Schumpeter, Theorist of the Avant-Garde

This paper argues that Schumpeter’s ‘Theory of Economic Development’ is best interpreted as a theory of the avant-garde, in line with such theories developed by artistic avant-garde at the times, such as the Futurists. The work is not only published around the same time that many avant-garde movements published their important pamphlets and intellectual works, but it is comparable in rhetoric and aims. Schumpeter's original German version of the 'Theory of economic development' is different in important respects from the later German and English version. His notion of the Man of Action - Mann der Tat - is an avant-garde figure, who in whatever domain he is active, can revolutionize that field, and introduce 'the new'. This interpretation is based on comparison between the elements of Schumpeter's theory and the important avant-garde pamphlets and theories of the time. Most importantly the share the following characteristics: wanting to break with past (1), identifying an avant-garde who could force that break (2), finding new ways to represent the dynamic world (3), the embrace of the new and dynamic (4) and the fact that both Schumpeter and the avant-garde promoted a perpetual dynamic process, instead of a specific end-state or utopia (5).

The avant-garde is a general concept, but in cultural histories it typically refers to the early twentieth-century movements of futurism, Dadaism, Surrealism and some Russian movements, most notably Suprematism. As such it shares many characteristics with the more general cultural notion of modernism which refers to the general break with traditions: "a sharp sense of militancy, praise of nonconformism [and] courageous precursory exploration" (Calinescu 1987, 95). Some streams of modernism, however, are rather inward-looking, as opposed to the avant-garde movements who seek to embrace the new and bring about change in art as well as society. For that reason prominent theorist of the avant-garde, distinguishes between aestheticism and avantgardism (Bürger 1984). The former is primarily inward looking, but the latter sees artists as those who will lead society into the future. The embrace of change, and utopian visions of the future are thus frequently associated with the avant-garde. Although as Calinescu emphasizes, the avant-garde is frequently more occupied with destroying the old, than with putting forward a definite notion of what the new will be. The destruction of the old and the 'new' itself is their goal (Calinescu 1987, 115-120). theorist, however, we will see that if anything these theories should be called Mark II and III, for Schumpeter's 1911 theory of economic evolution is radically different from those later versions. Recent scholarship has re-appreciated the importance of the first edition of TWE, however it has mainly focused on the methodological implications for the Schumpeterian project of the 'missing' seventh chapter (Shionoya 1990;Peukert 2003;Meerhaeghe 2003; the notable exception is Swedberg 2007). The omitted chapter is interesting for methodological concerns, but it also contains important aspects of Schumpeter's embrace of the new, and his theory of social change as brought about by an avant-garde. The central figure in that theory is the Man of Action (Mann der Tat), who has the ability to bring about change in every domain of society, it just so happens that we call him the entrepreneur in the economy. This Man of Action is the central figure of particularly the second chapter which was completely rewritten for the second 1926 edition, which served as the basis for the English translation.
The goal of this paper is not to argue that Schumpeter was directly influenced by these avant-garde movements, the paper offers no evidence in that direction. Instead it seeks to demonstrate the close likeness between the vision, rhetoric and aims of Schumpeter and these artistic avant-garde movements, in particular with futurism-the movement that is closest in time and to place to Schumpeter's TWE. By exploring these similarities I seek to offer an alternative interpretation of Schumpeter's contribution, an interpretation that relates his work to the cultural atmosphere of pre-WWI Europe, and somewhat less to contemporary economics. Although the latter context remains important for understanding his contribution. This paper will succeed if it is able to convince the reader, that there are such close similarities between the work of Schumpeter and the avant-garde movements that we cannot deny what Apollonio calls a "kind of intimate communion of spirit", shared by the intellectual and artistic elite in those crucial years before the Great War (Apollonio 2009, 14). This intimate communion might be partly due to a common ancestor, Nietzsche for example, whose influence on Schumpeter is studied by Reinert and Reinert (Reinert and Reinert 2006). But this paper argues that the similarities go beyond a shared ancestor, and extend to how Schumpeter and the artistic avant-gardes think about the future.
The paper explores five aspects shared by Schumpeter and the avant-garde movements. The vehement rejection of the 'stasis' and traditions of the classics (section I). The desire to break with these constraints, and pave a new path (section II). The development of a self-conscious theory of the avant-garde as the movement that will do so, and the problem of representing this avant-garde and the new dynamic world (section III). The embrace of new forms and creation, and how these are brought about (section IV). And the ideal of a perpetual revolution, a dynamism without end (section V).

I. The lifeless static world
The point of departure for Schumpeter in his TWE is the static theory of the classics, which is in 1911 epitomized by the theoretical framework of Walras (TWE, 100), and the recent expositions of Clark and Pantaleoni (TWE,473). This static theory is what Mises has later described as the evenly-rotating economy in which the processes occur over and over again, unless disturbed by external factors such as population growth or changes in tastes. Or as Schumpeter describes that system: "Since it exists, theoretical economics has in essence sketched a static, self-repeating and constant economic life.
(…) The great revolution in of the [economic] theory of the subjective value theory has left the static quality of the house of economic theory untouched" (TWE, 100-101) 2,3 . It is Schumpeter's goal to break with this static model, and instead introduce a dynamic model of the economy. In a move that resembles Keynes' strategy in the General Theory, Schumpeter denounces everything that came before him as the classics. And all the classics are guilty of the same sin, only analyzing the static economy: "They did not imagine that there could be an alternative concept to the static economy" (TWE,477).
In this static economy all changes are on the margin. And individuals find no incentive or energy to do anything more: "most of the time such people are on slippery ground and the effort to stand straight exhausts their energies and suppresses all appetite for further exploration" (TWE,162). In that sense the static model is reflective of an ossified society, 'a dormant economy' (TWE,481), in which traditions govern individual behavior and whenever changes occurs they are small and incremental: "It is the usage of that, which one has learned, working on the inherited foundation, doing what everyone does. There is only passive adjustment and acceptance of the circumstances" (TWE, 125) 4 . The attack that Schumpeter will mount against classical theory, pertains just as much to its theoretical apparatus as the underlying idea of a static economy.
As we will also see in more detail below, Schumpeter is playing at least two boards simultaneously. He does not only criticize the classical static theory, which has been constant for more than hundred years, but also the type of static economy that it represents. Thus his claim about the incomplete static theories is also a criticism of the lack of dynamism in the economy itself, or at the very least the failure to promote such dynamism by classical economists.
It is this dual criticism that theorist of the avant-garde Peter Bürger identifies as characteristic of the avant-garde. In a discussion of his work Richard Murphy argues that: "according to Burger, the historical avant-garde of the early twentieth century (…) develops not only in response to the need to mark a break with the artistic tradition as a whole, but more specifically in response to the need to distinguish its emergent artistic credo from those conventionally aestheticist principles" (Murphy 1999, 78). The avantgarde, according to Bürger, rejects the quietist, consolatory and apologetic function of art, and seeks to criticize the institution of art, or at least the current position of art in society. Schumpeter's economics has been labelled a curious mixture between Walras and Marx, but on this point, Schumpeter is clearly closer to Marx, he seeks to expose the static bourgeois nature of classical economics (Smithies 1951). The idea that economics is closely linked to ideology will remain an important part of his work (Schumpeter 1949;Schumpeter 1954a).
The idea of forcing a break with the past, also lies at the heart, of the first twentieth century artistic avant-garde movement, futurism. In their manifestoes they preach the destruction of the old. Marinetti, the most prominent futurist, compared the museum to a cemetery, in which the classics are buried, literature up to now has: "exalted contemplative stillness, ecstasy, and sleep" (Marinetti 1909(Marinetti /2009. The classics were only representing a: "fixed moment in universal dynamism" (Boccioni et al. 1910, 64). Schumpeter originally had wanted to call his theory dynamic, but decided against it, as he observes in a letter to the American economist Clark, because of the negative reactions to that term among his German friends (Schumpeter 2000, 48). He, however, makes clear that his theory of development is no mere extension of the static theory: "development and equilibrium in the sense that we have given these terms are therefore opposites, the one excludes the other" (TWE, 489). Schumpeter was forcing a break with the classics, not merely making marginal adjustments, just as economic development caused: "entire layers of society [to] lose the ground under their feet" (TWE, 503).

II. Breaking the chains
To explain why both our view of the economy, and the economy itself are typically static, Schumpeter has to explain why it is so hard to change. He argues that the primary constraint is the status quo, which most people wish to uphold. To break this status quo an individual has to be strong mentally, socially and economically. These correspond to three different types of oppositions the entrepreneur faces according to Schumpeter: psychological, sociological and economic. The economic constraint is not our main concern here, especially since Schumpeter does not differ very significantly from other authors in this respect 5 . So let us start by analyzing the social opposition for the entrepreneur, der Mann der Tat.
For Schumpeter the social constraints are not the legal and political framework in which the entrepreneur operates, for they are by and large not determined within the economy. They are rather the actual reactions of the people around the entrepreneur and in the wider society. Every society according to Schumpeter demands conformity and the individual will have to fight that conformity if he wants to do something out of the ordinary or something new: "Every aberrant act from a member of society will meet the disapproval of the others members" (TWE, 118) 6 . Examples of such aberrant behavior are dressing differently, a different demeanor, or different habits. Behavior not at all strange to the young Schumpeter, who early was the subject of repeated scandal (McCraw 2007, 76-80).
Overcoming this social resistance was central to the entrepreneur. He is by nature a divergent individual, and would therefore find strong resistance from the people around him. Few would be able to break these resistances, and most would conform to the social norms: "[such] pressure is coercive for the masses" (TWE, 119) 7 .
The task for the entrepreneur was not merely to resist these conformist pressures, but also to be able to convince others that his plans are worthwhile. He needs to persuade consumers that they need a new product, those within his organization that they should produce it, and the banks that they should finance it. Schumpeter emphasizes that wants do not just spring up, but have to be created by the entrepreneur (TWE, 485). As a consequence the entrepreneur, the man of action, should accept that he is looked upon as an outcast.
The social pressures are primarily external, but the economic avant-garde also has to be able to break with their own psychological habits: "It [is] infinitely lighter, to go down a beaten track, than to pave a new one.
[…] It takes a new and differently natured use of will power, of which not everyone is capable" (TWE, 120) 8 . It is not just social pressure which conforms people, it is also our own heart according to Schumpeter. Both physically and mentally we are used to a certain lifestyle, a certain routine. We know such routines like the back of our hand and they don't require any special decisions.
Thomas McCraw, Schumpeter's most recent biographer, understands the importance of the analysis of this resistance well. He argues: "Perhaps with his own trailblazing in mind, Schumpeter goes on to describe a sequence of stubborn opposition against anyone who wants to do anything new.
'This resistance manifests itself first of all in the groups threatened by the innovation, then in the difficulty in finding the necessary cooperation, finally in the difficulty in winning over consumers'. In business, the development of a large-scale corporation is especially challenging, because few useful patterns exist. To overcome all these barriers requires a "special aptitude." The same could be said for remaking an academic discipline, as Schumpeter was trying to do.
For the overwhelming majority of economic subjects such psychological and social barriers are impossible to overcome. However there is a group, or rather there are individuals, who can break free from these oppositions. Who do not gradually adjust, but are capable of creation and doing something completely new. Who to speak with Schumpeter, define the difference between swimming with the stream and swimming against the stream (Schumpeter 1912, 121). They possess the necessary energy and will power to free themselves of the social bonds and psychological chains. Those special type of individuals will be analyzed in the next section, but let us return to the Futurists.
The self-confident avant-garde movements spent little time analyzing the possible resistance they might have to fight. But they display a clear agonistic attitude to the past, which has to be destroyed or overcome (Poggioli 1971, 65-68). And the social and the psychological opposition can be clearly identified for the avant-garde movements. The Impressionist famously sought to break from free from the powerful French Academy, and later avant-garde movements followed their lead in breaking with dominant art institutions. The academy, the Futurists argued, by training young students in the traditional methods and forms caused the "prudent repression and the constriction of any free or daring tendency" (Pratella 1911, 77). The attempt of the avant-garde to form movements independent of these official institutions was perhaps their most visible characteristic (Poggioli 1971, chap. 2). Instead of relying on these established organizations and create change from within they sought new audiences through their manifestos. Particularly notable is the original Futurist manifesto, which was published on the front page of an Italian and a French newspaper.
The Italian and Russian avant-gardes were also aware of the psychological constraints they had to break free from, although they saw these more in other than in themselves. The mind of the public was not used to seeing the new forms, but habituated by routine to appreciate the aesthetics of the past and therefore: "The [public's] eye must be freed from its veil of atavism and culture" (Boccioni et al. 1910, 66). Moreover the public had not always experienced the sensations the avant-gardes were trying to depict: "How can a man who always rides in a gig understand the experiences and impressions of one who travels in an express or flies through the air?" (Malevich 1968, 28).
As in Schumpeter's theory these various difficulties in undertaking new actions results in a majority of the painters and the public who prefer to keep things as they are.
They were merely perfecting the craft of the past, instead of doing something new. These painters were 'docile slaves of past tradition' according to Boccioni and his fellow Futurists (Boccioni et al. 1910, 62). Such painters lacked the courage and often the mental capabilities to break free from the reigning tradition and academicism. The avant-garde movements, on the other hand, were able to break with these traditions, and standards of the past. Schumpeter emphasized that this was by no means simple: "unconsciously the past is always the judge of the present" (TWE, 535). But it was up to the man of action, or the avant-garde to create new standards and measures. As Malevich commented: "enormous strength of will was needed to violate all the rules and to strip away the hardened skin of academism and to spit in the face of common sense" (Malevich 1968, 30).

III. Understanding and representing the Man of Action
The Man of Action-who in the later version and translation is called the entrepreneur-is the central figure in Schumpeter's 1911 theory of economic development. The Man of Action is according to Schumpeter present in many branches of society: in art, science, politics and the economy, in which he is the entrepreneur. The crucial difference in this early theory is not so much the distinction between the inventor and the innovator, a distinction most often emphasized in the literature, but rather the distinction between individuals who adjust to circumstances, and those individuals who shape the circumstances. This man (never a woman), knows no psychological opposition, and by virtue of being a leader is able to shape to society around him: The Man of Action acts on foreign ground with the same determination and the same vigor as on well-known ground. The fact, that something is not yet done, is no reason for him to hesitate. He does not feel those impediments, which otherwise determine the behavior of economic subjects.
(TWE, 132) 9 The Man of Action is free from the psychological constraints we identified in the previous section. This is equally true for the social constraints which the entrepreneur faces, instead of accepting the given circumstances he fights and transforms them. The behavior of the energetic type is not brought about by conscious calculation, but rather a strong willpower: "The men, who shaped the modern industry were 'spirited lads', and not weaklings" (Schumpeter 1912, 137) 12 . The Man of Action is driven by a sort of intuition, an inner willpower and it is therefore, Schumpeter claims, that we should not focus on his environment, or the particular new ideas, but the energy of his actions (Swedberg 2007, 11). He even goes as far as claiming that the fundamental things that matters is the act itself, and the power of that act, which even without an extraordinary intelligence leads to successful actions (Schumpeter 1912, 163-164). This urge to action does not lead to equilibrium as the maximizing behavior of the static individual does. Instead his actions transform the economy and society.
In fact, to describe this energetic type, Schumpeter argues we cannot rely on the precise descriptions we have developed for the maximization behavior of the static type.
Like the avant-gardes he problematizes the way we represent the dynamism of the world. The avant-gardes turn to new styles of painting, and like them Schumpeter is exploring new metaphors and concepts to capture their behavior "If we could describe his acting, as precisely as that of the 'Statics', then we would not speak of creative types at all" (TWE, 153) 13 . A problem that would continue to haunt studies of entrepreneurship (Kilby 1971).
Schumpeter, however, suggests that he is in a privileged position to understand the Man of Action. First he problematizes the extent to which we can understand and 10 In German: "Das Erreichen selbstgesetzter Ziele und das Ins-Auge-fassen neuer gehört ja in viel höhern Maße zu einem gesunden psychischen Leben kräftiger Naturen als einfaches Genußstreben." 11 In German: "immer weitere Taten, immer neue Siege". 12 In German: "Die Männer, die die moderne Industrie geschaffen haben, waren 'ganze Kerle' und keine Jammergestalten". 13 In German: "Könnten wir allerdings sein Tun so genau beschreiben, wie das der "Statiker" (…) dan würden auch wir nicht von schöpferischem Gestalten sprechen" describe the actions of the entrepreneur through our usual mode of introspection: "Only when the theory is about events which happen regularly, it is relatively easy for the observer to empathize with the motives of his subject". But then he continues: "Only when something analogous goes on in his mind, is [the observer] able to understand the motives of others" (TWE, 144) 14 . The crucial argument is in the second half of that quote, in which Schumpeter suggests that he as a creative intellectual, a Man of Action in the scholarly sphere, is able to grasp the actions of the entrepreneur. And therefore he is in a special position to analyze similar motives in the economic sphere, a position which we as readers do not necessarily have.
The problem of representation of the modern world is arguably the central problem of modernism (Kern 2003 Futurists are still awake at the break of dawn, like "proud beacons or forward sentries against an army of hostile stars". Aroused by the mighty noise of first double-decker tram of the day they get out, away, in their car. "And on we raced, hurling watchdogs against doorsteps, curling them under our burning tires like collars under a flatiron." They are driving into the unknown, with great courage. The cyclists they overtake are terrified by the sound and energy of the car. The car crashes, but that cannot stop him or his car, within no time he is back on the road, ready to declare his plans to the living on the earth. These living people are the ones who know the habits of energy and to whom fear is a stranger (Marinetti 1909(Marinetti /2009. In other words, they futurists build an ethos that allows them to explain what the future will look like. The manifesto loudly announces the coming of a new type of man, the futurist, a man of courage, audacity and revolt. A figure that is personified in the sculptures of the futurist Boccioni, especially his Unique Forms of Continuity in Space (figure 1). This new type of human being has the power and energy to lead the way and the audacity to be unrestrained by the past and. But it is also clear from their manifestos and art that to represent this new man, and his dynamic world a new mode of representation is required. This new type of human being is more energetic and freer than any other human being has ever been. Schumpeter is a bit more reluctant in describing his Man of Action as a new phenomenon. It certainly is a new type in economic theory, but he has existed in every society. However it is only in modern society that he has come to the forefront, especially economically: "Only in the modern economy has the energetic type evolved so prominently, that he now makes up a special class of economic subjects" (TWE, 171) 15 . It is modern society which has given birth to this new sort of human beings, and the values that they share are that of youngsters in general.
To be able to represent this new type of man Marinetti, the futurist deems it necessary that a Futurist is young, proudly he proclaims that none of them is over thirty years old. That will leave them only ten years to complete their tasks, because by that time they will be taken over by a new generation (Marinetti 1909(Marinetti /2009. For the individuals involved, getting old will mean losing the energy and willpower to continue the leading role in the avant-garde. For society as a whole that is hardly a problem, for their role will be taken over by an ever-new generation, leading to a kind of permanent revolution. One might think that such considerations would certainly be far from strangely still, other than by composition they seem to be unconnected. However it is 15 In German: "Erst in der der modernen Wirtschaft hat sich jedoch der energische Typus auf wirtschaftlichen Gebiete so bedeutsam entwickelt, daß er ein besondere Klasse von Wirtschaftsubjekten charakterisiert." 16 In German: "Man lebt nur während eines Bruchteils des physischen Lebens." 17 In German: "jene, die den Kampfplatz verlassen, dürften das meist nur tun, weil sich die Schatten des Abends auf ihren Tag senken und sie jüngern Gegnern sich nicht mehr gewachsen fühlen." Seurat's composition and forms that tie everyone together. The line of the standing woman's back is repeated in various parts of the picture, as for example in the sitting hatless girl. Her hip in turn is connected to the hip of the girl sitting next to her. Similarly the parasol of the standing lady in the middle of the picture is connected to a tree. The hat of the man in the bottom-left corner supports a tree, and the hat of the standing woman on the far left supports the reflection of the sailboat. Everywhere in the picture lines run parallel and shapes are repeated (Richardson 1971, 69-70). It is as if the figures in the picture are not free to move, but are static to keep the composition in equilibrium. They haven't chosen their positions freely, but to paraphrase Schumpeter, they seem to have 'drawn the consequences from the data' (TWE, 125) 18 . It is the environment which determines where and how everyone is located.
That static nature of the picture is a conscious artistic decision by Seurat, just as Schumpeter argues that the classics consciously restricted themselves to static economies. Seurat wanted to create harmony (Ruhrberg and Walther 1998, 13). In fact Seurat had to deviate from the actual scene on Le Grande Jatte on a regular Sunday afternoon in the 1880's: "For Seurat's fastidious purposes much of the tumult, rowdiness, disorder, bawdry and violent physical exertion had first to be drawn off the scene" (Russell 1965, 146). This abstraction from the hustle and bustle of an actual scene is also exemplified by the faces in the picture; except for the pipe-smoker all faces are characterless. Instead of this painting being about a particular Sunday afternoon, it is supposed to be emblematic for a summer afternoon on the river. Thus both in subject matter and in style Seurat choose for harmony. Just as Schumpeter argued that the classics had to leave out many aspects of economic life to arrive at their static model (TWE,477). He could not have agreed more than with Roger Fry's judgement of La Grande Jatte, it represented: "a world from which life and movement are banished and all is fixed for ever in the rigid frame of its geometry" (Fry quoted in Banfield 2000, 285).
Schumpeter instead wanted to sketch a picture of the economy in development and development is the opposite of an equilibrium: "development is essentially a disturbance of equilibrium" (TWE, 490).
That disturbance of the equilibrium is what we see in Balla's picture. The woman and the dog are taken straight out of Seurat's picture and does that extra shoe suggest the same man that is standing next to her at La Grande Jatte? The geometry instead of being fixed is cut off in Balla's picture, only the part of the woman and the dog which are in motion, which are alive are relevant. It is energy here that dominates geometry and not the other way around as in Seurat's picture. The Futurists ideal and idea of reality and individuals was radically different from that of Seurat, who sought to: "make modern people move about as if they were on the Parthenon frieze in their most essential characteristics (Seurat quoted in Russell 1965, 227). The new aesthetic that the Futurists proclaimed was one of motion and speed. The point is explicitly made in the manifesto of photo-dynamism, a style in photography that inspired Balla's painting: "[J]ust as in Seurat's painting the essential question of chromatic divisionism had been suggested by the scientific enquiries of Rood, so today the need for movemental divisionism (…) is indicated by Photodynamism" (Bragaglia 1911(Bragaglia /1970. The aesthetic has to reflect its own times, and thus along with the content of art and economics, the criteria by which to judge that art and economics will change with the times. The Futurist aesthetic was one that judged works of art by how well the captured the spirit and energy of modern life, how well they represented movement and change.
Those closely match the new criteria which Schumpeter proposes for economic theory.
A modern economic theory has to be able to explain economic development, the motion of economic life.

IV. Creation and destruction for it's own sake?
The most famous phrase in Schumpeter's work is 'creative destruction'. To create the new, the old has to be destroyed. This notion is as we can now see, in line with that of However, the most important similarity between the artist and the entrepreneur is their identical motivation. The drive for the original artist and for the entrepreneur, is the joy of creation: "[T]he joy of creation, of giving new forms to the economic things rests on the same basis as the creative acts of the artist" (TWE, 142) 20 . Art is not instrumental to something else, but the artist creates art for art's sake. The entrepreneurial activity is also not instrumental to something else such as preference satisfaction, the entrepreneur creates for its own sake. As Schumpeter puts it: "[In the economy] also, one can create for the joy of creation itself" (TWE, 142) 21 . This means, that just as the other spheres, such as the artistic, the economic sphere has its own dramatic appeal (TWE, 143 and 526). Prima facie, this looks like a very strong similarity with the avant-garde. In modernism, it is often argued, the idea of art for art's sake is dominant. Malevich, prominent member of the Russian avant-garde in 1916, for example, argues that in Cubism and Futurism art finally approaches creation as an end in itself, whereas previously it was instrumental in depicting nature (Malevich 1915(Malevich /1968). But later commentators have associated the idea of art for art's sake more with aestheticism, which just precedes the twentieth century avant-garde. The goal of the avant-garde, on the other hand, was to actually fight the quietism and hermetic nature of the aesthetic movement in the arts, they argue (Bürger 1984;Calinescu 1987).
The distinction is important, because for Schumpeter, too, the creation of the new might be motivated by the joy of creation, but the ultimate goal is something else.
Schumpeter is ultimately interested in economic development, not just creation. The importance is best illustrated by two quotes from Schumpeter: The history of every industry leads us back to men and to energetic will and activity. (TWE, 526) It becomes clear from these quotes that creative acts are not merely valuable in their own right, but rather because they move the economy to higher levels of development.
Schumpeter argues that the entrepreneur, like a true avant-gardist, shows the way forward and leads the masses where they did not imagine and dare to go. By doing so he upsets old ways of thinking, destroys old industries, ingrained habits and customs, in other words he shows the way forward.
Schumpeter fully recognizes that this is a theory of the avant-garde, more generally, and not just of entrepreneurship. So toward the end of his book he develops the distinction between the dynamic and the static type into a general theory of social change: We observe these differences in art, in science, in politics. They emerge everywhere with the same clarity. Everywhere these two types are very clearly demarcated, letting those spirits stand out who create new directions of art, new ''schools'', new parties. (…) On the one hand we find that the behavior of the majority consists, in the copying, recognition of, and adaptation to, a given state of affairs of materialistic and idealistic nature, and, on the other hand the behavior of a minority who shape the state of affairs. (TWE,543) The avant-garde leads by example. They set the standards that other follow. Essentially all such acts are alike, Boccioni claims that for the world of art: "No fear is more stupid than that which makes us fear to transgress the field of art we practice. There is no painting, sculpture, music, poetry. There is only creation" (Boccioni 1912(Boccioni /2009.
Schumpeter is in fact, making a similar argument, about the entrepreneur. In a capitalist society he will be the most important avant-gardist, with 'a kind of universal position' Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2773049 (TWE,526). Just like the avant-garde movements Schumpeter is interested in the creation of social change, not the creation merely for the sake of creation.

V. A perpetual revolution?
The positive valuation of change, of the dynamic of the new is the hallmark of the avantgarde. But for Schumpeter the social scientist, it also violates the tenet of being a neutral observer. Schumpeter, and some commentators have taken this claim at face value, argues that he did not want to equate evolution with progress (TWE, 466;Peukert 2003 (Boccioni et al. 1910, 62). What this shining splendor consisted of remained unspecified, and Schumpeter even makes the methodological point that in a dynamic system the point of convergence keeps changing. In a truly dynamic system not only the facts were changing but also the equilibrium-point to which the system was tending, changed (TWE,465). Where the economy is heading depends, he argued on the goals and visions of the leaders: "on their dispositions to act, their energy and goals" (TWE, 530) 22 .
Those leaders, the avant-garde, will be different individuals over time. As Schumpeter would argue later: "each class resembles a hotel (…), always full, but always of different people" (Schumpeter 1927(Schumpeter /1951. As we saw above, the leaders would 22 The otherwise excellent translation by Backhaus wrongly suggests here that it is about the 'goals of the economy', instead of those of its leader, which would also violate Schumpeter's idea of methodological individualism.
get old and lose their energy to create truly new things. As such Schumpeter and the avant-garde movements aim for a perpetual revolution, instead of some end-state. The futurists put this very bluntly, renewal would be constant: "Every generation will have to make its own city anew" (Sant'Elia 1914. This means that the avant-garde will never become a social class in the classical sense of that word, with clearly defined interests. The avant-garde instead is a group of individuals, in which the old are constantly replaced with the young: "His position as entrepreneur is essentially only a temporary one, namely, it cannot also be transmitted by inheritance: a successor will be unable to hold on to that social position, unless he inherits the lion's claw along with the prey" (TWE, 529). The entrepreneurs, in that sense, represent a true meritocracy. They are (ideally) only in power as long as they are worthy of it, which as we saw in the above, will only be during the prime of their life. The great difference with individuals with power in the past, is that this personal power attached to an individual and not to a social group. In his later work Schumpeter is far less optimistic that this process of constant renewal can be maintained, and whether society is willing to accept the associated change and uncertainty. Especially in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (Schumpeter 1942(Schumpeter /1976) he argues that the entrepreneurial energy will be smothered by an increased rationalization and bureaucratization of the economy.
But the most important distinction between the avant-garde theory of Schumpeter and the artistic avant-garde movements of the 1910's and later movements is that they embrace change for its own sake, rather than as a means to some ulterior goal. Schumpeter and the artistic avant-gardes praise the dynamism of the modern world, whereas later modernist movements in the art, including, arguably, the interwar version of futurism, would link themselves to some kind of ultimate goal, whether social, political or aesthetic. Malevich, the avant-garde artist who initially embraced the dynamism of the futurist, now regarded that dynamic period as a 'provisional order', on the way to the longed for 'tranquility of an absolute order' (Malevich 1923(Malevich /1984. That period of modernism is frequently associated with utopianism of various kinds (Buck-Morss 2000; Ayers et al. 2015).

VI. Conclusion
In this paper I have analyzed the similarities between Schumpeter and the artistic avantgarde movements of 1910's, especially the Italian and Russian Futurists. By doing so I have shown that Schumpeter and the avant-garde movements were both interested in breaking with past (1), identifying an avant-garde who could force that break (2), finding new ways to represent the dynamic world (3), the embrace of the new and dynamic (4) and the fact that both Schumpeter and the avant-garde promoted a perpetual dynamic process, instead of a specific end-state or utopia (5).
By directing our attention to the similarities we are in danger of losing sight of the differences which naturally exist. As a start Schumpeter's TWE is in large segments a relatively traditional economic book, it is primarily in the second and seventh chapter that we find his avant-gardist outlook. His book ultimately presents a system through which to understand the dynamic world, as opposed to the combative manifestoes and exhibitions that characterized the avant-garde movements. Nonetheless I think it is of the utmost importance in understanding his economic theory of development, to understand him as an avant-garde economic theorist, both in content and in outlook.
Schumpeter clearly is fascinated by the 'new', by 'action' itself, and by 'forward dynamics' in themselves, just like the Futurists. That 'communion of spirit' is best understood in the context of the turbulent and dynamic years leading up to the Great War. The Futurists set out to capture crucial changes in how life was experienced, what some people have called the modern experience. It is therefore not surprising that in 1911 Schumpeter was able to write a book on economic theory which was about those rapid changes. Schumpeter's interwar work is far more pessimistic and concerned with a lurking socialism, which in his eyes would smother the dynamic nature of capitalism (Schumpeter 1919(Schumpeter /1954b).
When he rewrites the second chapter for the 1926 edition. Schumpeter does away with the radical language of the new, the man of action and the break with the old.
Instead the second chapter now start with a lengthy consideration of what it means to talk about development, emphasizing the ultimate continuity of the world. He also emphasizes the continuity of his ideas with those of earlier thinkers, including Say's theory of the entrepreneur. Schumpeter stresses the relative autonomy of 'the economy' at the expense of the broader social dynamic theory he expounded in the original version. The entrepreneur is now longer the creator: "The leader does not find or create Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2773049 the new opportunities. They are already present" (Schumpeter 1926, 128). And although Schumpeter still recognizes that some entrepreneurs create out of an inner drive, he first discusses how creation is motivated by of a sense of duty or the desire to compete.
The dynamism of the 1910's is replaced by the rationalization of government bureaucracies and large corporations, and the role of the entrepreneur will fade, like that of the 'warlord' before him, he concludes somberly (Schumpeter 1926, 125). The dynamic period, was ultimately a transitory stage.