155
lolbertarians are some of the dumbest people on earth.
okay, let’s say it is “crony capitalism run by the state” (he doesn’t mean state capitalism, he doesn’t know what that means)
what else can capitalism become, especially without extremely strict regulation and wealth/income caps- all things these people are against? and to the extent that the state has its hand in the economy, is it not ONLY to benefit corporations? they’re not regulating these companies or anything to any meaningful degree. so if the government is bad because they only serve big business, even in their own completely nonsensical analysis, doesnt that still make capitalism the problem?
I hate more the term "late stage capitalism". Late stage implying that the "normal" capitalism is totally acceptable.
“Late stage capitalism” is supposed to mean when the contradictions in capitalism heighten to the point where the market cannibalizes every other aspect of the political economy. It’s part of a Marxian analysis of how capitalism evolves, it just gets generalized to “the dystopian aspects of current-day capitalism.”
That's the thing, when l see libs using the term they use it focusing on the big techs and the cyberpunk ultra surveillance capitalism and I always feel that the person using it is totally okay with everything else in capitalism minus the big tech.
I always seen it as the imperial core falliing into fascism as a last dying breath. Imperialism is the last stage of capitalism
Totally okay to bomb and exploit other countries but my country exploiting their own citizen? Unacceptable, we have to go back.
Just as Nazi Germany was about lebensraum ( access to new markets and resources) todays capitalists need the same.
There are different stages of capitalism though.
The heinous late stage capitalism, compared to the joys of child labor during the industrial revolution.
In theory their conditions improved by capitalism but damn it's hard to imagine that factory labour in coal powered factories with near 0 ventilation was better than field labour under a hot sun.
No this is actually false, the living conditions of 19th century capitalism for labourers were substantially worse than subsistence farming, so much so that the only reason capitalists could even get people to work in factories was the enclosure movement, which forcibly kicked people out of commons, making it impossible to grow your own food, and thereby forcing people to either work in factories or starve. It wasn't until the late 19th century that, for example, life expectancy began rising in England, the home of the industrial revolution, and that was only because England had begun to outsource the most horrific of its jobs to its larger empire, using imperialism to bribe the working class English folk with quality of life improvements. Capitalism actually lowers living standards for all but the wealthiest; it just so happens "the wealthiest" began to include workers in the imperial core.
The worst part is that "late stage capitalism" as a term isn't even real. It's a corruption of "late capitalism," a concept invented (at least in the English speaking world; in German it's a much older concept) in the 70's to describe neoliberal financialised capitalism (as opposed to industrial capitalism) that had just been unleashed upon the world, most famously in the book Late Capitalism by Ernst Mandel and Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism by Fredric Jameson. Both of these writers use the term "late capitalism" not meaning "late stage capitalism" ie this is the last version of capitalism and it's close to collapsing, but "late" as in "the latest." So really "late capitalism" is "capitalism as of late" or "the latest stage of capitalism," not "the last stage of capitalism." The term has taken on a meaning of its own, morphing into this "late stage capitalism" by commentators who don't actually read these works and don't really know what it means, wishcasting "late stage capitalism" as a fact of the world rather than a fundamental misinterpretation of a long standing term.
However the both Marx and Lenin had a word on late stage capitalism. Perhaps not the phrase but the stages." Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism"
Yeah, and neither lived until now and I think both would agree that what they wrote about was not the last stage of capitalism. Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism was mostly correct for his time, but imperialism today (especially the American financialised imperialism that Michael Hudson has so thoroughly explored in Superimperialism) is meaningfully different and "higher" than Lenin's rather vulgar imperialism, which was naked territory grabbing and domination. Unfortunately we've yet to see "late stage" capitalism, nor will we until capitalism itself is smashed. For it's not on track to destroy itself any time soon, and every crisis it's encountered it's been able to absorb and change to suit its needs rather well. Capitalism will not die of its own accord, it must be killed.
I think you might be a little off here. I really appreciate that you brought up Ernst Mandel's and Fredric Jameson's works, but I have to disagree about them not intending the word "late" to mean "closer to the terminal end." Without going and spending a bunch of time digging for quotes, it seemed pretty clear to me that they were referring to the concept that there are certain stages to capitalism (as already noted both Marx and Lenin discussed) and not using the word just to mean "the most recent" not to mention that would be an odd way to phrase it. I also agree with you that Michael Hudson (and slightly more tangentially Edward Said) have further developed the concept of modern imperialism beyond Lenin's analysis, but that said, Lenin's conception of imperialism was not at all vulgar, not even in comparison to modern Marxists additions to it. Have you read Lenin's work on imperialism? He specifically developed it beyond the idea of "naked territory grabbing and domination" of old school colonialism to mean what it means today, including how Hudson mean and use it.
Distinction without a difference. Capitalism will be killed because of its own inherent contradictions which make its killing an inevitability.
I have read Lenin, and yes it's a bit more complicated since he does talk about financial imperialism but not in the same way things have developed post war. Also this is Jameson, in the introduction, describing his choice of "late."
And Mandel on "late":
Neither of these convey the idea that this is the last stage or a terminal stage, just another, most recent stage. And indeed Mandel does try and claim late capitalism is different than the imperialism described by Lenin, writing
I don't think Marx nor Lenin said it would. However the options are not capitalism or socialism, the options are socialism or extinction. Or call it barbarism.
Just like a cancercell capitalism need to expand to survive even if it kills the host in the process.
Sure you can control the water in the post apocalyptic desert . That way it would adapt.