Editing Creative destruction (section)

=== Other early usage ===
[[File:Shiva as the Lord of Dance LACMA edit.jpg|thumb|In [[Hinduism]], the god [[Shiva]] is simultaneously destroyer and creator, portrayed as ''[[Shiva Nataraja]]'' (Lord of the Dance), which is proposed as the source of the Western notion of "creative destruction".<ref name="reinert" />]]
In the ''[[Origin of Species]]'', which was published in 1859, [[Charles Darwin]] wrote that the "extinction of old forms is the almost inevitable consequence of the production of new forms."  One notable exception to this rule is how the extinction of the dinosaurs facilitated the [[adaptive radiation]] of mammals.  In this case creation was the consequence, rather than the cause, of destruction.

In philosophical terms, the concept of "creative destruction" is close to [[Hegel]]'s concept of [[Aufheben|sublation]]. In German economic discourse it was taken up from Marx's writings by [[Werner Sombart]], particularly in his 1913 text ''Krieg und Kapitalismus'':<ref>{{cite book |last=Sombart |first=W. |author-link=Werner Sombart |year=1913 |title=Krieg und Kapitalismus |trans-title=War and Capitalism |location=Leipzig |publisher=Duncker & Humblot |page=[https://archive.org/details/kriegundkapitali00sombuoft/page/207 207] |isbn=9780405065392 |url=https://archive.org/details/kriegundkapitali00sombuoft }}</ref>
<blockquote>Again, however, ''from destruction a new spirit of creation arises;'' the scarcity of wood and the needs of everyday life... forced the discovery or invention of substitutes for wood, forced the use of coal for heating, forced the invention of coke for the production of iron.</blockquote>
Hugo Reinert has argued that Sombart's formulation of the concept was influenced by [[Eastern mysticism]], specifically the image of the [[Hindu]] god [[Shiva]], who is presented in the paradoxical aspect of simultaneous destroyer and creator.<ref name="reinert" /> Conceivably this influence passed from [[Johann Gottfried Herder]], who brought Hindu thought to German philosophy in his ''Philosophy of Human History'' (Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit) (Herder 1790–92), specifically volume III, pp.&nbsp;41–64.<ref name="reinert" /> via [[Arthur Schopenhauer]] and the [[oriental studies|Orientalist]] [[Friedrich Maier]] through [[Friedrich Nietzsche]]´s writings. Nietzsche represented the creative destruction of modernity through the mythical figure of [[Dionysus]], a figure whom he saw as at one and the same time "destructively creative" and "creatively destructive".<ref>{{Cite book
| publisher = Penguin
| last1 = Bradbury
| first1 = Malcolm
| author1-link = Malcolm Bradbury
| last2 = McFarlane
| first2 = James
| author2-link = James McFarlane
| title = Modernism: A Guide to European Literature 1890–1930
| location = Harmondsworth, UK
| isbn = 978-0140138320
| year = 1976
| page = 446
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=YMWzAAAAIAAJ
}}</ref> In the following passage from ''[[On the Genealogy of Morality]]'' (1887), Nietzsche argues for a universal principle of a cycle of creation and destruction, such that every creative act has its destructive consequence:
<blockquote>But have you ever asked yourselves sufficiently how much the erection of every ideal on earth has cost? How much reality has had to be misunderstood and slandered, how many lies have had to be sanctified, how many consciences disturbed, how much "God" sacrificed every time? If a temple is to be erected a temple must be destroyed: that is the law – let anyone who can show me a case in which it is not fulfilled! – [[Friedrich Nietzsche]], ''[[On the Genealogy of Morality]]''</blockquote>

Other nineteenth-century formulations of this idea include Russian [[anarchist]] [[Mikhail Bakunin]], who wrote in 1842, "The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!"<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1842/reaction-germany.htm The Reaction in Germany, From the Notebooks of a Frenchman], October 1842</ref> Note, however, that this earlier formulation might more accurately be termed "destructive creation",{{Original research inline|date=July 2014}} and differs sharply from Marx's and Schumpeter's formulations in its focus on the active destruction of the existing social and political order by human agents (as opposed to systemic forces or contradictions in the case of both Marx and Schumpeter).