User:Tancre/Special Issue 7/What if Shumpeter was a Nazi and his Entrepreneur hides a Far-Right Ideology?: Difference between revisions

From XPUB & Lens-Based wiki
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
==What if Shumpeter was a Nazi and his Entrepreneur hides a Far-Right Ideology?==
==What if Shumpeter was a Nazi and his Entrepreneur hides a Far-Right Ideology?==
[[File: naziSchump.png | 200px]]
[[File: naziSchump.png | 180px | caption | left]]Yesterday while I was reading the biographies of the suggested readings' writers for this special issue, just to do a fast comparison between their lifes and their works, I found out an intresting relation that made me thought and that I would like to let here.


Yesterday while I was reading the biographies of the suggested readings' writers for this special issue, just to do a fast comparison between their lifes and their works, I found out an intresting relation that made me thought and that I would like to let here.  
I can't say that in Schumpeter's text I haven't felt there was something that sounds strange to me: the creative response as an economical paradigm.  


I can't say that in Schumpeter's text I haven't felt there was something that sounds strange to me: the creative response as an economical paradigm.  
Studing as a Designer always putted me in front of a constant push to be creative, and to recognize myself in the category of the Creatives (not to say Makers).
This wasn't something I related to Design as its indentification label, [[File: myFavEconomist.jpg | thumb]]while I focused on the process and methodology as more relevat than the production of an object pushed by economical necessity to create. My point of view lead me to move on the opposite side and to rethink the Designer as a destructive character that in order to create first has to destroy by deconstructing its subject through logical thought so it can analyse it from the inside. Then by searching some more information on this argument I founded a similar thought in the '''Baconian's method''' that divide the act of knowing a certain phenomenon onto two fundamental processes: the ''pars destruens'' an the ''pars construens''.  


Studing as a Designer always putted me in front of a constant push to be creative, and to recognize myself in the category of the Creatives (not to say Makers). This wasn't something I related to Design as its indentification label, while I focused on the process and methodology as more relevat than the production of an object pushed by economical necessity to create. My point of view lead me to move on the opposite side and to rethink the Designer as a destructive character that in order to create first has to destroy by deconstructing its subject through logical thought so it can analyse it from the inside. Then by searching some more information on this argument I founded a similar thought in the '''Baconian's method''' that divide the act of knowing a certain phenomenon onto two fundamental processes: the ''pars destruens'' an the ''pars construens''.
[[File: myFavEconomist.jpg | thumb]]
Anyway coming back to Schumpeter I just found intresting how he is considered a controverted character, too near to Nazism and at the same time too near to the beginning of US' capitalism and surely one of its promoter. From his proudness to be an ethnic German (even if it wasn't XD), his loyalty to monarchy, his relation with banks, to his opposition to Marxism and Socialism, his crtique to the New Deal and his concept of 'creative destruction', as near to Nietzschean's corrupted thought as the Nazi ideolgy. My intention here is not to argue against Schumpeter but this controverted story makes me think about how a concept can be shown as very social and promoter of change, as the National Socialist German's party was, hiding a far-right ideology. Applied to the contemporary, how neo-liberalism sometimes appears as a right capitalist ideology disguised as a social one, and how the promotion of the entrepreneur of the self can be easily converted in an instrument of repression rather than become a real vehicle of innovation.
Anyway coming back to Schumpeter I just found intresting how he is considered a controverted character, too near to Nazism and at the same time too near to the beginning of US' capitalism and surely one of its promoter. From his proudness to be an ethnic German (even if it wasn't XD), his loyalty to monarchy, his relation with banks, to his opposition to Marxism and Socialism, his crtique to the New Deal and his concept of 'creative destruction', as near to Nietzschean's corrupted thought as the Nazi ideolgy. My intention here is not to argue against Schumpeter but this controverted story makes me think about how a concept can be shown as very social and promoter of change, as the National Socialist German's party was, hiding a far-right ideology. Applied to the contemporary, how neo-liberalism sometimes appears as a right capitalist ideology disguised as a social one, and how the promotion of the entrepreneur of the self can be easily converted in an instrument of repression rather than become a real vehicle of innovation.


[[Category: Start up, Burn out: Life Hacks]]
[[Category: Start up, Burn out: Life Hacks]]

Revision as of 03:16, 5 October 2018

What if Shumpeter was a Nazi and his Entrepreneur hides a Far-Right Ideology?

caption

Yesterday while I was reading the biographies of the suggested readings' writers for this special issue, just to do a fast comparison between their lifes and their works, I found out an intresting relation that made me thought and that I would like to let here.

I can't say that in Schumpeter's text I haven't felt there was something that sounds strange to me: the creative response as an economical paradigm.

Studing as a Designer always putted me in front of a constant push to be creative, and to recognize myself in the category of the Creatives (not to say Makers).

This wasn't something I related to Design as its indentification label,

MyFavEconomist.jpg

while I focused on the process and methodology as more relevat than the production of an object pushed by economical necessity to create. My point of view lead me to move on the opposite side and to rethink the Designer as a destructive character that in order to create first has to destroy by deconstructing its subject through logical thought so it can analyse it from the inside. Then by searching some more information on this argument I founded a similar thought in the Baconian's method that divide the act of knowing a certain phenomenon onto two fundamental processes: the pars destruens an the pars construens.

Anyway coming back to Schumpeter I just found intresting how he is considered a controverted character, too near to Nazism and at the same time too near to the beginning of US' capitalism and surely one of its promoter. From his proudness to be an ethnic German (even if it wasn't XD), his loyalty to monarchy, his relation with banks, to his opposition to Marxism and Socialism, his crtique to the New Deal and his concept of 'creative destruction', as near to Nietzschean's corrupted thought as the Nazi ideolgy. My intention here is not to argue against Schumpeter but this controverted story makes me think about how a concept can be shown as very social and promoter of change, as the National Socialist German's party was, hiding a far-right ideology. Applied to the contemporary, how neo-liberalism sometimes appears as a right capitalist ideology disguised as a social one, and how the promotion of the entrepreneur of the self can be easily converted in an instrument of repression rather than become a real vehicle of innovation.