#Joseph Schumpeter | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

cvlavelle · 5 months

Text

From Theory to Rebellion: A Journey of Discovery

Introduction to Entrepreneurship

“It was never a Great Beginning, but it was the Beginning of Something Great.”

This blog article presents the lessons and discussions I encountered in our first classroom set-up in the Entrepreneurial Mind course. It will be an Introduction to Entrepreneurship.

Theory on Entrepreneurship

In today's dynamic economic landscape, even experts struggle with establishing a single theory that would explain the complexities of understanding what fuels economic growth.

Despite this, one prominent theory, dating back to 1934 and championed by economist Joseph Schumpeter, sheds light on the pivotal role of entrepreneurs in driving economic prosperity. Schumpeter's theory emphasizes the significance of individuals—whom he aptly dubbed entrepreneurs—in catalyzing growth through their innovative ventures.

Entrepreneurs are the backbone of the economy. Motivated by personal profit and a desire to benefit society, they are the backbone of the economy. For Schumpeter, entrepreneurship isn't merely about business; it's a mindset—an inherent drive to create, produce, and achieve. This entrepreneur-centered perspective underscores the profound impact of entrepreneurial endeavors in fostering socio-economic development and shaping the trajectory of our collective future.

Entrepreneurship as a Concept

Entrepreneurship embodies the proactive pursuit of opportunities, driven by a relentless desire to innovate and create value. It surpasses the limitations of having limited existing resources, emphasizing resourcefulness and resilience in facing challenges. Entrepreneurship is about seizing the moment, taking calculated risks, and transforming ideas into tangible outcomes that benefit individuals and society.

Entrepreneurship & Start-ups

Different types of start-ups range from small businesses and mainstream to technopreneurship (growth and global). Start-ups may be:

Tech Start-up: A tech startup is a new business that focuses on developing and providing technology-based products or services. These startups often aim to innovate and disrupt traditional industries by leveraging technology to solve problems or meet market needs. They typically prioritize rapid growth through scalable technology solutions.

E-commerce Start-up: An e-commerce startup is a new business that operates online, selling products or services through digital platforms such as websites or mobile apps. These startups leverage the Internet and digital marketing strategies to reach customers and facilitate transactions. E-commerce startups may sell a wide range of products, from physical goods to digital downloads, and often prioritize user experience and convenience.

Social Impact Start-up: A social impact startup is a business that aims to address social or environmental issues while also making a profit. These startups focus on creating positive social or environmental change through their products, services, or business models. Some social impact startups may operate as for-profit businesses, while others may be structured as nonprofit organizations. They prioritize financial sustainability and social impact, seeking to create meaningful change in the world.

Lifestyle Start-ups: A lifestyle startup is a business that focuses on providing products or services that enhance the lifestyle or well-being of its customers. These startups often cater to specific niche markets or consumer segments, offering products or services related to health, wellness, fitness, fashion, travel, or other aspects of personal lifestyle. Lifestyle startups may range from boutique fitness studios to subscription-based meal delivery services, and they typically prioritize customer experience and satisfaction.

According to Ken Singer, a start-up is an act of rebellion. This rebellion introduces “disruptions.” Disruptions may either be a proposed change in the order of things or a rejection of the existing insufficient ways. This disruption may also threaten incumbents and use market dominance and power to keep out new players.

Importance of Entrepreneurship Training

The generally believed train of thought of how people start a business is as follows: awareness, theory, practice, and mindset. In a change of mindset, there are two main choices for people interested in starting a business/start-up. It boils down to the decision of where a successful alumni will innovate. Innovations targeted at already established businesses/industries are tailored for intrapreneurship, whereas innovations targeted at new ventures that have yet to be discovered are included in entrepreneurship.

Misconceptions about Entrepreneurship

“It is a linear process.”

A major misconception is that there is a definite order or flow of steps to take when entering entrepreneurship or developing a start-up. For one, this linear process believes an already-prepared data set will apply to every business. Entrepreneurship is a complex process that is people-oriented. Hence, it becomes a case-to-case analysis of how to make certain ventures successful.

“It is taught like other academic subjects.”

It would be a grave mistake to believe that entrepreneurship is academic. Most academic subjects rely on deductive reasoning, whereas entrepreneurs must learn inductively in entrepreneurship. They must engage with real-life scenarios and experience the process rather than explain it in theory. There wasn’t even a standard theory to be followed, so entrepreneurs could only rely on using as much as they could learn and adapt to the problem that their journey for their venture project.

“Entrepreneurs are students simply studying entrepreneurship.”

It is false to assume that becoming an entrepreneur is as easy as starting a business. One major consideration is the entrepreneurs' mindsets. Entrepreneurs, in general, are willing to risk being wrong, practice the ‘good enough’ culture, and collaborate proactively. A student can become an entrepreneur, but he/she has to discard the characteristics of being a student.

Reflection

Reflecting on the lessons learned from the discussions, I am reminded of entrepreneurship's multifaceted nature and the qualities defining successful entrepreneurs. The emphasis on embracing uncertainty, taking risks, and learning from failure resonates deeply, highlighting the importance of resilience and adaptability in the entrepreneurial journey. Rather than fearing imperfection, I now understand the value of embracing it as a catalyst for innovation and growth. Additionally, maintaining a humble attitude and seeking guidance from others underscores entrepreneurship's collaborative and community-oriented aspect, reinforcing that success is achieved in isolation through collective effort and support. Moreover, the discussion has instilled renewed determination and purpose in pursuing entrepreneurship. I am inspired by the relentless curiosity and drive exhibited by successful entrepreneurs, propelling them to challenge the status quo and explore new opportunities for growth and development. Acknowledging entrepreneurship as a journey filled with challenges and setbacks is a sobering yet empowering realization, reminding me that each obstacle presents an opportunity for learning and personal evolution. Armed with this newfound perspective, I am eager to embark on the entrepreneurial path fueled by a desire to make a meaningful impact and leave a lasting legacy. In conclusion, the discussion has served as a powerful catalyst for personal reflection and growth, deepening my understanding of the entrepreneurial mindset and reaffirming my commitment to pursuing success in adversity. I am grateful for the insights gained and the motivation derived from this reflection. I am excited to channel this energy into my entrepreneurial endeavors, armed with the knowledge that failure is not the end but a stepping stone toward greater achievement.

#entrepreneurial_mind #BSCE_1B #Introduction-to-Entrepreneurship

2 notes · View notes

luxe-pauvre · 1 year

Text

To a biologist, a population is a “reproductive community of sexual and cross-fertilizing individuals which share a common gene pool.” Since paintings have neither genes nor sex, it may seem that any theory of artistic change that relies on Darwinian logic cannot even get off the ground. But it is precisely my claim that assemblages of artifacts are also populations. Each new artifact, be it a painting, paper, poem, or pot, begins as an idea, and most ideas are old. Our predecessors fertilize our minds and engender recombinant, or, should we actually have an original thought, mutant, progeny that we give flesh by our instruments and disperse by our media. We do so in the hope that they will multiply in the market’s wilds, while knowing full well that its invisible hand will, in all probability, bury them without their having been seen, read, or heard by hardly anyone at all. This analogy between the causes of organic and cultural change has struck economists such as Joseph Schumpeter, who described the evolution of firms, and epistemologists such as Karl Popper, who theorized the growth of knowledge.Daniel Dennett called Darwin’s theory a “universal acid” that transforms all it touches. There are evolutionary accounts of social structures, religion, language, literature, architecture and, of course, visual art too.

Armand Marie Leroi, The Nature of Art

#Armand Marie Leroi #The Nature of Art

5 notes · View notes

sudarionegie · 1 year

Text

Blog #1

With the introduction of this subject, The Entrepreneurial Mind, I will first discuss my perspective on the theory of Joseph Schumpeter on economic growth. The economy will not function if there are no entrepreneurs. In order to have economic growth, entrepreneurs must produce goods and services from which everyone can benefit. This entrepreneur is not just aiming for personal gain but also for customer satisfaction and needs.

Introduction

As I have learned, entrepreneurship is the process of creating an opportunity to produce innovative products and services, regardless of the resources owned. In entrepreneurship, there are entrepreneurs who can start a small or large business, depending on resources.

Introduction to Technology Entrepreneurship

The science and technology-based company is the type of entrepreneurship that operates using technology and has grown from a small business to a globally impactful and popular type of entrepreneurship. This type of entrepreneurship is often used by everybody and gets popular in terms of market capitalization for a period of time. I realized that one company will become popular for a specific period of time or even a longer period of time, depending on the market strategy.

Business Start up

The phrase “A start-up is an act of rebellion" signifies that starting a business is a risky and difficult one due to disruption. This means that when entering the market, there are existing competitors who have dominated and controlled power. Some disruptions are a proposed change in the order of things, a rejection of the fact that the current way is insufficient and threatens the incumbents. I learned that in order to start a business, entrepreneurs must have critical thinking skills, innovative skills, decision-making skills, and many more skills for them to be seen and recognized in the market.

Entrepreneur and Intrapreneur

In the world of entrepreneurship, an individual has two paths: either an entrepreneur or an intrapreneur. An entrepreneur takes a new business idea and starts a company to bring it to market. An intrapreneur is an employee who channels that same creativity and innovation to develop new products and services. The intrapreneur may not face the outsized risks or reap the outsized rewards of an entrepreneur; however, the intrapreneur has access to the resources and capabilities of an established company. I learned that these two paths have so many similarities. An individual will become an entrepreneur if he or she owns resources. Otherwise, he or she will become an intrapreneur to give his or her business ideas and innovations.

Business Misconception

There are things that were raised during planning for starting a business, but somehow those things are not feasible in reality. I have learned that it must come from a systematic process and take a lot of time to come up with the desired goals.

Students and Entrepreneurs

There is a big difference between students and entrepreneurs. A student should always look for perfection, be afraid to commit a mistake, know the correct answer, zero sum, and treat everyone as competitors. However, entrepreneurs must take risks, ask for help, learn from mistakes, be accretive, and treat everyone as a resource. I have learned that an entrepreneur doesn't need to be perfect as long as he or she has systematic goals to achieve and knows how to communicate effectively with others.

Conclusion

The information and illustrations from the introduction to The Entrepreneurial Mind give me so much enlightenment, learning, and realization. With this entrepreneurship, it enables me to broaden my innovation skills and interact directly with the problem. Furthermore, it enables me to make my own decisions wisely and learn inductively. Lastly, this is the stepping stone for my future endeavor, which is to become a successful entrepreneur.

2 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 2 years

Text

They looked a picture of respectability and restraint. But on Wednesday, when Rebecca Newsom and Ami McCarthy held up their Greenpeace banner with the words “Who voted for this?” on it, their neighbours in the Birmingham conference hall were not impressed. Conservative party members may have applauded the prime minister’s words about the value of disruption. But this was not the sort of disruption they had had in mind. Why does this D-word hold such an allure for the shiny-eyed advocates of a bracing future? The story begins 25 years ago, with the publication of a book called The Innovator’s Dilemma by a Harvard Business School professor, Clay Christensen. Christensen argued that businesses can go wrong when they persist with plausible and incremental development (“sustaining innovation”) when in fact something cheaper, scrappier but more radical might uncover new and untapped demand for something (“disruptive innovation”). Disruptive innovators would conquer new markets and win out over steadier but more cautious rivals. As ever, when the nugget of something new and interesting emerges in the business world, followers took up the idea, spread it and inevitably distorted it. So it was that “disruption” became the almost unquestioned goal for many business startups, and a label to dangle in front of venture capitalists. Uber was disruptive to the taxi business. So now the aim was to find “the Uber” for a range of other activities. “Disrupt or be disrupted” ran the mantra. The historian Jill Lepore, also a professor at Harvard, pointed out how the yearning for disruption had got out of hand in a New Yorker essay in 2014. “[Christensen’s] acolytes and imitators, including no small number of hucksters, have called for the disruption of more or less everything else,” she wrote. The financial crisis of 2008 had been caused in part by reckless innovation. “These products of disruption contributed to the panic on which the theory of disruption thrives.” On Wednesday, Liz Truss told her audience: “The scale of the challenge is immense. War in Europe for the first time in a generation. A more uncertain world in the aftermath of Covid. And a global economic crisis. That is why in Britain we need to do things differently. We need to step up. As the last few weeks have shown, it will be difficult. Whenever there is change, there is disruption. Not everyone will be in favour. But everyone will benefit from the result – a growing economy and a better future.”

But who really wants more disruption in their lives? Not the homeowner, who is now facing an interest rate of 6% for a two-year fixed mortgage, the highest rate for 14 years. Not the taxpayer, now on the hook for the repayment over many years of the cost of the government’s unfunded tax cuts. These market moves, described by Kwasi Kwarteng as “a little turbulence”, will have big and lasting consequences.

Truss’s words were also an oblique homage to the notion of “creative destruction”, a phrase popularised by the Austrian-born economist Joseph Schumpeter. While he had an even-handed and grounded view of the value of this concept, subsequent enthusiasts for creative destruction tend to emphasise the first word while underplaying and underappreciating the implications of the second.

Business language and ideas often spill over into politics, influencing the decision-making process and the vocabulary used to explain and justify it. “Choice” has long been held up as an uncontroversially good thing, as if public policy measures were akin to the actions of a supermarket adjusting its display of fruit and veg. But who has genuine choice and the capacity to choose? Not everybody.

We should know by now to beware of leaders with a glint in the eye who tell us that if we are simply tough enough and brave enough a glorious future awaits – as long as we stick with them through the “inevitable” rough times. Disruption may be OK for the very comfortably off. It may hold few terrors for those whose futures are assured. But when people tell you that tough decisions are sadly going to have to be made, remember who will be on the receiving end of those decisions. It probably isn’t the person making them.

3 notes · View notes

yarilogarden · 9 days

Text

What does Democracy means?

This text was written by me back in college. It is about Democracy, Capitalism, Socialism, and the DPRK. Modesty aside, I thought it turned out pretty good, so I’m translating it and posting it here.

In this course we studied some important theoretical productions about Democracy. And after the construction of the group Seminar, which debated the question: “What is Democracy?”, this work seeks to deepen the reflection on this same topic a little more.

As is natural, due to the influence of the so-called “Western world” on our country, many of these authors studied discuss this issue based on contemporary bourgeois liberal democracy. As an example of political scientists of bourgeois democracy, it is possible to cite Joseph Schumpeter, when he addresses democracy in capitalism and socialism, and Robert Dahl, when he presents the concept of Polyarchy.

Schumpeter was a liberal political scientist who presented his “Method of Democracy” in his work Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. As a method, the author works with a concept of democracy based on well-defined norms, exercised by an efficient Bureaucracy (in the Weberian sense of a professional and impersonal administrative framework).

For the author, political equality is not a possible objective, so the democratic method focuses on trying to guarantee an institutional arrangement that leads to the common good. This arrangement should enable a political environment of high electoral competitiveness, with several parties as organizations representing different political tendencies, which compete in a free market logic on exclusively electoral routes. It is also necessary for this party organization to respect institutional norms.

Furthermore, it is also necessary to limit the possibility of decision-making, with systems of checks and balances that can prevent a politician, be they president, prime minister, deputy, etc. to make radical or extreme decisions that could generate political instability (such as calling into question the legitimacy of private ownership of the means of production or engaging in politics beyond electoral channels – a position strongly rejected by Schumpeter).

For this, the action of the aforementioned cold, impersonal, professional and efficient Weberian Bureaucracy is necessary.

On the other hand, Robert Dahl presents the concept of Polyarchy as a type of advanced democracy, analyzing other types of political organization during his work.

Dahl observes some factors, such as liberalization and popularization, present in political regimes. In this case, liberalization is characterized by the degree of public contestation and opposition to the current government, while popularization is characterized by the degree of popular participation in political decision-making.

Regarding the relationship between an active government and the opposition, the author highlights some possibilities: the first is that the lower the risk of losing the government for tolerating the opposition, the lower the probability of repression of the opposition. The second is that the greater the costs (political and economic) of repressing the opposition, the less likely repression will be. The third is that the more the costs of repression exceed the costs of peaceful tolerance, the greater the likelihood of the existence of a competitive political regime.

Based on these technical definitions, the author presents Cartesian graphs where it is possible to visualize and monitor the mentioned trends, characterizing certain behavior patterns of political regimes. In this case, a regime with low popularization and low liberalization is called a Closed Hegemony, a regime with low liberalization and high popularization is called an Inclusive Hegemony, a regime with high liberalization and low popularization is called a Competitive Oligarchy, and finally a regime with high liberalization and high popularization is called a Polyarchy.

Schumpeter and Dahl, despite presenting very different characterizations of the functioning of contemporary democracy, converge in the fact that their theoretical constructions start from the assumption that a truly open and democratic political regime necessarily involves maintaining private ownership of the means of production and of the bourgeoisie as ruling class. In this way, any form of divergent political organization automatically becomes a “dictatorship”, or ceases to be a full democracy in some capacity.

Schumpeter demonstrates his vision of socialist political organization in the following excerpt:

Firstly, we have the large socialist community, which is led by a minority party and offers no opportunities to others. The representatives of this party, gathered at the organization's XVIII Convention, heard reports and unanimously approved resolutions, where nothing was heard that resembled what we call debates. They ended by voting (as the official sources say) that "the Russian people (?), in unconditional devotion to the party of Lenin and Stalin, and to the great leader, accept the program of great works outlined in the most sublime of documents of our time (. ..)” (Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, p. 286)

Here, the author characterizes the functioning of the Soviet Union's politics as a closed and dictatorial regime, with a slight institutional simulacrum.

Dahl, on the other hand, recognizes that sometimes organizations that escape capitalist hegemony may not be so closed:

The extraordinary attempt to allow a great deal of self-management in subnational units in Yugoslavia means that the opportunities for participation and contestation are greater in that country, despite the one-party regime, than in, say, Argentina or Brazil. (Dahl, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, p. 34)

Although the author recognizes the immense mobilization of the population in the self-management of Yugoslav society, through mechanisms of direct democracy, he also characterizes this political system as being “single party”, and therefore, according to his own theory, less democratic than others with many different parties.

The so-called elitist theories of (Bourgeois) Democracy, although important for understanding the relationship between the people and state institutions in Western liberal democracies, does not have the necessary tools to understand state organizations that deviate from these models.

Such alternatives are then mechanically labeled “regimes” and “dictatorships”. By “coincidence”, chance meant that the democracies were mostly in Western Europe and North America, while the rest of the American continent, the African continent and Asia as a whole were mostly full of dictatorships.

It is necessary to note, however, that during the height of the Cold War, a significant number of States around the world (mostly on the Asian and African continents) adopted a political organization contrary to capitalist hegemony, if not openly socialist. These states, many of which lasted a long time (some surviving to this day), would not be able to maintain themselves and achieve political stability solely through force and repression. The longevity (and even popular approval in current opinion polls) of these political models expresses an element of popular support and sense of democratic participation that cannot be ignored.

So, as a counterpoint to elitist theories, it is possible to mention the functioning of democracy in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), commonly known as “North Korea”.

As it is a socialist country (where there is no private ownership of the means of production) and has a vanguard revolutionary Marxist-Leninist party in power, the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK), the State is organized through People's Councils.

People's Councils are Direct Democracy organizations that arise from the basic levels of workplace, study (schools and universities), and places of residence, passing through neighborhood levels, municipal and state levels, until reaching the Supreme People's Assembly, the highest level of deliberation.

In these Councils, all interested parties can participate: present their political views, vote and be voted for. Furthermore, participation is not mandatory. A specific party affiliation is also not mandatory, and members of the WPK, the Korean Social Democratic Party, the Chondoist Chongu Party, independents not affiliated to any party, etc. can participate.

In these meetings, the political lines to be followed and the delegates of the higher authorities are decided by majority vote: If a deliberate policy cannot be immediately applied, a delegate is voted to present it to the higher authority. These delegates can also be instantly removed through a vote by their Popular Council, if they present serious misconduct in their role.

This functioning of direct democracy mechanisms in the DPRK, although it constitutes only one aspect of this complex system of government, is important to study, since modern democracy theorists are unable to explain it using their traditional academic constructs.

Added to this is the fact that the DPRK (as it is a socialist country that resists imperialist pressure to this day, even after the end of the former Eastern bloc) is one of the most harassed, caricatured and ridiculed societies on the planet. This caricature, in addition to its political bias, is constructed by the media and Western academics about Korea and its people from an extremely orientalist and racist perspective.

This is also why this study and demystification of the DPRK must be carried out, since it is impossible to assume a position favorable to the self-determination of the people while denying the Korean people the right to exist.

Bibliographic References

DAHL, Robert. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition.

SCHUMPETER, Joseph. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy.

VISENTINI, Paulo G. Fagundes. The Korean Revolution: The Unknown Juche Socialism. São Paulo. Unesp Publishing. 2015

Pictures - Sources

Mansudae Workers Monument - https://www.youngpioneertours.com/mansudae-grand-monument-faq/

Pyongyang City Life - https://new.sewanee.edu/features/racing-through-pyongyang/

#marxism #dprk #north korea #socialism #democracy #political science #social sciences

1 note · View note