George Will on Creative Destruction

Wikipedia

By the Left Coast Rebel

From Will's excellent Washington Post column today on creative destruction:
Creative destruction continues in the digital age. After 244 years — it began publication five years before the 1773 Boston Tea Party — the Encyclopaedia Britannica will henceforth be available only in digital form as it tries to catch up to reference Web sites such as Google and Wikipedia. Another digital casualty forgot it was selling the preservation of memories, a.k.a. “Kodak moments,” not film.


America now is divided between those who find this social churning unnerving and those who find it exhilarating. What Virginia Postrel postulated in 1998 in “The Future and Its Enemies: The Growing Conflict Over Creativity, Enterprise and Progress” — the best book for rescuing the country from a ruinous itch for tidiness — is even more true now. Today’s primary political and cultural conflict is, Postrel says, between people, mislabeled “progressives,” who crave social stasis, and those, paradoxically called conservatives, who welcome the perpetual churning of society by dynamism. tasists see Borders succumb to e-books (and Amazon) and lament the passing of familiar things. Dynamists say: Relax, reading is thriving. In 2001, the iPod appeared, and soon stores such as Tower Records disappeared. Who misses them?

Theodore Roosevelt, America’s first progressive president, thought it was government’s duty to “look ahead and plan out the right kind of civilization.” TR looked ahead and saw a “timber famine” caused by railroads’ ravenous appetites for crossties that rotted. He did not foresee creosote, which preserves crossties. Imagine all the things government planners cannot anticipate when, in their defining hubris, they try to impose their static dream of the “right kind” of future.

Read The Rest.

Will is correct in that progressive tend to reject -- and even viscerally hate and/or loathe -- the dynamism of so-called creative destruction. But unfortunately that doesn't necessarily mean conservatives understand the true brilliance of laissez faire capitalism; they are just less hostile to its tenets...

But just what is creative destruction, you ask?

Investopedia:

Creative destruction occurs when something new kills something older. A great example of this is personal computers. The industry, led by Microsoft and Intel, destroyed many mainframe computer companies, but in doing so, entrepreneurs created one of the most important inventions of this century.

Schumpeter goes so far as to say that the "process of creative destruction is the essential fact about capitalism."

Why is it unknown?
A-ha! That's why progressives hate the concept of creative destruction: for the dynamism of free markets (and the symbiosis of rationally self-interested individuals that fuel the brilliance of free markets to work,) something "newer" needs to "kill" something "older."

Thus, when individual folks are left alone to pursue happiness, disorderly "chaos" ensues that in many cases is not "fair" because older, outmoded products, technology... widgets, etc. are replaced with better products, tech, widgets and the savvy entrepreneur or Dreamer with Big Ideas (like Steve Jobs) ends up with "more" than someone else!

--Which as we all know is anathema to the dystopia that is the modern progressive-socialist worldview.

This quote from Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist, strikes a note on the creative destruction topic (hat-tip Adam Smith Institute):

A Bronze Age empire stagnated for much the same reason that a nationalized industry stagnates: monopoly rewards caution and discourages experiment, the income is gradually captured by the interests of the producers at the expense of the interests of the consumers, and so on. The list of innovations achieved by the pharaohs is as thin as the list of innovations achieved by British Rail or the US Postal Service.

FURTHER READING: At the Ayn Rand Institute, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal":

Readers of Atlas Shrugged are struck by the moral fire of Ayn Rand’s defense of business and capitalism. She does not regard capitalism as an amoral or immoral means to some “common good”—as do most of its defenders—but as a profoundly moral social system. It is, she wrote, “the only system geared to the life of a rational being.”

In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, which Ayn Rand called “a nonfiction footnote to Atlas Shrugged,” she and others explain the social system that she held has “never been properly understood and defended—and whose very existence has been denied.” That system is laissez-faire capitalism: a social system in which the government is exclusively devoted to the protection of individual rights, including property rights, and therefore in which there exists absolutely no government intervention in the economy.

Capitalism is not a treatise on the economics of capitalism, but a collection of essays on the philosophy of capitalism: the basic truths and principles that make capitalism the only moral and practical social system—the only system consistent with man’s nature and the requirements of his life—the only one that enables each individual to reach his full, glorious potential.
Discussion at Memeorandum.

4 comments:

  1. While some conservatives have an underdeveloped appreciation for the importance of free markets, I can't immediately think of any who have hostility for laissez faire capitalism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Santorum fits this description (even though he would adamantly deny it); I have relatives that call themselves conservatives that do in fact loathe the concept of laissez faire capitalism.

      Delete
  2. Hey Tim, are we talking about the Origin of the Species and the Survival of the Fittest? If so how fitting. I'm not sure what Rand's thoughts were on Charles Darwin but I'm betting she would be in agreement with his theories, now accepted science. A great example of progress.

    It has always intrigued me that Rand defined herself as a radical for capitalism and yet she had great disdain for conservatives. Two words, Ominous Parallels.

    Many conservatives who refer to Rand for support of their positions actually need a great deal of education on her positions, principles, and philosophy. I'm sure you would agree.

    Will makes many good points.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would agree, Les. I'm really struggling to change LCR back to what it started out as -- a site of Big Ideas and Rand is and should be central to that. She changed my outlook on politics, philosophy, life over several years in my early 20s.

      Delete

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.