Schumpeter is widely remembered for his belief in the power of innovation and entrepreneurship within a capitalist framework. In fact he argues that capitalism owes much of its success to this.
Yet, his argument about capitalism's ultimate downfall in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy seems to show an strangely negligent view of the nature of innovation and technological change. He argues that a capitalist system will 'creatively destruct' so frequently that it will gradually systematise innovation itself. Entrepreneurship will become a job like any other.
While I agree with and respect much of Schumpeter's contribution to economics, this presumption sticks out like a sore thumb, to me it seems plain wrong. Innovation is disruptive/destructive exactly because it is new, because markets did not predict it, so how can it ever be made in to a predictable bureaucratic process? How can this otherwise exceptionally insightful gentleman, one who was among the first to identify innovation's disruptive power, argue his point in such a seemingly oxymoronic way?