systems driven by innovation, credit creation, and uncertainty, stability does not emerge spontaneously from market coordination. It must be actively constructed through institutions, shared conventions, and regulation.

From this perspective, stability is always provisional. It is sustained only so long as the institutional- and political- arrangements that contain fragility remain credible and adaptive. When those arrangements erode, stability gives way not to gradual adjustment but to discontinuous breakdown. Stability and instability are therefore not opposites, but phases of the same evolutionary process.

Sixth, the state as entrepreneurial and stabilizing actor. Here, the synthesis becomes unmistakably political. The state is not external to creative destruction; it is internal to it. It can create liquidity, shape expectations, direct credit, finance innovation, and contain instability. Keynes’s socialization of investment and Minsky’s Big Government and Big Bank are not policy add-ons. They are structural requirements once uncertainty and endogenous fragility are taken seriously.

Schumpeter’s own move in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy reinforces this point: the entrepreneurial function can be institutionalized. If innovation can be routinized within corporations, it can also be organized within public institutions. Creative destruction can be managed.

Synthesis

This is the foundation of a political economy of liquidity and innovation. Liquidity is not simply money. It is capacity—the capacity to commit resources under uncertainty, to bridge time between investment and returns, and to sustain economic transformation in the face of instability. But the same liquidity that enables innovation and expansion can also accelerate leverage, fragility, and financial instability. Liquidity fuels creation and destruction simultaneously. Precisely for this reason, finance cannot be left to self-regulate.

Thus, public authorities, financial regulation, and institutional constraints are not sources of market gridlock, but the conditions that sustain circulation, coordination, and stability in innovation-driven monetary economies. They determine whether liquidity is mobilized in support of productive transformation or allowed to metastasize into speculative fragility.

From this perspective, the interest rate is not a neutral price. It is a politically constituted claim on future income, a distributive lever, and a key policy instrument. It can enable innovation or suppress it, subsidize productive transformation or entrench rent extraction. It is not merely a tool of policy; it is a site of conflict.

Seen in this light, contemporary capitalism — and hybrid institutional architectures such as China’s — cannot be understood through static dichotomies like market versus state or planning versus competition. They are experiments in governing creative destruction under conditions of radical uncertainty and global instability. They are attempts to manage liquidity allocation, the direction of innovation, and the destabilizing power of finance.

For this reason, the framework generalizes beyond capitalism itself. The core object is a monetary-production economy, capitalist or not. Innovation is future-oriented. Production is time-consuming. Finance bridges time. Liquidity is that bridge. Because liquidity and innovation are jointly constitutive of development, the political economy of liquidity is inseparable from the political economy of innovation.

Coda

This post has deliberately stepped back from comparisons, cases, and policies to lay out the theoretical architecture behind the previous analyses. Creative destruction, once reconstructed across Schumpeter, Keynes, and Minsky, emerges as a far more demanding paradigm for understanding monetary-production economies than is usually acknowledged. Innovation, finance, liquidity, instability, and institutionally constructed periods of stability are not separable domains, but interconnected dimensions of a single evolutionary process.

Once creative destruction is understood as a macro-financial process governed by institutions, the political stakes become unavoidable. Governing liquidity, directing credit, and stabilizing innovation are not merely technocratic functions; they create and redistribute power. They determine which forms of competition survive, which sectors expand, and which social groups bear risk or capture rents. In this sense, managed creative destruction poses a challenge not only to orthodox economics and liberal political theory but also to classical Marxist frameworks that reduce the politics of accumulation to ownership, exploitation, and class conflict, leaving the governance of innovation, liquidity, and financial fragility theoretically underdeveloped.

This framework disrupts the inherited alignment between markets and democracy, reopens the question of economic democracy, and unsettles conventional oppositions between liberalism, nationalism, and socialism. The earlier essays mapping the uneasy relations between Democracy, Liberalism, Nationalism, and Socialism, and rewiring Left and Right were exercises in organizing this complex politico-institutional terrain; the framework developed here explains why that terrain is structurally unstable.

From this perspective, instability does not arise because finance intrudes upon an otherwise productive sphere, but because creative destruction itself is mediated through credit, balance sheets, expectations under uncertainty, and interest-group politics. Thus, the way this mediation is organized — who governs liquidity, how credit is directed, and how financial power is disciplined, or not — becomes the central political–economic question.

The analyses that follow will move back and forth between theory and institutions, examining how concrete institutional mechanisms and policy arrangements seek to govern the unstable interaction among competition, innovation, liquidity, and finance— and with what consequences for stability, development, and power. Where necessary, the lens will widen to political theory and economic sociology, without displacing political economy as the core framework.

Preface

The previous post argued that contemporary debates framed in terms of Left and Right often misidentify the real sources of political and economic conflict. Once governance capacity, control over economic power, and institutional performance are taken seriously, familiar ideological coordinates begin to lose their explanatory force.

That argument, however, leaves a deeper question unresolved. If the traditional dichotomy of Left and Right is no longer a reliable guide, how do the foundational ideologies of modern political economy actually relate to one another? And what changes once democracy itself is no longer treated as a unitary concept?

This post takes up that question. It does so by abandoning the assumption that democracy speaks with a single institutional voice and by extending the analytical distinction between political democracy and economic democracy into the ideological sphere. Once this distinction is introduced, the relations among liberalism, socialism, and nationalism appear in a different light. What had often been interpreted as ideological inconsistency or democratic failure emerges instead as the expression of understandable structural tensions.

The aim here is not normative adjudication. It is neither to defend nor to condemn particular regimes or traditions. Rather, it is to clarify how democracy, liberalism, socialism, and nationalism intersect, overlap, and conflict once democracy is no longer treated as a self-contained procedural ideal but as a contested form of authority extending across both political and economic domains.

Introduction: A Conceptual Puzzle That Refuses to Settle

Few terms in political economy are invoked as frequently , and with such persistent ambiguity , as democracy, liberalism, socialism, and nationalism. They are alternately treated as allies, adversaries, historical stages, or moral absolutes. Entire debates hinge on whether democracy “requires” markets, whether socialism is compatible with democracy, whether nationalism is inherently anti-liberal, or whether liberalism can survive without economic openness. These disputes recur with remarkable regularity, yet they rarely converge.

The reason is not merely ideological disagreement. It is a conceptual entanglement.

Much of the literature treats these terms as internally coherent and mutually exclusive blocs: liberal democracy versus socialism, markets versus the state, nationalism versus openness. As a result, analytical contradictions are misread as empirical failures, and historical tensions are mistaken for theoretical inconsistencies. Democracy appears to flourish and fail simultaneously; liberalism claims universality, yet its presence is shrinking worldwide. Socialism oscillates between emancipatory promises and authoritarian iron cages. Nationalism seems both regressive and indispensable.

This short paper begins from the premise that these paradoxes are not anomalies to be resolved, but structural tensions generated by the way these concepts overlap, collide, and partially contradict one another.

At the center of the confusion lies treating democracy as a unitary concept. Once democracy is analytically fused — political procedures, economic power, sovereignty, legitimacy, and social outcomes collapsed into a single category — every institutional configuration appears either incoherent or hypocritical. Liberal regimes are accused of democratic deficits; socialist projects are faulted for political illiberalism; nationalist interventions are read as democratic backsliding rather than functional overrides.

The purpose of the paper is therefore not normative adjudication. It does not seek to rank regimes or prescribe institutional blueprints. Its aim is analytical clarification: to disaggregate the key concepts at stake, map their internal tensions, and explain why certain combinations are structurally unstable while others are merely uncomfortable.

The argument proceeds by splitting democracy into political and economic dimensions; examining how political and economic liberalism relate differently to each; showing how nationalism functions as a recurrent override rather than an external aberration; and clarifying why socialism’s deepest tension lies not with democracy per se, but with the liberal political project.

What follows is a conceptual map. It does not dissolve tension and contradictions. It makes them intelligible.

The Analytical Key: Disaggregating Democracy

The first step in untangling the puzzle is to abandon the notion of democracy as a unitary object. Much of the confusion identified above arises precisely from treating democracy as a single, internally coherent principle that either “exists” or “fails” in a given regime.

Analytical clarity requires disaggregation.

Political democracy refers to popular sovereignty in the political sphere: representation, contestation, civil liberties, accountability, institutional procedures, and the mechanisms through which collective choices are articulated, revised, and reversed.

Economic democracy refers to the extension of collective authority into the economic sphere: control over investment, finance, ownership structures, surplus allocation, and the long-term direction of production, innovation, and development.

Modern political regimes routinely claim democratic legitimacy while structurally excluding economic democracy. Conversely, projects that prioritize economic democracy often encounter persistent difficulties in stabilizing political democracy in its liberal form. Once democracy is split into these two dimensions, this asymmetry ceases to be paradoxical. It becomes the central phenomenon to be explained.

The remainder of the paper examines how liberalism, nationalism, and socialism relate differently, and often antagonistically, to each dimension of democracy.

Political Liberalism: Democracy as a Dangerous Guest

Political liberalism presents itself as democracy’s natural home. Historically, it has indeed provided the constitutional and institutional framework within which modern democratic practices emerged. Yet this historical association obscures a deeper tension.

Political liberalism is not organized around popular sovereignty as such, but around the containment of power through constitutionalism, individual rights, the rule of law, and institutional fragmentation. Democracy enters this architecture not as a foundational principle, but as a conditional and carefully managed element.

From its classical foundations, political liberalism acknowledges popular sovereignty only to immediately erase it. John Locke already insisted that legislative power is merely delegated and cannot exceed its mandate. Democracy is thus accepted as a procedure, not as a substantive authority.

This logic is formalized in modern political liberalism. As John Rawls makes explicit, liberal justice is a political, not a comprehensive, doctrine. It governs the basic structure of political institutions while remaining neutral toward competing moral and economic conceptions. The implication is decisive: democratic legitimacy applies to political procedures, not to the organization of economic life.

This is why political democracy sits uneasily within political liberalism. Popular sovereignty is treated as something to be filtered, slowed, and restrained. The moment democratic claims threaten to become transformative rather than procedural, liberal safeguards come into play.

The tension becomes decisive when democracy crosses from the political into the economic domain. Economic democracy does not simply demand more participation; it politicizes domains that political liberalism treats as constitutively non-political, above all private property and control over accumulation.

Joseph Schumpeter captured this boundary with characteristic bluntness: democracy means only the ability to accept or reject rulers, not to govern outcomes[1]. Once democracy claims authority over investment, finance, or ownership, it ceases to be compatible with political liberalism by design, not by accident.

In this sense, democracy is not liberalism’s fulfillment. It is its most persistent internal tension.

Economic Liberalism and Neoliberalism: Democracy Under Structural Veto

If political liberalism seeks to contain democracy through constitutional restraint, economic liberalism hardens this logic by insulating the core mechanisms of accumulation from democratic reach altogether. Modern neoliberalism takes this even further.

Economic liberalism transforms tension into hierarchy. Where private property, market allocation, and capital mobility are treated as foundational rights insulated from political decision, democracy becomes conditional and, eventually, an existential threat.

Political democracy may persist formally, but effective authority over monetary policy, finance, investment, trade, and industrial strategy is progressively removed from democratic contestation by technocratic design and legal insulation. Markets become the ultimate veto-players.

Democratic expansion into the economy triggers predictable Polanyian counter-movements: capital flight, disinvestment, jurisdictional arbitrage, and the depoliticization of economic policy through rules, independence mandates, and supranational constraints.

Democracy is not abolished, but it is structurally subordinated.

Nationalism: Sovereignty, Democracy, and Liberalism as a Special Case

Nationalism is often portrayed as liberalism’s political antagonist — a regressive force opposed to openness, pluralism, and market coordination. This framing is misleading. It implicitly treats liberalism as the historical norm and nationalism as a deviation. The opposite is closer to the truth.

Nationalism is older, more general, and more deeply rooted than liberalism. The organization of political life around bounded communities, collective identity, sovereignty, and survival long predates liberal constitutionalism and market universalism. Liberalism emerges historically as an exceptional attempt to neutralize politics — to subordinate questions of power, hierarchy, and security to rules, rights, and market coordination.

Liberalism presupposes a geopolitical environment of stability, secure borders, and depoliticized economic exchange. Under such conditions, markets can appear autonomous, and political authority can present itself as neutral. When these conditions erode — through war, technological rivalry, sanctions, or systemic crisis — the primacy of political sovereignty re-emerges.

Nationalism, in this sense, does not “return” when liberalism fails. It reasserts itself when the exceptional conditions that temporarily suppress it disappear. Politics cannot be fully reduced to norms, procedures, or market coordination. It ultimately rests on the possibility of existential conflict — situations in which the survival or autonomy of a political community is perceived to be at stake. In such moments, decisions cannot be deferred to impersonal rules.

Liberalism seeks to neutralize politics through rights and constitutional constraint. This does not remove conflict, but disguises it by translating political decisions into legal form.

The relationship between nationalism and democracy follows a different, though related, logic. There is no inherent incompatibility between the two. Democracy, in Liberalism seeks to neutralize politics through rights and constitutional constraint. This does not remove conflict, but disguises it by translating political decisions into legal form. As Carl Schmitt argued, sovereignty reappears in the power to decide on the exception. its political and economic dimensions, presupposes a bounded political community capable of collective decision, enforcement, and sacrifice. Popular sovereignty is unintelligible without a demos, and the demos has historically been constituted in national terms. As Otto Bauer emphasized, democracy is not opposed to national belonging; it is mediated through it.

The tension arises not at the level of principle, but at the level of priority, and becomes visible in critical conjunctures.

Under conditions of relative stability, nationalism and political democracy can coexist with limited friction. Democratic procedures operate within national boundaries, while nationalism remains largely latent. War, pandemics, systemic financial crises, technological rivalry, sanctions, or direct challenges to state authority disrupt this equilibrium. In such moments, collective survival, sovereignty, and strategic autonomy take precedence over procedural openness.

When this occurs, nationalism consistently trumps democracy — but not symmetrically across its two dimensions.

Political democracy is affected first and most visibly. Contestation, procedural delay, rights-based constraints, and pluralist dissent are compressed or suspended on the grounds that democratic openness cannot be allowed to obstruct collective survival. Emergency powers and executive discretion follow not from a rejection of democracy, but from its conditional subordination.

Economic democracy is also subordinated, but through a different mechanism. Crises reorganize economic authority around imperatives of mobilization and security. Investment, finance, production, and distribution are redirected through centralized coordination rather than participatory control. Democratic claims over accumulation are not denied in principle, but postponed or mediated through the state. Expanded state intervention under nationalism should therefore not be confused with the suppression of economic democracy.

Nationalism thus operates as a hierarchical override across liberalism and democracy alike. It exposes liberalism’s utopian premise — that markets and rights can remain sovereign regardless of power and conflict — and reveals democracy’s contingency on political authority. Democracy governs within national boundaries, and only so long as those boundaries themselves are not under threat.

Socialism: Economic Democracy and Substantive Legitimacy

Socialism sits comfortably with economic democracy. Collective authority over accumulation, investment, and surplus allocation is not a concession to democratic pressure, but its organizing principle. From its classical formulations onward, socialism has treated the economy not as a neutral coordination mechanism but as the central terrain on which power is exercised, and wealth is created and extracted.

Karl Marx framed this point with uncharacteristic clarity. Political equality confined to the formal sphere leaves untouched the social relations that structure power and life chances. What ultimately matters is not only who governs, but who governs accumulation, wealth distribution, and the conditions of social reproduction. Economic democracy, in this sense, is not an ideological supplement to genuine democracy, but its material foundation.

The deepest tension of socialism, therefore, lies not with democracy as such, but with political liberalism and the liberal form of political democracy. Liberal pluralism demands neutrality toward outcomes, rapid alternation of power, and multiple filtering layers that preclude the identification and fulfillment of the public interest. Socialism, by contrast, is goal-oriented. It is oriented toward the materialization of a collective project rather than abstract liberties, and therefore requires purposive coordination, long-term horizons, and institutional continuity to organize production, investment, and distribution.

Lenin gave this tension a stark political formulation. Projects of structural transformation cannot dispense with political forms – the disciplined Party - designed to arbitrate among fixed interests within an unchanged economic order. This is not, per se, a rejection of democracy, but a recognition that transformative economic projects impose demands on political organization that liberal procedures are not designed to meet.

From this perspective, socialism is neither inherently authoritarian nor inexorably democratic. Its political problem is not legitimacy in the abstract, nor the prior fulfillment of liberal-democratic forms. Rather, it is the capacity to achieve legitimacy through outcomes: by delivering economic security, social rights, and a trajectory toward broadly shared material abundance.

In this sense, democracy appears less as a precondition than as an achievement. Political consent, participation, and accountability are stabilized not primarily through ex ante procedures, but through the sustained fulfillment of collective promises. Where insecurity, scarcity, and volatility dominate, democratic forms remain fragile; where economic stability and shared prosperity prevail, democratic legitimacy acquires a durable material foundation.

This insight was developed with particular sophistication by ethical socialist traditions. Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky argued that socialism is ultimately justified not by coercion or uniformity, but by its capacity to align economic organization with ethical and developmental objectives. Collective control over economic affairs was, for him, the mechanism through which society could overcome cyclical instability, direct surplus toward socially chosen ends, and reconcile economic efficiency with moral purpose.

Socialism is also compatible with nationalism understood as developmental sovereignty. Economic democracy requires a bounded political community capable of enforcing collective choices against external market discipline. Without such boundaries, democratic control over accumulation is systematically undermined by capital mobility, geopolitical hierarchy, and external constraint.

Seen in this light, socialism does not negate democracy. It redefines the path through which democratic legitimacy is built: not by insulating the economy from politics, but by subordinating economic organization to collectively chosen ends and evaluating political authority by its capacity to deliver shared abundance over time.

The Full Configuration Mapped Out

Once the preceding elements are brought together, the problem's underlying structure comes into view.

Political democracy occupies an inherently ambiguous position within political liberalism. Liberal institutions provide democracy with its procedural form yet simultaneously restrict its scope. Popular sovereignty is recognized only insofar as it remains filtered through constitutional restraint and insulated from substantive control over outcomes. Democracy is thus accommodated as a method, not as governance scaffolding.

The tension intensifies when democratic claims extend into the economic sphere. Economic democracy does not merely deepen participation; it directly challenges the liberal settlement by politicizing accumulation, investment, and ownership. At this point, political liberalism reaches its limit. What had been an uneasy coexistence becomes a foundational conflict.

Economic liberalism resolves this conflict not by mediation, but by hierarchy. By constitutionalizing markets and insulating core economic mechanisms from democratic intervention, it subjects political democracy to a permanent structural veto. Democratic choice remains formally intact, yet substantively constrained by the threat of disinvestment, capital flight, and market discipline. The recurring cycle of “elect and regret” is its predictable outcome.

Nationalism enters this configuration not as an external anomaly, but as a norm, and a functional override. Liberalism presupposes conditions of relative security under which markets can appear autonomous and political authority neutral. When these conditions erode — through war, systemic crisis, or geopolitical rivalry — the primacy of political sovereignty reasserts itself. In such moments, liberal constraints are suspended, markets subordinated, and economic coordination re-politicized. This override does not abolish democracy as such but reorders it hierarchically: political democracy is curtailed most immediately, while economic democracy is reshaped or postponed. Nationalism thus exposes what liberalism seeks to deny — that market primacy and procedural neutrality are always conditional on political authority.

Socialism aligns structurally with economic democracy, embracing collective authority over accumulation as its organizing principle. Its friction lies elsewhere — with the liberal political form. Transformational economic projects require purposive coordination, long time horizons, and institutional continuity, all of which strain liberal commitments to neutrality and rapid alternation. This tension reflects not democratic failure, but a mismatch between liberal political procedures and democratic-oriented economic transformation.

Taken together, these relationships form a coherent, complex, and unstable configuration. Democracy is not simply opposed to markets or states. It is internally divided. Liberalism is not democracy’s natural match, but a conditional arrangement that stabilizes political equality by excluding economic sovereignty. Nationalism and socialism, in different ways, expose and contest this exclusion.

What appears in contemporary debate as contradiction or hypocrisy is better understood as the expression of these unresolved structural tensions.

Conclusion: Democracy and The Utopian Bias of Liberalism

The deepest contradiction explored in this paper is not democracy versus the state, nor democracy versus markets or national borders taken in isolation. It is an attempt to reconcile political equality with entrenched economic hierarchy while insulating the organization of accumulation and the boundaries within which it operates from collective control.

Liberal democracy manages this contradiction by narrowing the domain of democracy itself. Political rights are stabilized by excluding economic democracy; popular sovereignty is affirmed procedurally while denied substantively. Liberalism survives not by resolving the tension between democracy and hierarchy, but by displacing it — proceduralizing democracy while insulating markets and treating political boundaries as neutral backdrops rather than sites of power.

This displacement is historically contingent rather than universal. Economic democracy, nationalism, and socialism, in different ways, expose the fragility of the liberal settlement. Economic democracy politicizes accumulation and investment, forcing into view questions liberalism seeks to neutralize. Nationalism reasserts sovereignty when security, survival, or geopolitical rivalry make neutrality impossible. Socialism confronts the contradiction directly by subordinating accumulation to collectively chosen ends, but in doing so brings into tension the liberal political form itself. None of these phenomena is anomalous. All reveal the limits of liberalism’s claim to universality.

The utopian bias of liberalism lies precisely here: in the belief that markets can remain autonomous, politics neutral, and democracy procedural regardless of hierarchy, power, conflict, and boundary. That belief can be sustained only under exceptional historical conditions. When those conditions erode, the suppressed questions return — not as theoretical puzzles, but as political struggles.

Seen from a truly democratic perspective, contemporary debates over democracy, socialism, and nationalism are not signs of conceptual confusion or ideological extremism. They are expressions of unresolved structural tensions that liberalism cannot finally settle. From that perspective, the extremely difficult question is not whether economic democracy should govern accumulation, but how — and in whose name. Posed in these terms, the question shifts attention decisively to the prospects of economic democracy, and exposes the structural limits of political democracy when treated as a self-sufficient foundation of democratic life.

References

Bauer, O. (1907 [2000]) The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy. University of Minnesota Press.

Keynes, John Maynard. 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Macmillan.

Lenin, V.I. (1917 [1964]) The State and Revolution. In: Collected Works, Vol. 25. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Locke, John. 1689 [1988]. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marx, Karl. 1875 [1970]. Critique of the Gotha Programme. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The Great Transformation. New York: Farrar & Rinehart.

Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

Schmitt, C. (1932 [2007]) The Concept of the Political. Expanded ed. Translated by G. Schwab. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Tugan-Baranovsky, M. (1918 [1966]) Modern Socialism. Translated by A.M. Thomson. Forgotten Books

[1] This formulation reflects the liberal conception of democracy, stripped of all its glamour.

If you think you know what “Left” and “Right” mean, read this first.

Using performance, governance, and control over economic power as criteria, this essay applies the same lens to China and the United States, and inverts much of today’s political common sense.

Preface

This essay reconsiders the Left–Right divide by shifting the analytical focus from ideology, cultural identity, and procedural norms to governance structures and concrete outcomes. Political projects are evaluated not by declared values or regime type, but by their capacity to serve the public interest, organize economic power, and deliver social and economic security over time. Accordingly, the analysis does not begin from abstract notions of individual political liberty or electoral form. These dimensions are not denied, but bracketed. The departure point is more fundamental: who governs the delivery of core social and economic needs, in whose interest, and with what material consequences.

Seen from this perspective, many of the labels that dominate contemporary public debate lose their analytical usefulness. Systems commonly described as “liberal” or “centrist” may in practice entrench private power and weaken public-purpose governance, while political economies dismissed as “illiberal” may prove highly effective in expanding substantive social and economic rights.

The aim of this essay is therefore not to defend or condemn regimes by normative fiat, but to turn the Left–Right map right-side up by restoring governance, power, and performance to the center of political-economic analysis.

Introduction

The conventional Left–Right spectrum in politics and economics has become increasingly incapable of capturing the real lines of conflict in contemporary public debate. Rather than clarifying positions, it functions as a classificatory reflex that obscures how power is actually organized and exercised. As a result, political arrangements that systematically displace public-purpose decision-making in favor of private control are routinely perceived as “democratic”, “liberal”, or pragmatic, while efforts to reassert purpose-driven, meritocratic, or performance-based governance over economic and social life are quickly dismissed as “authoritarian,” “illiberal,” or dangerous.

The effect is a persistent mislabeling of projects and regimes, in which surface commitments and rhetorical signals are mistaken for governing orientation and real-world consequences.

Correcting this misrecognition requires stepping outside the conventional liberal grammar through which Left and Right are usually defined. Anchored in Plato’s concern with rule oriented toward the common good rather than mere preference aggregation; Confucius’s tradition of meritocratic governance; the programmatic agenda of original social democracy; Joseph Schumpeter’s conception of transformative democracy; John Maynard Keynes’s concern with persistent unemployment; Hyman Minsky’s warning about financial instability; and Karl Polanyi’s critique of commodification and social dislocation—the conventional Left–Right map must be redrawn.

When this is done, several strands of the contemporary “Right” appear as a coherent, internally consistent political–economic regimes, while the “Left,” particularly in the Atlantic world, emerges as a fragmented and strategically incoherent project, captured by neoliberal assumptions, whose practical outcome resembles a patchwork of moral claims and identity-based agendas detached from the delivery of economic and social rights.

The argument is developed analytically and then comparatively. Rather than treating political systems in isolation, the essay applies the same governance-based criteria to two central cases of contemporary political economy: China and the United States. Read symmetrically, and judged by control over the commanding heights of economic power, the delivery of social and economic rights, and the material foundations for a democratic life, this comparison exposes a reversal that conventional Left–Right language has largely obscured.

Subscribe now

The Right: Financial Dominance, Commodification, and the Rule of Private Power

In this framework, the contemporary Right is not defined in opposition to liberal democracy, nor by strongman rule, nationalism, or anti-immigration politics. It is defined instead by the elevation of private interest to the commanding heights of society.

Thus, Neoliberalism, the (still) ruling regime in most of the West, is therefore not merely a policy or governance package, but a civilizational project. Its core premise is that markets—especially financialized markets—are superior mechanisms of coordination not only for production and exchange, but for social life itself. From this premise follow deregulation, privatization, tax cutting, free capital mobility, and the fetishization of “rules-based” macroeconomic constraints such as inflation targeting and freely floating exchange rates.

The result is a profound transformation of democracy. Political choice is narrowed in advance by prioritizing “credibility,” “investor confidence,” and “market discipline.” Electoral mechanisms remain, but substantive governance over credit, investment, infrastructure, and socio-economic conditions largely disappears. Inequality is no longer treated as a political problem; it is reinterpreted as an unavoidable—and sometimes even desirable—outcome of productivity, efficiency, merit, and innovation.

From Hyman Minsky’s perspective, this regime institutionalizes financial instability. Deregulated finance, turbocharged by financial innovation, ceases to serve production and instead becomes a destabilizing force, periodically threatening the real economy and social cohesion. Minsky’s central warning—that stability breeds instability unless finance is tightly regulated—stands as one of the most powerful theoretical indictments of neoliberal capitalism.

In this regime, the profit motive ceases to be a means and becomes the only goal. Health, education, housing, transport, data, and even ecological survival are commodified. The public interest dissolves into a residual category—invoked rhetorically but structurally disempowered. From this perspective, neoliberal regimes—and much of what has passed for “liberal democracy” in the Atlantic world since the 1980s—are best understood as right-wing political economy operating beneath a veneer of progressive cultural norms

The Left: Social and Economic Rights, and People-Oriented Governance

By contrast, the Left—properly understood—is not defined by state ownership per se, nor by egalitarian rhetoric, or by the existence of electoral mechanisms alone. It is defined by the primacy of the public interest over private accumulation, and by the active people-oriented governance of the economy’s most powerful forces: money, credit, innovation, and wealth distribution.

Historically, this logic was visible—though still incomplete—in the early Weimar Social Democracy project, the postwar Scandinavian model, and East Asian developmental capitalism, most notably Japan between 1950 and 1985. These systems did not abolish markets; they disciplined them. Finance was treated as a utility rather than a speculative engine, labor as a social relation rather than a pure commodity, and innovation as an organizationally coordinated process requiring strategy, coordination, and public risk-sharing.

The intellectual foundation of this tradition can be traced to Eduard Bernstein, who redefined socialism away from revolutionary rupture and toward institutional reform, social rights, and democratic control over capitalism. This lineage was deepened by John Maynard Keynes, who argued explicitly for the socialization of investment—not as state micromanagement, but as a necessary condition for macroeconomic stability, full employment, and long-term development.

Furthermore, this tradition grasped—Schumpeterian-style—that innovation without proper governance tends toward monopoly, instability, and social backlash. What has largely disappeared from Western political leadership today is precisely this understanding. The task of politics, therefore, is not to celebrate or repress creative destruction-oriented development, but to govern it—neither suppressing innovation nor surrendering social outcomes to it.

In today’s European context, regardless of one’s assessment of her broader political program, Sahra Wagenknecht stands out—almost alone—for breaking with the neoliberal consensus while refusing both libertarianism, unrestrained immigration, and austerity[2]. Her emphasis on social rights, productive capacity, and democratic control over economic life places her far closer to the historical Left than many self-described progressives.

This European illustration clarifies the argument's logic. The next step is to test it under more demanding conditions.

China and the Left: Performance, Meritocracy, and Common Prosperity

The most controversial—and analytically revealing—case in the reclassification proposed by this essay is China.

By conventional Western standards, China is excluded from the Left almost by definition. It is non-liberal, non-electoral, and explicitly rejects pluralist party competition. When assessed through the governance lens adopted here—focusing on control over the commanding heights of economic power, the delivery of economic and social rights, and the deployment of long-term developmental capacity—this exclusion becomes analytically untenable.

Over four decades, China has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, delivered massive expansions of affordable or free health care, education, housing, and infrastructure, and retained public control over finance, land, and strategic industries. Markets operate, competition is real, and private corporations proliferate —but capital does not rule. The state disciplines, directs, and restructures it in line with evolving developmental priorities, increasingly framed in the early 2020s, though rooted in earlier distributive and developmental concerns, under the banner of common prosperity.

Schumpeterian Socialism: Organized Innovation and Managed Creative Destruction

This configuration was anticipated by Joseph Schumpeter, who argued in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy that capitalism could evolve into a system in which large-scale organization and public control over investment would subordinate private capital to socially defined goals, without abolishing markets or competition. Schumpeter’s claim was not normative but analytical: such a system could prove more rational, more stable, and more dynamically innovative than one dominated by private financial and managerial elites.

China’s trajectory closely fits this Schumpeterian logic. Innovation is not left to decentralized finance alone but is coordinated among state-owned banks, public investment vehicles, local governments, and competitive firms. As Peter Nolan has long emphasized, China’s large firms, public and private, operate within dense organizational and policy networks that discipline corporate behavior while sustaining scale, learning, and technological upgrading. Competition exists, but it is embedded in an institutional architecture oriented toward national development rather than short-term shareholder value.

Performance, Meritocracy, and the Legitimacy Mechanism

At the level of governance, China’s political system derives legitimacy not primarily from electoral competition, but from performance. This logic has been most systematically articulated by Daniel A. Bell, who characterizes Chinese governance as a form of political meritocracy, and by Bruce Dickson, who analyzes the Chinese Communist Party’s “performance bargain.”

In this framework, political authority is justified by the sustained delivery of material improvement, social stability, and long-term national development. Failure is not merely electoral; it is administrative and reputational. Cadre evaluation, promotion, and institutional survival are tied—however imperfectly—to measurable outcomes rather than ideological conformity alone.

Experimentation, Policy Feedback, and Adaptive Governance

Recent scholarship has shifted attention from regime labels to governing mechanisms. Barry Naughton, Keyu Jin, and Wen Wang, among others, emphasize the centrality of experimentation, local variation, and feedback loops in Chinese policy-making. Central priorities are translated into heterogeneous local practices, which are then evaluated, scaled, modified, or abandoned.

This model of governance-by-experimentation contrasts sharply with the rule-bound, credibility-obsessed macroeconomic regimes that dominate the Atlantic world. Rather than insulating policy from politics through rigid constraints, the Chinese system treats policy as provisional, revisable, and performance-tested.

Finance, Technology, and the Retention of Monetary Sovereignty

China’s financial architecture is particularly revealing. As Martin Chorzempa has shown in his analysis of China’s digital payments and cashless revolution, financial technology has been deployed not to privatize money or fragment monetary sovereignty, but to strengthen oversight, reduce transaction costs, and integrate households and small firms into the formal financial system.

Rather than surrendering payments, data, and credit infrastructure to private platforms, the state has progressively reasserted control over monetary circuits. Finance remains a tool of development and coordination, not an autonomous center of power capable of disciplining the state itself. More broadly, China disciplines capital through public dominance of banking, administrative guidance of credit, and the state’s demonstrated capacity to restructure or liquidate firms that conflict with developmental priorities.

Keyu Jin has similarly emphasized that China’s growth model rests on strategic openness combined with domestic coordination: access to global markets and technologies is selectively embraced, while core financial and industrial capacities remain under public guidance. This helps explain China’s ability to absorb external shocks—from the Asian financial crisis to the global financial crisis and the pandemic—without the large-scale social dislocation observed in many liberalized economies.

Developmental Sovereignty and the Geopolitical Dimension

From a geopolitical perspective, Bruno Maçães has argued that China represents not merely a rising power, but a distinct civilizational and developmental logic—one in which economic modernization is not equated with liberal convergence, and sovereignty over infrastructure, finance, and technology is treated as a prerequisite for political autonomy.

While Maçães does not frame this argument in Left–Right terms, his analysis reinforces the core claim advanced here: China’s political economy is organized around public purpose, strategic capacity, and long-term coordination rather than market rule.

Reclassifying China

If the Left is defined by people-oriented governance, the expansion of substantive social and economic rights, and the subordination of private accumulation to public objectives, then China today resembles the Left far more closely than the neoliberal Atlantic core. This does not imply that China is egalitarian, conflict-free, or normatively exemplary. It means that its governing orientation is coherent, legible, and outcome-driven.

Seen through the governance lens adopted in this essay, the purpose of the China case is not to romanticize a regime form, but to clarify a classification rule. What matters is who governs money, credit, land, and strategic capacity—and whether social rights are delivered as entitlements or sold back to citizens as commodities.

To make that rule analytically credible, it must be applied symmetrically. If China becomes legible as left-oriented in the limited but decisive sense of performance-based public-purpose governance, then the United States becomes the necessary counter-case: the canonical liberal democracy whose material foundations increasingly conform to a right-wing political economy of commodification, rent extraction, coercive containment, and Deaths of Despair. The reversal is therefore not rhetorical. It is comparative.

The United States and the Right: Oligarchy, Commodification, and Authoritarian Drift

By conventional standards, the United States is treated as the archetype of liberal democracy. Yet when evaluated through the same governance-and-outcomes framework applied above, it appears instead as a paradigmatic case of right-wing political economy operating beneath intact electoral and constitutional forms.

The structural logic of this system was identified with remarkable clarity by Thorstein Veblen. For Veblen, the defining feature of modern capitalism was not productive efficiency, but the growing dominance of business interests whose profits depended less on making things than on controlling, restricting, and strategically disrupting production. Under such conditions, he argued, “all business sagacity reduces itself in the last analysis to judicious use of sabotage”.

Contemporary US financialized capitalism has not transcended this logic; it has deepened and formalized it. As Anastasia Nesvetailova has shown, modern finance operates increasingly as a system of extraction, volatility production, and strategic disruption rather than productive intermediation. Liquidity is manufactured not to support long-term investment, but to enable asset inflation, rent capture, and crisis-driven redistribution. In explicitly Veblenian terms, finance today functions as organized sabotage.

The defining feature of this system is not the absence of democracy, but the systematic insulation of economic power from democratic control. This is not accidental. As Quinn Slobodian has shown, neoliberalism was never primarily about shrinking the state; it was about redesigning institutions so as to “encase” markets and protect capital from popular sovereignty. The project aimed to inoculate capitalism against democracy, not to reconcile the two.

Health as a Commodity: Growth Through Sickness

The most revealing expression of this logic is healthcare. Close to one-fifth of U.S. GDP is absorbed by health expenditure—well above any other OECD country, both in aggregate and per capita terms. Yet health outcomes are among the worst in the advanced capitalist world. Americans are more likely to die younger, to live with multiple chronic conditions, and to die from preventable or treatable illnesses.

This is not a paradox; it is a business model. Healthcare is not organized as a public good but as a revenue-generating sector. Hospitals, pharmaceutical wholesalers, and medical insurers rank among the largest U.S. industries by revenue. Healthcare spending constitutes the single largest component of household services consumption, and more than 40 percent of new private-sector jobs created since early 2023 have been concentrated in healthcare.

In other words, a significant share of what is celebrated as a “booming” U.S. economy is structurally driven by illness, insecurity, and chronic disease. Growth is generated not despite social distress, but through the monetization of social distress. In Brett Christophers’ precise formulation, this is rentier capitalism: income derived from the ownership or control of scarce, socially indispensable assets under conditions of limited competition.

Chronic Illness, Food Insecurity, and the Privatization of Social Risk

The social consequences are profound. Roughly 60 percent of American adults live with at least one chronic illness, and approximately 40 percent with more than one. Tens of millions depend on federal food programs. School meal programs serve nearly 30 million children, while the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program supports more than 40 million people.

These figures do not describe marginal failure. They describe a political economy in which social reproduction is no longer treated as a collective responsibility, but as a household-level burden managed through debt, charity, and conditional assistance. As Melinda Cooper has shown, the retreat of public provision has been accompanied by a re-moralization and re-familialization of welfare, shifting dependency away from the state and onto private households—while simultaneously disciplining those who fail to cope.

Homelessness has reached its highest recorded level. Between 2023 and 2024 alone, the number of unhoused people increased by roughly 18 percent, reaching approximately 771,000 individuals. This is not a cyclical shock. It is the cumulative result of housing commodification, wage stagnation, and the abdication of public responsibility for shelter as a social right.

As Angus Deaton and Anne Case have shown in Deaths of Despair, the result is a system in which economic growth and social degradation are no longer opposites, but increasingly move together.

Punitive Governance and the Coercive Management of an Increasing Precariat

Faced with these outcomes, the dominant U.S. response has not been a reassertion of public-purpose governance, but an expansion of coercive and exclusionary mechanisms. Mass incarceration, aggressive policing, the criminalization of poverty, and the jailing and deportation of migrants function as substitutes for social policy. Market failures are not corrected; their human consequences are policed.

This is a classic right-wing configuration. Social insecurity is treated not as a political failure, but as a problem of discipline. Order is maintained not through universal provision, but through punishment and exclusion. Authoritarianism emerges not as a regime type, but as a mode of governance embedded within formally liberal institutions.

External Projection: The Gangster State Abroad

This internal configuration is mirrored externally. By “gangster state,” I mean a mode of power projection based on selective legality, increasingly sliding into open illegality: sanctions as routine policy, asset seizures, extraterritorial enforcement, and systematic impunity for allies. In foreign policy, the United States increasingly operates according to these principles and rules, coupled with an open tolerance of extreme violence when aligned with strategic interests. Liberal universalism abroad gives way to discretionary power and piracy.

As Chalmers Johnson, John Mearsheimer, and Glenn Diesen have argued, liberal interventionism tends not to export liberalism but to erode it: liberalism abroad generates illiberalism at home. The external projection of U.S. power thus reinforces the internal political economy of coercion and exception.

Michael Hudson has described this system bluntly as economic warfare, in which international institutions and financial instruments are deployed to discipline other states and sequester resources in the name of stability and order. Whether one accepts the language or not, the structural parallel is clear: externally as internally, public purpose is subordinated to power and extraction.

Reclassifying the United States

Judged by the criteria developed in this essay, the conclusion is unavoidable. The United States today exemplifies the Right not despite its liberal institutions, but through them. Electoral democracy persists, but economic sovereignty has been ceded. Public goods are residual. Inequality is normalized. Social risks are privatized. Coercion substitutes for provision.

The contrast with China is therefore not primarily ideological, cultural, or procedural. It is material. One system subordinates capital to long-term public objectives and grounds legitimacy in performance. The other subordinates public life to accumulation and manages the resulting social fractures through discipline, incarceration, and moralized rhetoric.

Seen from this perspective, the contemporary Atlantic debate over democracy is inverted. What is defended as freedom increasingly rests on oligarchy. What is denounced as authoritarianism increasingly rests on delivery.

Turning the Map Right-Side Up: From Labels to Outcomes

The implications are stark. The dominant Left–Right language of contemporary political debate is upside down. The true divide is not between state and market, nor between democracy and authoritarianism in the abstract, but between commodification and public purpose, capital sovereignty and social sovereignty, market rule and public-interest-oriented governance.

Once this is acknowledged, confusion dissolves. The Atlantic neoliberal order appears clearly right-wing. Classical social-democratic systems re-emerge as left-oriented. China becomes legible not as an anomaly, but as a historically grounded variant of Left governance under conditions of scale, late development, and global power competition.

Left and Right Rewired: A Governance-Based Taxonomy

The Right

1. Private interest governs the commanding heights.

2. Profit maximization becomes a civilizational norm.

3. Finance is autonomous, mobile, and politically sovereign.

4. Health, education, housing, and nature are commodified.

5. Inequality is normalized - or even celebrated.

6. Society adapts to markets, not the reverse.

7. The state retreats from credit, industrial capacity, education, and innovation.

8. Exchange rates and capital flows are left to markets.

9. Public goods are residual and fiscally constrained.

10. Democracy is reduced to procedural electoralism and formal speech rights,

detached from material outcomes, social protection, and economic security.

The Left

1. The public interest has primacy over private accumulation.

2. Markets are governed, not abolished.

3. Finance is a public utility or a tightly regulated sector.

4. Social and economic rights are substantive and sovereign.

5. Deep inequality is a crucial political and social problem.

6. Markets are institutionally governed in accordance with public purpose.

7. The state actively manages credit, innovation, investment, and education.

8. Capital flows and exchange rates are policy instruments.

9. Public goods form the core of social life.

10. Democracy is defined by delivered outcomes: material security, expanding

social and economic rights, and protection against economic and social risk—not by electoral procedures alone.

This reversal is not semantic. It is analytical and political. It restores clarity where labels have obscured power, and it places governance and performance, not ideology, at the center of the Left–Right divide.

Share

References

Bell, D.A. (2015). The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bernstein, E. (1899) Evolutionary Socialism. London: Independent Labour Party.

Case, A. and Deaton, A. (2020) Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Chorzempa, M. (2022) China’s Fintech Explosion: Disruption, Innovation, and Survival. New York: Columbia University Press.

Confucius (2003). The Analects. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.

Christophers, B. (2020) Rentier Capitalism: Who Owns the Economy, and Who Pays for It? London: Verso.

Cooper, M. (2017). Family Values: Between Neoliberalism and the New Social Conservatism. New York: Zone Books.

Diesen, G. (2024) The Ukraine War and the Eurasian World Order. Atlanta, GA: Clarity Press.

Dickson, B.J. (2023) The Party and the People: Chinese Politics in the 21st Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hudson, M. (1972) Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Hudson, M. (2015) Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy. Dresden: ISLET Verlag

Jin, K. (2023). The New China Playbook: Beyond Socialism and Capitalism. New York: Viking.

Johnson, C. (2000). Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Johnson, C. (2004.) The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Johnson, C. (2010) Dismantling the Empire: America’s Last Best Hope. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Keynes, J.M. (1936) The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Macmillan.

Keynes, J.M. (1980). The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, Vol. 21: Activities 1931–1939: World Crises and Policies in Britain and America. London: Macmillan.

Maçães, B. (2018). Belt and Road: A Chinese World Order. London: Hurst.

Mearsheimer, J.J. (2018). The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Minsky, H.P. (1986). Stabilizing an Unstable Economy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Naughton, B. (2018). The Chinese Economy: Adaptation and Growth, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Nesvetailova, A. (2020) Financial Alchemy in Crisis: The Great Liquidity Illusion. London: Pluto Press.

Nolan, P. (2014) Chinese Firms, Global Firms: Industrial Policy in the Age of Globalization. London: Routledge.

Plato (2008) The Republic (translated by R. Waterfield). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Polanyi, K. (1944) The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston: Beacon Press.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1942) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Slobodian, Q. (2018) Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Veblen, T. (1904 [1994]) The Theory of Business Enterprise. With an introduction by Daniel Bell. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Wagenknecht, S. (2023). Contra la sinistra neoliberale. Rome: Castelvecchi.

Wang, W. (2023) Profound Changes Unseen in a Century: China’s Development, Governance, and the Transformation of Global Order. Singapore: Springer.

[1] The essay is intended as an intervention in contemporary public debate, not as a taxonomy to be accepted or rejected wholesale. It asks readers to suspend familiar reflexes about Left and Right long enough to consider whether the labels still correspond to how political and economic power actually operates in practice. The argument will likely unsettle readers across the spectrum. That is intentional. Its purpose is not to reverse moral allegiances or to rank regimes normatively, but to reopen questions that current debate too often treats as settled: what counts as democratic success, how economic power is governed, and how social and economic security are delivered under different institutional arrangements.Disagreement is expected. The only request made of the reader is to engage the argument on its own terms—by interrogating governance structures and outcomes—rather than by reverting immediately to inherited ideological classifications.

[2] Wagenknecht -the leader BSW party in Germany- represents a contemporary reactivation of classical social-democratic political economy. Like Eduard Bernstein, she rejects both laissez-faire capitalism and revolutionary rupture, insisting instead on democratic control over markets, the primacy of social and economic rights, and the subordination of private accumulation to public purpose. At the same time, her critique resonates strongly with Keynes’s call for the socialization of investment, emphasizing the need for active public coordination of credit, industry, and energy in order to secure employment, stability, and long-term development. Wagenknecht’s intervention thus stands in direct continuity with a tradition in which democracy is judged not by procedural form alone, but by its capacity to deliver material security, productive strength, and shared prosperity.

Introduction

This post follows directly from China: Socialism with Schumpeterian Characteristics, which generated more debate than I expected. Much of that discussion revolved around a single question: if China is neither state capitalism nor market socialism, then what exactly is it—and what does that imply beyond its borders?

In that earlier essay, I argued that contemporary China is best understood through Joseph Schumpeter’s neglected conception of socialism: not as revolution or market abolition, but as organizational transformation. Investment is socialized, innovation is institutionally coordinated, and creative destruction is politically managed. Markets exist and competition is intense, but capital does not rule.

This follow-up takes the argument one step further. Rather than restating the domestic case, it asks how this Schumpeterian configuration behaves under pressure—both internal and external—and what happens when it intersects with technological containment, trade wars, and global reordering. The question is not whether China is exporting a model. It is whether, in a fractured world economy, the institutional architecture it has built is beginning to function as an option, particularly for parts of the Global South, without ever being proclaimed as one.

This is an analytical exercise, not a normative one. The aim is to understand the architecture that has emerged, the pressures that shaped it, and the strategic implications it now carries.

Xi Jinping’s arrival problem: legitimacy, risk, and survival

When Xi Jinping assumed leadership in 2012–2013, the Chinese Party-state was not entering a period of calm consolidation. It was confronting a convergence of systemic stresses that threatened both its effectiveness and its legitimacy. Legitimacy in China is not electoral but evolutionary: the capacity to promise, deliver, and sustain transformation over time.

Corruption had become structural. It was embedded in land finance, local government borrowing, state–business relations, and cadre promotion. Patron–client networks proliferated, rents accumulated, and internal discipline eroded. The Party’s claim to rule through competence and developmental purpose was under strain.

At the same time, financial risk was mounting. Shadow banking expanded rapidly, local government financing vehicles multiplied, and real-estate speculation became a dominant growth engine. The system was drifting toward a familiar pattern: leverage feeding asset inflation, stability breeding fragility, and political complacency masking systemic vulnerability.

Inequality added a third pressure. The social bargain forged during decades of high growth—rising living standards in exchange for political acquiescence—was fraying. Wealth concentration, housing unaffordability, regional disparities, and unequal access to education and health threatened the performance-based legitimacy on which one-party rule ultimately rests.

Xi’s response was not an incremental adjustment. It was systemic re-legitimation.

The anti-corruption campaign was not primarily moralistic. It was a fierce institutional Blitzkrieg. By disciplining more than a million officials across all levels—including senior Party elites—it dismantled entrenched patronage networks and reasserted political authority over the state apparatus itself, and the Party.

Financial risk containment was not technocratic engineering. It was political risk management. The tightening of shadow banking regulation after 2016, well before any acute crisis, signaled a willingness to sacrifice short-term growth to prevent fragility from becoming instability—because instability would have been much more difficult to contain.

The turn against extreme inequality was not ideological egalitarianism. It was regime preservation. Without redistribution, diffusion, and visible fairness, growth itself would cease to legitimate power. Only after discipline, stability, and redistribution were reasserted could China credibly pivot toward a new development strategy.

This is where Schumpeter becomes analytically indispensable.

External pressure as accelerator: Trump, Biden, and technological containment

The external environment sharpened this internal reorientation. The trade and technology war launched under Trump did not create China’s strategic pivot, but it decisively accelerated it. The Biden administration, despite shifts in rhetoric, largely preserved the same containment logic: export controls, technology restrictions, and alliance-based pressure.

For Beijing, the lesson was clear. Globalization could no longer be treated as a neutral, rules-based environment. Market access, finance, and technology had become weaponized—instruments of geopolitical leverage.

The response was not retreat, but resilience. The priority became technological autonomy, supply-chain security, and the reduction of strategic vulnerabilities. This was not an autarky. It was selective decoupling combined with diversification and upgrading. Nowhere is this clearer than in semiconductors—the most complex case.

Advanced chips are the ultimate stress test. They are capital-intensive, knowledge-dense, and deeply embedded in global production networks. Denial of access to frontier lithography and design tools was meant to halt China’s technological ascent. Instead, it forced reorganization.

China’s response was not intimidation, but Schumpeterian adaptation under coercion. Investment was massively socialized. Time horizons were extended beyond what private finance would tolerate. Design, manufacturing, and packaging were reorganized domestically, even at higher cost and lower initial performance.

The symbiosis between Huawei and the state is central here. Huawei’s survival after US sanctions depended on public credit, procurement guarantees, and regulatory forbearance—but also on relentless internal competition, forced substitution, and accelerated learning. This was not protection from rivalry. It was protection for rivalry under political sponsorship.

The result is not parity at the frontier, but resilience. Innovation did not stop; it changed form. That is exactly what Schumpeter might have called creative destruction under geopolitical constraint.

From GDP fetishism to the quality of growth

This strategic shift crystallized in the move away from GDP-centric evaluation toward the quality of growth. Made in China 2025 signaled the pivot early (a ten-year industrial strategy (2015–2025): advanced manufacturing, robotics, semiconductors, green technologies, and digital infrastructure became central priorities.

More recently, the language of new qualitative productive forces made the logic explicit. Growth would no longer be judged primarily by speed, but by its capacity to upgrade the production structure, reduce dependence, and generate durable capabilities. High-speed rail makes this concrete.

China built the world’s largest HSR network primarily as part of a strategic response to avoid the global financial crisis’s spillovers. However, this mega-project cannot be justified by short-term profitability or headline GDP alone. Its effects were, and are, systemic: lowering transport costs, integrating regional labor markets, reducing spatial inequality, and raising productivity indirectly across the economy.

HSR required long-horizon public finance, centralized coordination, and intense competition among suppliers and contractors. It is a textbook example of growth as capability-building rather than output chasing—precisely what “quality of growth” is meant to capture.

Alongside this productive turn sits the distributional one. Common prosperity is not rhetorical decoration. It is the core of the marriage between Schumpeterian transformative democracy and the China Dream. An attempt to ensure that innovation-driven growth diffuses broadly rather than concentrating rents.

Education expansion, infrastructure provision, and health coverage anchor this logic materially. They are not welfare add-ons; they are the social foundations of an innovation economy and the political basis of legitimacy.

Managed creative destruction at home

Domestically, the result is a distinctive practice: creative destruction under political control.

Fragile growth engines are not allowed to metastasize until crisis forces collapse. They are dismantled deliberately. Evergrande’s controlled implosion illustrates this logic. Households were protected, systemic contagion was contained, equity was wiped out, and reckless creditors absorbed losses.

The contrast with the bailouts of 2008 in the United States is instructive. There, financial institutions were rescued, to preserve the system, and the perpetrators went home, richly rewarded—libertarian socialism for the financial system, in which losses are socialized to preserve private balance sheets rather than to dismantle a failed growth model.”

The electric-vehicle sector shows the same logic at work on the innovation side. Dozens of firms entered. Competition was brutal. Price wars compressed margins, weaker firms exited, and consolidation followed. The state tolerated failure while underwriting infrastructure and standards. This is not a shelter. It is selection.

Finance, innovation, and the Jack Ma episode

No episode better illustrates the political management of finance than the Jack Ma affair.

In late 2020, Jack Ma publicly criticized China’s financial regulators, praising fintech innovation and portraying regulation as backward and constraining. In Western commentary, what followed was framed as repression: an entrepreneur silenced by an authoritarian state. This reading misses the point. The issue was not innovation. It was financial regulation sovereignty.

Ant Group’s model rested on leverage, securitization of household credit, and regulatory arbitrage. It sought to expand credit creation outside prudential control while socializing risk implicitly. In any system where finance is subordinated to political authority, this was a boundary violation.

The regulatory response was not anti-entrepreneurial. It was an act of financial regulation sovereignty. Ant was restructured, not destroyed. Fintech was disciplined, not abolished. Innovation was redirected away from balance-sheet expansion toward payment infrastructure and industrial applications.

This issue requires a vital clarification: Creative destruction operates very differently in production and in finance, and the difference is not merely one of degree, but of systemic risk.

In production, innovation destroys firms, technologies, and skills, but it does so by creating new use-values, expanding productive capacity, and generating alternative employment and investment paths. Failure is often localized. Even large corporate collapses rarely threaten the integrity of the system as a whole. Competition, exit, and selection are painful, but they are also the mechanisms through which productivity advances and resources are reallocated.

In finance, innovation can create transformative results- Bills of exchange, Public debt, Digital payments systems. However, private financial engineering often creates new use-values. It creates new claims, new layers of leverage, synthetic speculation-oriented derivatives, and new forms of balance-sheet interdependence. Financial “innovation” tends to scale not through productivity gains, but through the multiplication of obligations and the compression of margins under rising leverage. What appears as efficiency in tranquil times often turns into fragility once expectations shift.

This is why financial innovation carries a disproportionate risk of what might be called destructive creation: the rapid expansion of instruments and practices that generate short-term gains while planting the seeds of system-wide collapse. As Hyman Minsky showed with clarity, periods of rapid expansion encourage precisely this kind of behavior. Balance sheets migrate from hedge to speculative to Ponzi positions, and the system becomes vulnerable not because of exogenous shocks, but because of its own internal dynamics.

For this reason, the regulatory architecture of finance cannot be static. It must be continuously tuned, adaptive, and politically enforced. Allowing unconstrained creative destruction in finance is not a recipe for dynamism; it is an invitation to crisis. China’s approach reflects this asymmetry. Innovation is encouraged, even brutally so, in production. In finance, by contrast, experimentation is tightly bounded, leverage is politically constrained, and institutional authority is repeatedly reasserted when speculative excess threatens stability.

Seen from this perspective, the disciplining of Ant Group was not an aberration. It was a textbook application of a Schumpeter–Minsky logic: protect innovation where it builds productive capacity, and discipline (or suppress) it where it amplifies systemic fragility.

From domestic reorganization to a Eurasian agenda

The external projection of this model does not take the form of ideological export. It takes the form of institutional experimentation.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization ( SCO)provides a political-security framework stabilizing China’s western frontier. BRICS expansion builds alternatives in infrastructure, geopolitics, finance, and multipolar coordination. The Belt and Road Initiative re-routes connectivity through infrastructure, logistics, energy, and digital corridors. The strategic partnership with Russia anchors continental depth. The Asia-Pacific nexus re-emerges as central for trade, production networks, and technological diffusion.

Together, these elements constitute a plural Eurasian strategy rather than a monolithic bloc. They function as tools for diversification, resilience, and optionality—not as instruments of doctrinal conversion. China is not preaching its model. It’s building options.

Internationalization as possibility, not blueprint

This distinction matters. There is no Chinese doctrine of exporting Socialism with Schumpeterian Characteristics. What exists is a set of institutional arrangements that may become attractive under conditions of developmental constraint, technological pressure, and dissatisfaction with neoliberal orthodoxy.

For the Global South, the relevance is not imitation, but inspiration. The lesson is not “copy China,” but rethink the relationship between state, finance, innovation, and competition. Any adoption would be domestic, contingent, and politically negotiated. Internationalization, in this sense, is a question mark, not a program.

Trump 2.0 as stress test

The return of aggressive tariff politics under Trump 2.0 provides a revealing stress test. The expected outcomes—export collapse, financial panic, forced liberalization—did not materialize. China absorbed the shock. Trade was rerouted. Domestic value chains were strengthened. South–South integration deepened. Financial stability was preserved.

This outcome is not accidental. It reflects an institutional architecture designed to absorb pressure without systemic breakdown. Managed creative destruction operates not only domestically, but at the interface with the global economy.

The tariff war did not defeat China. More importantly, it failed to destabilize it. That asymmetry of resilience speaks directly to the core thesis.

Conclusion: a living and deepening Schumpeterian experiment

Let me restate: China is not socialist in the Marxist revolutionary sense, nor capitalist in the neoliberal one. It is socialist in Schumpeter’s sense: capitalism reorganized through public authority, innovation institutionalized, investment socialized, competition preserved, and prosperity diffused.

Creative destruction is alive but managed. Markets exist, but they do not rule. Finance matters, but it is treated as an instrument. Legitimacy is performance-based, grounded in transformation and diffusion.

Whether elements of this model travel remains an open question. China does not demand that they do. But in a world of slowing growth, financialized industries, technological conflict, and an eroding neoliberal consensus, the existence of a functioning alternative- even as an option- already reshapes geopolitics and the global political economy.

***

For readers new to this series, the argument unfolds in stages. The first post established that China’s political economy is best understood as Socialism with Schumpeterian Characteristics. This second post has shown how that political and institutional architecture behaves under pressure and why it has proven resilient rather than brittle.

The following post will step back from cases and strategy to provide the theoretical scaffolding behind these arguments—linking creative destruction, financial instability, and the political economy of liquidity and innovation. Schumpeter will meet Keynes and perhaps argue with his former student, Hyman Minsky. Only then will the full architecture come into view.