"Late stage capitalism"

[SquidgySquoo]

I hear this phrase a lot (see also "end-stage capitalism") and I'm curious to know, if you're a person who uses this phrase, whether it's based on a genuine belief that we will move away from capitalism and into some other system at some point soon? And if so, what system do you envision?

I'm puzzled because I see it used quite frequently and yet I don't see people discussing alternatives to capitalism.

I can’t stand this!

It’s the same sleight-of-hand people use to try to gain status from trend churn – talk like something’s finished (“heels are so over…”), the idea being that when it happens you look like a savant.

It’s a good power move if you’re Anna Wintour, and have some sway over bringing into being the thing you’re describing – but it’s less impressive when you’re an insufferable thirtysomething talking about the system that’s shaped absolutely everything about you.

Following with interest.

I don’t use the phrase as I’m not sure I understand it.

I’d like someone to explain it to me

What I see is this; capitalism is resulting in a growing divide between rich and poor. The rich are growing very rich, obscenely rich. And there are growing more numerous and poorer.

Eventually a system like that has to collapse because a very large poor group can no longer contribute to the capitalist system.

Is that end stage capitalism?

Actually history shows it’s the working class that makes things happen. That’s why you and your husband have rights to vote, rights at work, the concept of a weekend, pensions, healthcare.

None of that was kindly sorted out by rich and famous people. They were fought for by ordinary people through strikes and protests, setting up unions, etc.

Yes that's what I understand by it.

It's when the rich and those overseas have screwed so much money out of the country that the ordinary people have nothing left to give.

The next stage will be digital feudalism where everything needed for daily living will be monetised instead - 'You will own nothing and be happy' - scenario. Only the rich will own property, cars etc. Ordinary people will rent everything and no longer own land or property. We'll only receive what they deem necessary for us. No more freedom or choices. No more middle class, just modern serfdom.

As @TooTooMuchEverything said, I don't use it and don't know precisely what it means. I'm guessing that it refers to a society where there was once nice bustling trade (a few centuries ago?) versus a later version where the big players have a stranglehold and it starts to damage the society.

The phrase I'm using to illustrate the problem is "unfettered capitalism."

My understanding of late stage capitalism is only from a birth rate point of view, which is that capitalism is built on the concept of perpetual expansion/growth. The birth rates are now declining in most developed nations as we move into stage 5 of the demographic transition model, but afaik, no one really knows what stage 5 is or how it will unfold, or the implications on the economy beyond the fact it will make the current means of arranging our economy unworkable. I’m interested in hearing if any models are emerging for what comes next.
Unfortunately, as I understand it, communism is also built on a premise of constant expansion (perpetual revolution) so without the numbers, I don’t think that is workable, either. So what’s the alternative?

Socialists have been claiming capitalism is in it's death throes for at least a century.

You might think the inaccurate predictions of past generations of socialists would encourage the current generation of socialists to reconsider their beliefs, but apparently not.

Marx said that capitalism will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions which is the end stage, and I can sort of see it.

The goal of capitalism is to maximise profit for capitalists, even when doing so will reduce or eliminate the ability to profit in future.

The obvious example is housing. If people can’t afford decent housing they will not have children meaning no workers or consumers to generate profit in future.

Similar problem with the environment and climate change. Equally with growing inequality there won’t be enough customers in the future because hardly anyone has money.

If you prioritise profit over the continued existence of what is required to profit in the first place eventually the system will fail. Capitalism is in a constant state of cannibalising itself until there is nothing left.

I agree - it seems like it's usually used as a bit of a buzz word. And this is from someone who has read Marx (to some degree), and has read and listened to alot of criticism of capitalism - a system I would like to see be replaced myself.

I think what people most usually use it to refer to is the idea that life for roughly the last 20 years or so (at least in the developed and those parts of the developed world where capitalism is firmly planted and has developed to some degree) is getting worse. It's not like socialists have to claim there has been no progress under capitalism (with some of that snatched from under the nose of the system, and some of it genuinely following from how capitalism works). But it is the idea that progress is slowing down in all the senses most people care about - stagnant wages, environmental degradation, worsing public services, a fractioning global order etc. Perhaps it sometimes comes with the idea that the system cannot continue indefinitely (and not in the sense that it will eventually environmentally collapse - pretty much anyone can agree with that unless you are the most strident technological optimist), but I don't think all the time. You couldn't claim this as easily throughout the 20th century.

For a more traditional socialist, the idea of late capitalism is the idea that the system will become more and more decrepid due to various features of how it works. You can read up on Marx if you want to know more about those arguments, and how they may still be live even given the history of the 20th century.

I kind of take exception to referring to people who are just normal people like yourself (presuming you aren't Ann Wintour) in such a distainful way. If the system had shaped everything about us, then the ability to criticise it would be similarly shaped by that system. But that wouldn't make the criticism invalid - it's possible for something to imply a criticism of itself. If the system hasn't shaped everything about them, then what you've said is just flat wrong.

I don't think that people questioning whether we have the best societal set up is a "power move" - I'm sure it is for some people, but not everyone. Some people are simply appalled by how things are, and hope they can be changed. If you are getting annoyed by this, then you maybe want to have a word with yourself about why they are eliciting this reaction.

Not all socialists have been so gung-ho about predicting the collapse of capitalism. Some even think there is no necessity in it collapsing, but that rather that's something we need to work for.

There are probably innumerable alternatives. Previous historical epochs were characterised by extremely low rates of economic growth (as we now measure it). We may not like many of them, perhaps, but they exist.

Socialism across the board isn't wedded to permanent revolution (and even that is an idea distinct from permanent economic growth). For example, John Stuart Mill (who wasn't a socialist, even) explored the idea of a non-expansive economy which would prioritise the welfare of workers, in a late monograph of his. Many socialists now talk about how we can have a sustainable economy. You really can't summarise proposals for socialist or capitalist systems in a single post.

I’m not annoyed by them criticising capitalism though!

It’s specifically the phrase “late stage capitalism” that’s the irritating thing – as in, how would some normie know that we’re in capitalism’s late stages? It’s way more likely that it goes on for a few hundred more years, not that your particular gripe marks its death throes. That phrase is only for poseurs, I’m afraid.

Sorry, I misread the tone of what you were saying.

I agree, I kind of find it irritating myself for those reasons. The left needs to use language that is inclusive - not to show off our (hoped for) intellectual might!

if I use this phrase, or similar, I'm referring to excessive consumerism-
to the idea that we are all being persuaded to buy useless shit that makes us poorer, damages the environment, and harms those who make, transport and sell it
capitalism relies on us constantly buying stuff- but for many of us, thankfully, our actual needs are being met- so to keep us in an endless loop of wanting, buying, and working so we can do that- we have to be persuaded to want useless shit

Bottled water is a good example. When I was a child nobody bought water. Now it seems everyone does. Why? It comes clean from a tap. We don't need to spend money buying water in plastic bottles. Yet people do.

More and more people are gaining qualifications from Universities, working at professional level jobs. You can see that people are on average wealthier, they have cash and assets more than their grandparents. Life expectancy is increasing all over the word.
Article and photographs of Centenarians in today's paper.
As late stage it means that progress is it is slowing not accelerating as it did in the 20Century.
The challenge is to bring the poorest up to our standards. There are 700,000 without electricity or purified water.

I think it'd better to liken the system to nature.

In nature you have diversity and you have specialisation / concentration. Diversification does lead to survival. But there can be a tendency toward concentration and if you get a concentration of bad weeds you need some intervention. Specialisation is a good survival tool, plants and animals that evolve to be really good at one thing. A thriving eco system will have diverse and specialised plants. So, where I think we will get to is capitalism isn't going away but we will spring up other forms within the economic system. Thriving towns built on principles of sustainability and so on.

@JoyintheMorning this is only partially true - more people (in the UK) have degrees as a result of policy removing young people from unemployment figures and are incurring debt for the benefit but finding it hard to find well paid work with prospects after graduation. Lots of people in professional level graduate jobs still need benefit top ups to afford to live.

They are not wealthier than grandparents or parents without degrees whose wages allowed them to rent or buy housing. Young people even with degrees and professional jobs have higher debt and less relative income and asset ownership or ability to accrue assets than the previous generation.

I think you are deliberately comparing young people to grandparents rather than parents. Their parents benefited from grants for university education, affordable housing and secure jobs that paid a living wage. All of this has gone.

I think that the end stages of capitalism feature increased desperate measures to retain and increase profit when faced with loss of new markets - ie ‘geographical relocation of the social relations of capital’ - essentially moving manufacture to places with no or limited rights for workers with lower wages - or encouraging economic migration so that the state did not need to pay to educate or train skilled workers or could underpay staff in certain sectors that had been largely privatised, exploiting or creating disaster to increase profit (pandemic, war), fiscal measures like borrowing or printing money etc.

It’s akin to asset stripping a failing company. Inequality has grown exponentially. But the rich don’t want to be just rich they want to be powerful. But not look like a dictator. So they may have driven economic relocation and migration for increased profit but now want all migrants deported and production returned. How will this work? And now they have amassed huge debts which have bolstered profits say that they can no longer afford to fund health and social services and support to the disabled.

The social backdrop to end stage capitalism is the rise of the right wing (without an effective grass roots counter movement) that has firm objective roots in capitalism but blames marginal groups for its current lack of success.

@PocketSand I used grand parents as a longer time scale with less connection. Comparing Adjacent generations means that one is including factors
common to both generations.
Comparing my DC 40+yrs of age to their grand parents is a real difference. Even though one did go to a "jumped up Poly". The other to a traditional older established Uni.
I would compare myself (not Uni) to my G-Ps I have far more, house, better furniture, car, better holidays. Grand Parents did not drive.
The ease of access to university in the 1950-1980s was a short brief phenomenon for UK, many countries did not have this.
Manufacturing moving to cheaper areas of production benefits consumers I think. Henry Ford was a tyrant but he produced cheaper reliable cars. . Motor cars would be far cheaper if they did not have the the safety devices that are added on now. This extra work that is imposed by legislation has skewed the price.
The computing power of a hand held device and laptops is now huge compared to say late 1990s whilst the cost has reduced.

It doesn't mean you are a socialist if you criticise capitalism. I don't think seriously that we can replace the whole system but there are lots of things you can do within it to make it fairer and more equal. There is a lot of difference between letting the market decide everything and proper regulation and holding to account.