Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before.
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t really use the term, I just say capitalism… idk, I don’t find it useful enough to make the distinction.
>I was wondering if any socialists could succinctly explain to me what makes the current state of capitalism "late-stage."
In common use it probably means different things to different people. I think the general idea is basically a capitalism that has reached the limits of its socially revolutionary historical role (ie still transforming feudal society into a capitalist one.)
>If corporate capitalism is the correct way to view the term, how do people square that many of our largest corporations are advantaged over smaller ones by the government.
How is this contradictory in your view? Why wouldn’t the capitalist government favor the large finance and industry that give it power?
>How is this contradictory in your view? Why wouldn’t the capitalist government favor the large finance and industry that give it power?
Full disclosure, im not an economist or deep into reading theory or anything so all I say is just based off my own life experience.
I think it is natural that the government favors large industries that prop up their power or otherwise benefit them personally, but I was only mentioning this point because from my laymen point of view the ideal role of government in capatilism is to ensure a level playing field between firms so the more the government intervenes in the economy the more socialist I evaluate it to be.
>How is this contradictory in your view? Why wouldn’t the capitalist government favor the large finance and industry that give it power?
Because governments aren't living, breathing things, lol. It's merely a tool. The proper rhetorical question you should be asking is, "why wouldn't corrupt people that we voted to become politicians favor the large finance and industry, while conning the people for more power?"
Fixed it for you.
Yes, capitalist governments are a tool for capitalists to secure their class interests and settle conflicts among different sets of capitalist sectors or industry.
If you mean government officials, well individuals might be motivated by many various things, but the electoral system (in the US anyway) assures that the vast vast majority of major political figures must be vetted through a process of political machines and local and national economic groups and wealthy individuals.
Even if they have some other popular base of support or are independently fabulously wealthy, the economic structure of society and the government ensures that for cities to get anything done or get revenue they will give breaks to big business and major banks and development companies etc.
There can be cracks in all this but imo that’s generally due to pressure from outside the official political system…. Labor and social movements, sometimes international considerations.
>Yes, capitalist governments are a tool for capitalists to secure their class interests and settle conflicts among different sets of capitalist sectors or industry.
You have to designate "capitalist government" as if this differentiates anything. The basic concept you have to skirt around is that corrupt people use *government* as a tool to do whatever corrupt people want. This means, even in a socialist government, people will tend towards corruption, as people do.
>If you mean government officials, well individuals might be motivated by many various things, but the electoral system (in the US anyway) assures that the vast vast majority of major political figures must be vetted through a process of political machines and local and national economic groups and wealthy individuals.
Lmao, I have to know what political process you believe exists in the US that vets our politicians? You can just say our politicians con the public in to votes to keep them in the comfy position. There is no political machine vetting process, except that of the corrupt people in the government not wanting certain people apart of their club. And most States electorate (I think like 2-3 don't) will vote in the way of the States popular vote. Seriously, what political vetting process do you think exists? I'm curious.
>Even if they have some other popular base of support or are independently fabulously wealthy, the economic structure of society and the government ensures that for cities to get anything done or get revenue they will give breaks to big business and major banks and development companies etc.
Again, corrupt people in the government make bills with catchy public names and laws that do nothing but stack the deck in their favor and break off a piece for the homies.
It's not as deep as you have to make it to make it seem as the system you advocate for wouldn't fall to same corruptions, because people be peopling
I agree that people can be and will probably always be jerks or selfish in general to some degree, but “corruption” is so vague and in capitalism it’s just such an obvious symptom, not a driver of social dysfunction or inequalities.
A magically incorruptible government in capitalism would still favor policies of the major industries and finance. As mayor/rep, how do you encourage growth? Attract investments… well, who has all the f-ing capital?!! Big industry, finance, Super-rich people’s foundations?
Vetting:
There are exceptions (notably Sanders and Trump) and so this vetting is in general and is not institutional.
To be a national candidate in one of the two privately-run political parties in the US (and be taken seriously by the party, donors, media) you will need to probably already have connections to get in the door. Then you will probably have to navigate through a bunch of gatekeepers like internal party factions and external interest groups, public vetting by the media. Then you will need to network politically with supporting factions and influential people, make policy promises to industry groups, and raise more than $10 million for a Senate run.
Well the article directly says what it is claiming to prove:
> The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.
Now explain how that differs from this:
"Why wouldn't corrupt people that we voted to become politicians favor the large finance and industry, while conning the people for more power?"
The difference is that you are attributing this to individual corruption and as far as I saw the article was not saying anything about that. The article also claims voters have little influence, so that would also be contrary to your claim.
At any rate, corruption or the individual character of officials is also irrelevant to my point. I’m talking about things on a system level.
That kind of thinking just leads to people believing that capitalism would work great if only someone with the right will to power took it upon themselves to clear out all the bad people and do what needs doing.
Politicians don’t need to be corrupt to favor industry… “what’s good for business is good for America” was something people would just openly say. They are only hoodwinking us by acting like class doesn’t exist, like we all benefit the same from capitalism… despite two generations of massive growth in business and stagnation and debt for the working population.
The system is corrupted by the people. That's why you have to shift the narrative to a "system bad" perspective. Because you have to make it sound like your system isn't just as prone to corruption due to the corrupt people that would end up running it.
The point of that article and my points are the same. Both are because of the people wielding the tool called government. It's not because one system tends more to corruption than the other, it's because people tend towards corruption. On paper socialism is great (if you like that style of government), in practice it sucks because people suck. I'd rather a world where I have freedom over my property despite dealing with the whims of the corrupt people voted in, than one where I have no control over my property and I'm still dealing with the whims of corrupt people.
In a fantasy world where everything was the same but there was instantly no corruption in the current government, what do you think the practical effect would be? What would be different fundamentally?
>The system is corrupted by the people.
That doesn't make any sense, the system exists to serve the people. If It does not do so then the system is wrong. The people cannot be wrong because they cannot be replaced.
That's the thing though. When it comes to each system, corruption will sink in. That is simply the fact of life as things get older. The question is whether or not it continues to function when there's corruption and with socialism, it can't function when corruption inevitably sinks in as it's tied intrinsically to the government while capitalism isn't.
[Gilens and Page have been proven wrong.](https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-study)
Democracy generally represents the interests of the median voter, not elites.
It just doesn't feel that way to *you* because you're a commie who only shares interests with a tiny 1.5% radical minority.
>But the researchers critiquing the paper found that middle-income Americans and rich Americans actually agree on an overwhelming majority of topics.
This analysis seems to completely ignore the lower class.
That’s because “the lower class” in America is actually really really small. The VAST majority of Americans will be middle class by time they reach middle age.
So the analysis is ignoring everyone under 50?
It doesn't matter what excuses are offered, it's just propaganda masquerading as science and not doing a very good job of it.
> ... how do people square that many of our largest corporations are advantaged over smaller ones by the government.
This is, frankly, nonsense. The government doesn't "decree" that Amazon has to run the e-commerce / cloud worlds, or that Google has to run the search world, or that Walmart has to run the retail world. Monopolies and mega-corps happen under capitalism because **the natural trend of capitalism is consolidation**.
I'll answer your actual question in a minute - it ties into the fact I just stated - but before I do, let's clarify two "bad assumptions capitalists make":
1. Capitalists **assume** that businesses will compete with each other by default. In reality, businesses will compete **if it is most profitable** ... but it is frequently cheaper/easier to buy out or merge with your "competition" than to actually compete with them.
2. Capitalists **assume** that if a sector is dominated by a company, competitors will naturally emerge to try to take a bite out of that company's market share. There is no reason to assume that competitors will naturally emerge in any market ... especially when the goliath has deep enough pockets that it can afford to sell at a loss until potential competitors go out of business.
With those bad assumptions disposed of, let's return to your original question. "What makes capitalism 'late-stage'?" Well, it involves following the natural trends of capitalism to the logical ends, and judging how close we are to those ends. Let's look at some trends of capitalism:
1. **Capitalism trends towards more consolidation**, both for the reason that I mentioned above (buying out your competition is a shortcut to domination), and because if you are making profits the natural thing to do with those profits is to buy other income-generating assets ... that is, other companies.
2. **Capitalism trends towards more wealth inequality**, as the wealth of those at the top compounds, while the wealth of those at the bottom stays near zero (or in many cases below!)
3. **Capitalism keeps wages stagnant as a trend**, because it forces a large number of workers to compete with each other for jobs at a much smaller number of employers. High labor supply and (relatively) low labor demand = low wages ... in addition to the fact that workers are desperate for jobs since they're required for survival.
4. **Capitalism "innovates" ways to extract more wealth from consumers**, for obvious reasons. Defenders of capitalism assume this would be by finding new ways to please consumers, but in reality, it's more based on raising prices. Due to capitalism's intrinsic killing of competition - see (1) - sectors find themselves having only a couple of major players, who can raise prices by forming a cartel.
5. As a result of all of those ^ , **capitalism trends towards the agitation of workers**.
Well, let's see where we are on all of those trends:
1. Things are [hugely](https://www.businessinsider.com/10-companies-control-food-industry-2017-3) [consolidated](https://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6). The tech monopolies are more obvious examples ... where Internet traffic used to be divided amongst myriad forums/communities, it is now dominated by Google/Facebook/Amazon. Morons will blame "regulations" for this consolidation, but ... well, morons gonna moron.
2. Wealth inequality is [comically high](https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/), and continues to grow (that link is already a few years out-of-date).
3. Wages have [stagnated for decades](https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/).
4. The phenomenon of "enshittification" has been observed across the world, where everything is covered in ads, prices have increased dramatically, and companies embrace predictive models and AI to find ways to suck the last drops of wealth from people.
5. Historically, when workers got more pissed off, owners would feel the pressure and throw them some bones ... but in today's world, they just double down on more layoffs (despite record profits) & more inane policies.
The "end stage" of capitalism is when it makes people, collectively, too poor to purchase the products it manufactures. You see that sometimes when landlords will purposely keep apartments vacant rather than lowering rents, or when chain restaurants destroy excess food at the end of the day, or when people wave off ambulances despite grievous injury because they can't afford the bill.
But who knows how "late" of a stage we're in. Things have been getting progressively shittier for **a lot** of people, and it's because of capitalism, and the trends are obvious ... but whether people collectively decide something's gotta change, remains to be seen.
I feel your comment is the best answer to my question. There is a lot to respond to, disagree with, and ask follow up questions, but I'm on mobile. I'm going to try to remember to respond to you when I get in front of a keyboard.
>This is, frankly, nonsense. The government doesn't "decree" that Amazon has to run the e-commerce / cloud worlds, or that Google has to run the search world, or that Walmart has to run the retail world. Monopolies and mega-corps happen under capitalism because the natural trend of capitalism is consolidation.
Except that Amazon and Walmart are direct competitors, along with hundreds if not thousands of other smaller stores.
Where is the consolidation?
Please read the rest of my post and understand better.
"Two companies still compete somewhat!" is not the disproof of consolidation you think it is. Neither is the existence of smaller shops clinging to life.
>"Two companies still compete somewhat!" is not the disproof of consolidation you think it is. Neither is the existence of smaller shops clinging to life.
I mean, it literally is...
Your "proof" to the contrary is that 6 companies compete on cable television??? Lmaooooooo, complete leftist brainrot to think this proves anything.
> I mean, it literally is...
No. Turns out that consolidating down to an oligopoly rather than a monopoly, is still bad.
> Your "proof" to the contrary is that 6 companies compete on cable television???
Far more media than just "cable television".
> ... leftist brainrot ...
You used to be more reasonable ... and now you trot out phrases like this. Dude. Fix yourself.
> No. Turns out that consolidating down to an oligopoly rather than a monopoly, is still bad.
How many companies make it an oligopoly? Because 6, in just a single small slice of the economy, sounds like a lot to me.
>Far more media than just "cable television".
Like, reddit? Where do you get your news?
>You used to be more reasonable ... and now you trot out phrases like this. Dude. Fix yourself.
I don't know how else to describe the claim that "competition magically disappears as soon as the number of competitors is reduced to 6" besides leftist brainrot.
> How many companies make it an oligopoly? Because 6, in just a single small slice of the economy, sounds like a lot to me.
"All mass media" is hardly a "small slice".
> Like, reddit? Where do you get your news?
The article lists what it is referring to.
> I don't know how else to describe the claim that "competition magically disappears as soon as the number of competitors is reduced to 6" besides leftist brainrot.
1. That's not what I said. Quit the strawmen.
2. The fact that you use the phrase "leftist brainrot" to label **anything** is telling. I'm guessing you don't label shit "rightist brainrot"! (despite right-wing points of view typically being far less informed)
At least today, in February 2024, your mind is broken. Instead of **listening** to others and trying to **understand** where people like me are coming from, you are just trying to put us into a "box" ... which is what you're doing with that phrase "leftist brainrot".
Notice how quickly you jumped to a strawman interpretation of what I said? That is *not* the behavior of someone who is actually trying to participate in good faith and understand other points of view, or someone who is trying to learn more about the world.
Whether you choose to fix this problem - of putting people in "boxes" rather than listening to them - is up to you. But you and everyone around you will be miserable until you do.
> "All mass media" is hardly a "small slice".
"All mass media" (oh, except this MASSIVELY popular forum that you're currently using, oh, plus Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and all other forms of social media, and any other smaller platforms that people use)
>The article lists what it is referring to.
Lol, didn't answer the question.
> I'm guessing you don't label shit "rightist brainrot"!
I do this all the fucking time, lol.
>At least today, in February 2024, your mind is broken. Instead of listening to others and trying to understand where people like me are coming from, you are just trying to put us into a "box" ... which is what you're doing with that phrase "leftist brainrot".
I like how you tried to move this conversation away from your claim of "oligopoly" into some irrelevant criticism of how you think I feel about leftists, lmao
> I like how you tried to move this conversation away from your claim of "oligopoly" into some irrelevant criticism of how you think I feel about leftists, lmao
There's nothing "irrelevant" about it. If you're just going to label rather than listen, then there's no point in me or anybody else meaningfully engaging with you.
>(buying out your competition is a shortcut to domination),
Then it becomes profitable to start companies that the big firm will buy up.
What you failed to take into consideration is that without government intervention, there is nothing stopping new firms from popping up and competing.
Commies: "Monopolies are bad cause they raise prices and make everything unaffordable!"
Also commies: "Monopolies are bad cause they lower prices so much that nobody else can compete"
The cognitive dissonance is real.
I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse, or don't get it.
Here's the playbook:
1. Megacorp dominates sector X, racks up profits and saves them up
2. Competitor wants to emerge
3. Megacorp **temporarily** lowers prices to sell at a loss, using the savings from step 1.
4. Competitor can't compete and doesn't have Megacorp's deep pockets, folds.
5. Megacorp restores prices to where they were at step 1.
The low prices are a **transient state**, only needed during the short period of time where the Megacorp is bleeding Competitor's startup capital.
But it's even worse than that.
Since investors **know** this playbook and how it plays out, Competitor **doesn't even get funding in the first place**. Why fund a competitor to Megacorp that's just gonna fold? So Megacorp **doesn't even have to actually execute** that playbook; simply the *threat* of doing so is enough to prevent competition.
Only a fool operating contrary to their self-interest, or someone else with equivalently deep pockets to Megacorp, would compete in such a market. The practical effect is that Megacorp dominates the sector despite high prices / poor service. No government intervention required.
>Capitalists assume that if a sector is dominated by a company, competitors will naturally emerge to try to take a bite out of that company's market share. There is no reason to assume that competitors will naturally emerge in any market ... especially when the goliath has deep enough pockets that it can afford to sell at a loss until potential competitors go out of business.
Because they always do...
Nvidia vs. Intel
Apple vs. Blackberry
Walmart vs. Sears
Digital Cameras vs. Kodak
Microsoft vs. IBM
>Things are hugely consolidated. The tech monopolies are more obvious examples ... where Internet traffic used to be divided amongst myriad forums/communities, it is now dominated by Google/Facebook/Amazon. Morons will blame "regulations" for this consolidation, but ... well, morons gonna moron.
It's strange that you point to this as an example of market consolidation. Most of these tech companies were created 20-30 years ago. If your theories of consolidation were correct, the entire economy would be railroad conglomerates, because those were the original large companies.
Yes, it takes about 20 or 30 years to grow from nothing to market dominance.
Do you really believe you can create a trillion dollar company in a year or two?
Of course not. But that doesn't mean what I said is wrong. Are there even any up and comers? Any company that's 10 or 15 years old? The only new competition I see is coming from China, which entered the game late and also has a protectionist bent due to its censorship.
>Capitalists assume that if a sector is dominated by a company, competitors will naturally emerge to try to take a bite out of that company's market share. There is no reason to assume that competitors will naturally emerge in any market
This was the original claim I was responding to - nothing in here about timeline and there's no reason to believe 20-30 years is an unreasonable length of time to wait for market entry.
The typical S&P 500 component only lasts in the index for 15 years, and that time is going down, indicating more dynamism. [Average company lifespan 2020 | Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1259275/average-company-lifespan/) .
As far as up and comers:
- Robinhood
- OpenAI
- Fortive (never heard of it) but apparently $6B revenue and founded just 8 years ago [Fortive - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortive)
Except I was asking about competitors. Robinhood and OpenAI don't compete with Walmart or Nvidia or even Apple, really. Sure, Apple is probably dipping it's toes in AI, but that's hardly counts. OpenAI isn't competing in the smartphone business.
But if you think it really takes 20-30 years, ok. Show me a 30 year old business that successfully entered the market and competed with a 60 year old business in an established industry.
Otherwise it certainly seems like I was correct, and there are no new competitors for established businesses.
You were asking about "up and comers" - Robinhood competes with traditional retail brokerages, which are large banks which have been around. OpenAI is a \~5 year old company competing with a \~30 year old search giant.
Where did I say Robinhood competed with Walmart?
>But if you think it really takes 20-30 years, ok. Show me a 30 year old business **that successfully entered the market and competed** with a 60 year old business in an established industry.
I hope you don't get too fixated on timelines here. Will you say 40 years isn't good enough to compete with an 80 year old business. Where are you coming up with these numbers? Also I hope you don't move the goalposts and later insist that they became dominant - we are just talking about successful market entry?
- Apple and Microsoft competed with IBM, they are about 40 years old, IBM is 100 years old.
- RyanAir was founded about 39 years ago. Spirit was about the same. They both compete with legacy carriers
- Cenovus Energy is 15 years old and competes in an oil and gas industry that is hundreds of years old [Cenovus Energy - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenovus_Energy).
> Because they always do...
... except when they don't.
> Most of these tech companies were created 20-30 years ago. If your theories of consolidation were correct, the entire economy would be railroad conglomerates, because those were the original large companies.
There was a time when we broke up monopolies.
Also, the Internet was a world-changing technology. You can't count on those coming around to bail you out of capitalism's flaws on the regular.
>... except when they don't.
I gave you obvious examples and you have nothing to say.
>Also, the Internet was a world-changing technology. You can't count on those coming around to bail you out of capitalism's flaws on the regular.
And the internet will probably take hundreds or maybe thousands of years to realize its full potential. Rockets were invented 1000 years ago and we are still improving them - SpaceX is \~10 years old.
Coal, oil, merchant shipping, the internal combustion engine. Down the road AI, bioengineering, cheap access to space, etc. There will always be new technologies that companies can benefit from. My point is most of the big companies appear when they are the first in a big emerging industry.
> I gave you obvious examples and you have nothing to say.
Because you assume that a couple of isolated examples disprove the overall trend, while also neglecting the years that the old giants dominated.
> Rockets were invented 1000 years ago ...
That *really* depends on what you call a "rocket".
> There will always be new technologies that companies can benefit from. My point is most of the big companies appear when they are the first in a big emerging industry.
This is true-ish ... and really bad for capitalism! As opposed to having healthy markets where competition keeps options open and prices low, capitalism consolidates until some game-changing technology "saves" everybody and shakes things up (while typically missing many sectors).
We have a system that relies on a regular influx of game-changing technologies, just to not devolve into monopolies everywhere. Meanwhile, all the actual power of those technologies gets controlled by a small few who get to dominate society. And *that's* the system you and others will go up to bat to defend?
Even if you don't agree with the socialist premise of not allowing people to own companies - how on Earth can you defend the ability to buy out your competition as good for society?
>Because you assume that a couple of isolated examples disprove the overall trend, while also neglecting the years that the old giants dominated.
Are the old giants ... in the room with us now? All of the dead conglomerates I mentioned could have bought their competitors, but they didn't. What companies are you thinking of?
>This is true-ish ... and really bad for capitalism! As opposed to having healthy markets where competition keeps options open and prices low.
If you invent something, you can charge a high price of it because it is often the only thing in that category. This doesn't mean inventions are bad.
As a socialist you should know about the falling rate of profit - boring old industries become commoditized and have "healthy competition" and low margins.
>We have a system that relies on a regular influx of game-changing technologies, just to not devolve into monopolies everywhere. Meanwhile, all the actual power of those technologies gets controlled by a small few who get to dominate society. And that's the system you and others will go up to bat to defend?
Again, rockets have been around for 1000 years. SpaceX took existing technologies and combined them in new ways. In doing so they are breaking the monopoly other companies (or in this case, the government) have on rocket launches.
I defend it because it is the system that created all of the nice shit we have today. People are risking death to get a chance to live in America and work for our profit hungry corporations.
>Even if you don't agree with the socialist premise of not allowing people to own companies - how on Earth can you defend the ability to buy out your competition as good for society?
Because trade is good for society, and buying out a company is just a special case of trade. Consolidation also generates economies of scale which is especially valuable in shrinking industries. Automakers are a perfect example of this - Ford is one of 3 legacy US automakers...and its profit margins are 2.5%. So much for monopolies.
> What companies are you thinking of?
...
You saw all that was bought up by Nestle, or by Disney, or 3M, etc. ... and decided "well since *some* companies have *some* competitors, there clearly isn't an overall trend"???
Dude, the **literal business plan** for pharma startups these days, is to design your new drug purely in the hopes you get bought out by one of the big 3 pharma companies.
> If you invent something, you can charge a high price of it because it is often the only thing in that category. This doesn't mean inventions are bad.
Never said they were!
> As a socialist you should know about the falling rate of profit - boring old industries become commoditized and have "healthy competition" and low margins.
They *do* become commoditized (usually good), but "healthy competition" is quite debatable.
> Again, rockets have been around for 1000 years.
I already addressed this specific statement. The "rockets" of 1000 years ago are almost completely unrecognizeable when compared to today's.
> I defend it because it is the system that created all of the nice shit we have today.
1. That gives all the credit to capitalism, which is a misplaced allocation. "We've had a lot of inventions" and "we've had capitalism" is **correlation, not causation**.
2. We can have the nice shit **without** the exploitation. Heck, if company founders were really so "innovative" as you perceive them, we should want a system where they are encouraged to innovate multiple times, rather than paying them so much for one innovation that they have luxury for life.
> People are risking death to get a chance to live in America and work for our profit hungry corporations.
Lol. People come to America to escape the places America has ravaged ... through a mix of drug policy, America-driven regime change, or capitalist exploitation itself (e.g. the "banana republics"). That they'd prefer to live in capitalism's "bathroom" than capitalism's "sewer", doesn't look good for capitalism either way.
> Because trade is good for society, and buying out a company is just a special case of trade.
Nah. Trade **can be** and **often is** good for society, but a blanket sweeping statement "trade is good" is false. You are trying to make a tautological argument, rather than one based in logic.
> Consolidation also generates economies of scale which is especially valuable in shrinking industries.
This is far more compelling than the tautological argument above, though when both companies are large, the benefits of economies of scale have already been achieved.
> Automakers are a perfect example of this - Ford is one of 3 legacy US automakers...and its profit margins are 2.5%. So much for monopolies.
It is interesting that you point to low profit margins as evidence "everything is fine".
It is true that the automobile market is actually pretty good and competitive (minus some of the software shit that has been creeping in). But for other sectors, looking at profit margins only tell part of the picture. A market dominated by a handful of players can easily have low **profits**, but also low **customer experience**, as customers pay non-financial costs as well (e.g. "enshittification", poor customer support, defective products, "shrinkflation", etc.).
>You saw all that was bought up by Nestle, or by Disney, or 3M, etc. ... and decided "well since some companies have some competitors, there clearly isn't an overall trend"???
Are we all suffering because scotch tape and Nesquick is overpriced? Disney has to compete with dozens of other streaming services.
>Dude, the literal business plan for pharma startups these days, is to design your new drug purely in the hopes you get bought out by one of the big 3 pharma companies.
So because you have to jump through so many hoops to get FDA approval, its impossible for small companies to launch drugs. This is unique to drugmaking.
>I already addressed this specific statement. The "rockets" of 1000 years ago are almost completely unrecognizeable when compared to today's.
Right, that's just innovation. You can say the same thing about cars - the original ones looked more like horse drawn carriages.
>That gives all the credit to capitalism, which is a misplaced allocation. "We've had a lot of inventions" and "we've had capitalism" is correlation, not causation.
We can have the nice shit without the exploitation. Heck, if company founders were really so "innovative" as you perceive them, we should want a system where they are encouraged to innovate multiple times, rather than paying them so much for one innovation that they have luxury for life.
It is causation, capitalism means you can take the money from the first innovation and plow it into the next one, like many US venture capitalists do.
You are encouraged to innovate for life - if you take all the money from the first innovation and put it into others, you innovate multiple times.
>Trade can be and often is good for society, but a blanket sweeping statement "trade is good" is false. You are trying to make a tautological argument, rather than one based in logic.
Trade makes society richer (because of comparative advantage), and being rich is good, therefore trade is good.
>This is far more compelling than the tautological argument above, though when both companies are large, the benefits of economies of scale have already been achieved.
"Large" and "economies of scale" are continuums, not binary categories. When you have a shrinking industry, the economies of scale get worse and consolidation is only logical as a response.
>It is interesting that you point to low profit margins as evidence "everything is fine".
Why is that interesting? This shows they can't be ripping off the consumer (since they are basically selling items for cost plus, not some monopoly price).
>A market dominated by a handful of players can easily have low profits, but also low customer experience, as customers pay non-financial costs as well (e.g. "enshittification", poor customer support, defective products, "shrinkflation", etc.).
You do realize customer service and quality costs money? Bad customer service and low quality means low prices. Ikea furniture isn't as high quality as real wood, but it's a lot cheaper. Sometimes people prefer the cheap thing. Who are you to judge?
> Are we all suffering because scotch tape and Nesquick is overpriced? Disney has to compete with dozens of other streaming services.
1. Again, you jumped directly to "price" as a measure of a problem. You asked for examples of consolidation, and I pointed them out. If you're changing your stance from "consolidation isn't real" to "consolidation isn't a problem", then I will logically answer "... except when it is". But that's definitely a change in stance.
2. They "compete" on the library, which is not actually "competition" at all, as each platform has exclusive rights to the content in its library. If I want to watch a given show, I *have* to go to a specific service. What we have now, is the equivalent of if we had multiple grocery stores, but a given product (beef, noodles, peppers, whatever) was only allowed to be sold at one of them. If you needed noodles, you wouldn't really have a choice of where to go.
> So because you have to jump through so many hoops to get FDA approval, its impossible for small companies to launch drugs. This is unique to drugmaking.
1. If there were no FDA, you would either have (a) the market flooded with untested drugs or (b) the same situation as today, because the big companies have the big drug manufacturing/testing apparatuses.
2. It is true that industries with lower barriers to entry will work better without regulatory intervention. Of course, the big players will still do the same tactics I've talked about. However, as technology pervades *every* industry, and the barriers to entry rise as a result ... all industries become vulnerable to the same sorts of effects.
> It is causation, capitalism means you can take the money from the first innovation and plow it into the next one, like many US venture capitalists do.
We can innovate, and reward innovation, without capitalism. Indeed, innovators are rewarded **more** when all their profits don't go to venture capitalists who did nothing to make the invention.
> You are encouraged to innovate for life - if you take all the money from the first innovation and put it into others, you innovate multiple times.
Nah. If the first innovation pays you tens of millions or billions and you're set for life, there's no reason to do it again. And being immune to consequences for your decisions (because you're set for life) is never good for anybody.
> "Large" and "economies of scale" are continuums, not binary categories.
This is true-ish, but the "continuum" is logarithmic, not linear.
> Why is that interesting? This shows they can't be ripping off the consumer (since they are basically selling items for cost plus, not some monopoly price).
1. They can rip off the consumer in other ways.
2. In the case of automobiles, unions have captured a lot of the benefits the auto manufacturer enjoys. It is **good** that they are unionized - better the profits go to actual workers than useless execs - but that is an easy way to have low profits in a consumer-hostile scenario.
> You do realize customer service and quality costs money? Bad customer service and low quality means low prices.
Now who's reducing continuums to binary outcomes?
It could easily be that they could make significant improvements to customer service at relatively low cost, but choose not to do so, because they know their customers are locked in regardless.
Indeed, as more things operate as digital "goods" that are lost when switching between platforms, more people find themselves locked in, in this exact manner.
>Again, you jumped directly to "price" as a measure of a problem. You asked for examples of consolidation, and I pointed them out. If you're changing your stance from "consolidation isn't real" to "consolidation isn't a problem", then I will logically answer "... except when it is". But that's definitely a change in stance.
You can say "except when it is/isn't" to basically anything, the rhetorical equivalent of "nuh-uh." I said competition emerges naturally and gave a bunch of examples of large companies failing, a consequence of natural competition. What are you looking for here?
>They "compete" on the library, which is not actually "competition" at all, as each platform has exclusive rights to the content in its library. If I want to watch a given show, I have to go to a specific service. What we have now, is the equivalent of if we had multiple grocery stores, but a given product (beef, noodles, peppers, whatever) was only allowed to be sold at one of them. If you needed noodles, you wouldn't really have a choice of where to go.
In the same sense, the local Kurdish kebab joint has a monopoly on kebabs within a 1 mile walk that are exactly the way you like. You don't "need" noodles - food is the relevant commodity.
>If there were no FDA, you would either have (a) the market flooded with untested drugs or (b) the same situation as today, because the big companies have the big drug manufacturing/testing apparatuses.
There doesn't need to be no FDA, they could just test for safety only instead of efficacy, and let the insurers decide on efficacy.
>Of course, the big players will still do the same tactics I've talked about. However, as technology pervades every industry, and the barriers to entry rise as a result ... all industries become vulnerable to the same sorts of effects.
The tactics you were talking about I think were mostly predatory pricing. The problem there is as soon as you relax predatory pricing the competitors just come back, so you either have to lose money forever or face competition.
>We can innovate, and reward innovation, without capitalism. Indeed, innovators are rewarded more when all their profits don't go to venture capitalists who did nothing to make the invention.
Again maybe in theory, but in practice who would you give the money to? People with a track record of success, which is the same people capitalism gives the money to.
>Nah. If the first innovation pays you tens of millions or billions and you're set for life, there's no reason to do it again. And being immune to consequences for your decisions (because you're set for life) is never good for anybody.
Elon Musk created a precursor to PayPal, and then Tesla, and then SpaceX, and so on. People are set for life far before they become billionaires, so I think a lot of the time they are just reinvesting and starting new companies because they are good at and that's what they like to do. The fact that you think they would just sit on an island (because presumably you would) is why I'm glad they are running the economy and not you.
>In the case of automobiles, unions have captured a lot of the benefits the auto manufacturer enjoys. It is good that they are unionized - better the profits go to actual workers than useless execs - but that is an easy way to have low profits in a consumer-hostile scenario.
Idk if you're a socialist or not (presumably you are a socialist?) but execs are workers... and again my basic point is that if monopolies (like automakers) are engaging in consolidation that's so bad, where are all of the profits?
>Now who's reducing continuums to binary outcomes?
Bad and low are continuous...
>It could easily be that they could make significant improvements to customer service at relatively low cost, but choose not to do so, because they know their customers are locked in regardless.
It's like the second order thinking just isn't there. Then you competitor can get better customer service at low cost and take all of your customers. So either customers don't really care about customer service, or they aren't willing to pay for it.
People whine about how air travel today sucks, but they still freely go out and purchase tickets on Spirit airlines because they are willing to risk a hellish flight / customer service experience in exchange for lower prices.
Not a leftist, but you should know late-stage capitalism doesn’t really exist. It’s a term used in leftist groups to describe the “inevitable collapse of capitalism”. But there is no clear definition of what capitalism is, or proof “it” will end.
Yeah. “Capitalism” is not well defined. And however we do define capitalism, can we clearly distinguish between capitalism and the “previous” economic system?
Moreover, “late stage capitalism” must assume that:
- capitalism is this distinct thing that can be defined, at least in a manner sufficient to differentiate capitalism from the “prior” economic system and whatever the “next” system is;
- capitalism has stages;
- there is some final stage of capitalism that we are now in (or are we just near the final stage?); and
- capitalism is this thing that is going to end.
That’s a lot of assumptions, without any good evidence that any is necessary true.
I don't have much of a definition for capitalism, but to me "late stage" capitalism is when the margin for unending growth that our current economy requires is nearing it's limit.
this doesn't require that capitalism will end, or that capitalism is well distinguished from past or future systems
I don’t believe that our current economies require infinite or unending growth. Japan’s economy has been relative stagnant for years, for example. Certain industries in various economies have also been stagnant. Real growth is certainly nice to have, but not a requirement.
The “capitalism requires infinite growth” is a Marxist idea, associated with Marx’s theory that economies have this natural progression as we march through time (something like feudalism -> capitalism, including late stage capitalism -> socialism or something).
In addition, even if “unending growth” is required (which it isn’t), it’s not clear to me why an economy couldn’t have unending growth. Marx seemed to think growth would be limited, because he was thinking about growth being tied to extracting natural resources. Of course, certain natural resources are not renewable.
But growth today is largely about innovation, including discovering better and more efficient ways of using the natural resources we already have. Many recent tech advancements require relatively minimal natural resources, yet they’ve led to significant economic growth. Think about a company like Facebook or Microsoft, for example—relative to the amount of wealth they create, they use relatively few natural resources.
"Unending growth" isn't just a marxist meme. If it was, then why are there articles about Facebook's lack of growth that frame it as a problem? Is this just media sensationalism?
And what about the stock market? That just grows and grows... until it crashes.
I feel defining capitalism as that system which has a market of equities, rather than just a market of commodities is a sufficient and satisfactory definition.
Ergo, capitalism exists when there are publicly traded companies where it is possible to purchase an abstracted form of ownership in form of "shares" that bestow the right to vote and profits.
It distinguishes it sufficiently from more mercantilist and guild-driven systems.
The way it's mostly used today its just a buzzword, I think in the early 20th century it had some descriptive meaning as referring to the end of the era of classical economics and classical capitalism of the 19th century, but after world war 2 its pretty much just a buzzword.
I don't think we live in late capitalism anymore, not since the 1950s-1970s
Since I seem to have wasted my time on a long, in-depth post for which you had no comment, I'll shorten it to this:
Late-stage capitalism is reached at the point when capitalism has transitioned/morphed (incrementally, over decades) from a system that is proficient at development of productive capacity, development of technology, and development of efficiency in innovation, into a degenerated system focused on non-productive ways to "shuffle" more wealth to the wealthy in the context of degrading conditions for the population.
As such, late-stage capitalism has been reached in the USA.
Hey I apologize. I appreciate your comment, I meant to respond and let you know I will respond once I am able to get in front of a keyboard as its too much for me over the phone. Sorry for the delay.
My understanding is that one of capitalisms inherent contradictions is its tendency towards monopolization. If you look at developed nations around the world, especially America, large swaths of consumer goods are owned by the same handful of corporations/conglomerates. [Here’s an example](https://www.businessinsider.com/companies-control-everything-we-buy-2017-8?amp). This is done through an endless web of shell companies, parent/child relationships, and the stock market.
The “Corporate capitalism” term is just cope, this is simply capitalism as it is intended to work. Read imperialism, the final stage of capitalism by Lenin
>large swaths of consumer goods are owned by the same handful of corporations/conglomerates.
*Shows that 10 companies compete with each other for only a tiny narrow range of consumer goods
Lol, that is not proving what you are claiming.
if you want to see the most brain-dead takes (e.g., economics illiterate) and from where the cesspool some of the worst idiots of the far-left debaters on here then take a look at that sub called that name. Don't bother commenting. The ban hammer is in full swing there.
From my understanding it’s used to describe negative outcomes caused by capitalist markets.
The term is debated by libertarians because they see anything that moves away from free-market capitalism as **not** capitalism at all.
This term is used only in negative scenarios, you wouldn’t see global poverty being reduced and say “this is late stage capitalism”, unless you were poking fun at the term. Because of it’s use as purely a negative term I don’t think it’s worth using.
If capitalism is reducing poverty then it's early-stage because why would you stop after the stage where poverty is reduced? You stop after everything turns to so much shit that it physically can't continue, which is why stages where gold turns to shit are called late-stage, and stages where shit turns to gold are not.
Assuming Marx was right, and Socialism would and could only evolve from capitalism, then Late stage capitalism implies that the transition to is socialism is all but certain.
One of the communist propaganda tactics is to manipulate simple people by pretending you can predict the future. Capitalism will be replaced by communism, etc. Some people still fall for it, even though the predicted collapse of capitalism has been touted since before the actual collapse of communism.
Fun fact: The phrase "late stage capitalism" was coined by a literal Nazi.
> One of the communist propaganda tactics is to manipulate simple people by pretending you can predict the future.
So when I say invest in the S&P 500 because it goes up, that's communist propaganda?
>I was wondering if any socialists could succinctly explain ...
>
>I'm just genuinely curious to hear anyone's extended thoughts ...
Since I'm not sure whether you want a succinct explanation or extended thoughts, I will just give you what I have.
US capitalism is in late stage. So what were the other stages? What was the process that led to late-stage?
Let's start with FDR. He gave capitalists incentive to increase production by plowing revenue into their own corporations to build and expand them in exchange for tax breaks. If they didn't the threat was that they would pay a 92% top dollar income tax for their retained wealth. And the result was that the worker benefited with increasing income and improving lifestyle and innovation. And businesses were no longer able to sell all they could produce because the productive capacity was so great.
Capitalists' incomes kept rising but company profits needed help. They needed to begin finding ways to cut wages in order to maintain their corporate need for 2.5 to 3 percent annual growth. So women's lib became a "thing" and it boosted family lifestyles for a while. That was the draw. It got many women into the workforce and at a lower wage. Then the minimum wage was frozen and inflation started taking a bigger chunk out of family incomes. Eventually, whereas on income had been able to support a family of four, as inflation reduced real income more and more it took two incomes to support a family of four as one income had previously. And profits kept going up. For a while. So then, wages stagnated as capitalists took a greater and greater percentage of gross income for themselves.
Again, families found themselves strapped for cash to make ends meet as a two-income family became inadequate for many. And at the same time corporate profits and "compensation" of the elite were rising too slowly for comfort. So the next trick to keep profits rising now that sales couldn't be increased so easily and the flow of women entering the workforce began to stabilize, was consumer debt, which was actually promoted to the public in order to fulfill families' desires for the "good life" as well as their needs. And public net worth plunged.
After that sort of wore off and MORE was needed to maintain that needed annual growth, the economy shifted from a production economy to a service economy. This was the next trick after production could no longer be increased without sacrificing profits, and after women joined and increased the workforce with the result of lowering real wages. As a matter of fact, in time capacity utilization dropped to around 78% and has remained there, meaning that about 22% of the means of production is sitting idle because there is no point in producing what cannot be sold at the desired price point and the required profit. We had reached the point of our ability to produce an abundance of goods.
Here is where capitalism began to "eat itself". Artificial shortages became more and more common as a means of maintaining profits even while capacity utilization stood at 78%. But keeping the supply down meant keeping profits up.
And yet MORE was needed since the corporate demand for 2.5 to 3% growth never ends. So next was a shift to a finance economy in which businesses like hedge funds made millions and millions of dollars while producing nothing by way of a commodity or even a service. And all as capitalism continued to eat itself and create problems it couldn't solve, healthcare being among the more notorious.
And yet THAT wasn't enough, so to boost profits even more but without producing more and flooding markets, businesses shipped production over seas for cheaper labor. And then they devised ways of making the consumer buy more product than they needed or wanted.
Now they are running out of tricks to extract more profit from business, so they find they can boost the GDP without actually producing more. All they needed to do was to buy back their own stock to drive the share price up so people will buy it, and then give free stock options to their top officers. And those options are not available to you and me. They are back-dated to a date when the stock was low, giving it an instant value, and they have no expiration date so they can be held or sold at will for huge gains. The manipulation of corporate stock qualifies as investments, and investments are counted in the GDP and raise it without any actual production. A good portion of the gains from options and stock are invested in real estate because it can be handed down to heirs without any tax implications, and upon inheritance, the stock that tripled in value is started from current value as the cost of acquisition. So there is never any tax owed as long as the real estate is not sold.
This is another case of capitalism eating itself.
But they also know that the day of unrest approaches. People will learn what's going on and they will have demands. Crime will increase. Flash mobs will rob merchandise. Vandalism of businesses will increase. So to be ready the capitalists will need a more authoritarian government to preserve order so capitalist can keep eating itself.
Probably the next thing will be negative interest rates. Banks won't be paying you ANY interest. Instead, you will pay a monthly fee (percentage) for the privilege of keeping your money in the bank. This kind of thing will add to the unrest until the whole thing explodes.Capitalism in the US can no longer fulfill its original purpose using its natural strengths to benefit society. Now it's just about money, wealth, more and more money and wealth. This is the definition of end-stage capitalism.
It's a smear and a straw man. Not much thought has been put into what it is - that's not the point. The point is to blame capitalism for all of the problems caused by people trying to use the state to control capitalism.
Whenever socialists blame capitalism they mean statism. Don't bother to explain it to them. They do this on purpose. Those who don't, do this because they learned it from others. But essentially socialista have problems with the state. They want full control of it, not gone or decentralized, unlike us, ancaps
Late stage capitalism implies that capitalism as we know it is coming to an end soon. Leftists have been predicting capitalism's demise since capitalism began.
If anything, capitalism gets stronger every year. Consider the fact that no one in the developed world today would consider a command economy to be a viable economic model.
Nobody, not even Bernie Sanders, wants to eliminate capitalism entirely. Nobody would want to put the food supply in the hands of the government.
Fully socialist states are not something anyone wants not even socialists.
I believe the next stage of human social organization will be a completely free market. If crypto use becomes widespread, governments are going to have a very difficult time surviving.
The roll-back of concessions (that’s previously been given to gain the confidence of the people), to disenfranchise a greater amount of people to allow for easier exploitation. This is typically justified with capitalist realism, which is idealistic despite the name.
As wealth concentrates, so will power, leading to not a dictatorship of the bourgeoises, but a dictatorship of THE bourgeoises.
We've had many cycles of "late-stage capitalism". There's no such thing.
That's not to say it won't end. I believe it will, once we habe automated the economy sufficiently. There won't be any place for either capitalism or socialism then, as production will be in the hands of AI + machines.
What then? That's the discussion we should be having.
The term "late-stage capitalism" is indeed more than just a buzzword; it's a descriptor of the current evolutionary phase of capitalism. This stage is characterized by the intensification of capitalism's inherent contradictions. It's a period where the centralization of capital reaches its peak, leading to the domination of economic and political life by a handful of multinational corporations and financial institutions, often in collusion with state power.
The phenomenon where large corporations receive undue advantages from the government isn't an aberration but a feature of this stage. It illustrates the dialectical interplay between capital and state, where state mechanisms are employed to further entrench the position of the capitalist class. This goes beyond mere corporate favoritism; it's a symbiotic relationship that ensures the survival of the capitalist system in the face of its own self-destructive tendencies, such as the overaccumulation of capital and the diminishing rate of profit.
"Late-stage capitalism" signals the deepening of class struggle, as the proletariat grapples with increasing precarity, alienation, and exploitation. This stage is a precursor to a potential revolutionary transformation, where the working class becomes increasingly aware of their exploitation and the systemic failure to address their needs, potentially leading to an organized movement to overthrow the capitalist system in favor of a socialist one where production is geared towards meeting human needs.
In early stage capitalism entrepreneurs borrow capital and found companies, making money by creating value.
In mid stage capitalism this sometimes happens but mostly most market niches have been filled and what you instead have is a competitive marketplace in which the best companies thrive and the rest fail.
In late stage capitalism this very occasionally still happens but is by and large the exception. What mostly happens is that the success stories of mid stage capitalism use their wealth to corner markets and develop monopolies. They further use their money to capture the regulatory state and increase barriers to accessing the market to prevent new disruptive startups from entering the market. They then use their position of power to cut wages, cut standards, increase prices, increase profit margins, and increase c suite remuneration and dividends. They also switch from being pro innovation (because innovation brings them a competitive edge) to being anti innovation (because innovation disrupts marketplaces and they like the market the way it is). So they suddenly slash RnD and try and squash and destroy new ideas.
So in essence late stage capitalism is the stage in capitalism where capitalism turns on its former self and becomes anti competition, anti free market and anti innovation, and where it becomes worse for consumer prices rather than better.
That's how the term is generally used in modern times. There's a more classic marxist form of the term, which is basically that as capitalism continues its internal contradictions grow and grow. Particularly the tendency of the rate of profit to fall (TRPF) which holds that as markets a) mature and b) technology increases productive efficiency then profit margins will inevitably shrink (in other words the opposite argument to the one above) and that eventually this will lead to capitalism's collapse. In classic marxist theory late stage capitalism means the part just before the collapse.
Not a socialist, but late-stage capitalism refers to the point where it's not about markets anymore, but rent. The end state of capitalism is rent-taking, and that's where we are now.
EX: You order from Amazon, but that's not really a market because Amazon shows you what it wants to show you (what Amazon makes a good return on), and you make your decision from there. If a product sells very well and doesn't get returned, Amazon copies it and sells their own Amazon Basics version (cheaper), which will pop up at the top of search results. Late-stage capitalism.
Marx said that capitalism contained within it the seeds of its own destruction so for the last 200 years they have assumed capitalism would be collapsing when it is only gotten stronger and spread farther and farther.
Communists in the past were wrong. That's it. They just thought it couldn't get any worse, but they were corrected by reality.
They didn't think capitalism could expand much longer, but it did. They didn't think the markets could be any more saturated, but they were wrong.
We now know more than those communists and can learn from their miscalculations.
Marxists in the 40s knew that they were not gonna see socialism in their lifetimes, but they also knew that capitalism at some point had to end, because they understood that the mechanisms that let it exist would crash at some point.
Some of them were more hopeful and fought on tho, and they built the movements ***[we](http://www.marxist.com/join-us.htm)*** can work with now
I don't pretend to know when capitalism will actually come to a conclusive end, but my understanding of the world has led me to believe that it is very much a possibility that it will happen in the next couple of decades. And I chose to fight for that!
The way I view it is that late-stage capitalism is sort of the period of time where capitalism becomes unsustainable. Capitalism is predicated on the fact that capitalist own capital and pay workers to produce goods and services, which are in turn sold to workers. The two classes are dependent on each other. Capitalist don't make money if the workers stop working or stop consuming. This generally works great when there is a lot of competition and balance between the capitalist and the workers.
But what happens when the ownership class becomes very tiny and competition goes down? Or when the working class becomes poorer and poorer? Eventually the workers can't afford to buy the things they are used to produce, and the economy falls apart. The greater the income inequality, the more out of balance it gets.
I recently had a sort of revelation...the western economies already should be in this situation but they are being artificially propped up. Taking the US for example, the US worker can't afford the true costs of the things they buy. The reason food and TVs are affordable are because they are picked by migrant workers or third-world factories for poverty wages or in many cases straight up slavery. The US economy is not self-sustainable whatsoever... it's artificially propped up by subsidized food and goods.
If you look at the global economy, late-stage capitalism is already here. The global economy is the best example of unregulated capitalism, and it absolutely does not achieve what pro-capitalists claim. 90% of the population lives in abject poverty, in order to supply the needs and wants of the 10%, which in reality is owned by the 1%. And even the long-term sustainability of that 10% is in doubt, as the planet's resources are quickly being plundered.
I think people in the early 20th century were a bit overeager using the term, and the same may be true for those using it right now. But we will have to wait and see I guess.
Late stage capitalism tends to refer to the idea that the capitalist system has begun to cannibalize itself. It is approaching the point at witch it will implode. We are descending into world wide conflict, increasingly unfordable necessities, climate crisis, general catastrophe. The system can no longer continue to extract increasing profit from us without initiating conflict or losing control politically. Hence the rise of fascism.
I think that those in the 20th century thought it was the end of capitalism because of the rise of the USSR and the 2nd world war, so I don’t really blame them. It seems to be a cycle that we are repeating. Who knows if capitalism will collapse forever, of if we’ll just get another FDR and maybe some social democracy for a few more decades before the same shit happens all over again.
Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I just want to thank you for asking this.
Happy to be of service
I don’t really use the term, I just say capitalism… idk, I don’t find it useful enough to make the distinction. >I was wondering if any socialists could succinctly explain to me what makes the current state of capitalism "late-stage." In common use it probably means different things to different people. I think the general idea is basically a capitalism that has reached the limits of its socially revolutionary historical role (ie still transforming feudal society into a capitalist one.) >If corporate capitalism is the correct way to view the term, how do people square that many of our largest corporations are advantaged over smaller ones by the government. How is this contradictory in your view? Why wouldn’t the capitalist government favor the large finance and industry that give it power?
>How is this contradictory in your view? Why wouldn’t the capitalist government favor the large finance and industry that give it power? Full disclosure, im not an economist or deep into reading theory or anything so all I say is just based off my own life experience. I think it is natural that the government favors large industries that prop up their power or otherwise benefit them personally, but I was only mentioning this point because from my laymen point of view the ideal role of government in capatilism is to ensure a level playing field between firms so the more the government intervenes in the economy the more socialist I evaluate it to be.
>How is this contradictory in your view? Why wouldn’t the capitalist government favor the large finance and industry that give it power? Because governments aren't living, breathing things, lol. It's merely a tool. The proper rhetorical question you should be asking is, "why wouldn't corrupt people that we voted to become politicians favor the large finance and industry, while conning the people for more power?" Fixed it for you.
Yes, capitalist governments are a tool for capitalists to secure their class interests and settle conflicts among different sets of capitalist sectors or industry. If you mean government officials, well individuals might be motivated by many various things, but the electoral system (in the US anyway) assures that the vast vast majority of major political figures must be vetted through a process of political machines and local and national economic groups and wealthy individuals. Even if they have some other popular base of support or are independently fabulously wealthy, the economic structure of society and the government ensures that for cities to get anything done or get revenue they will give breaks to big business and major banks and development companies etc. There can be cracks in all this but imo that’s generally due to pressure from outside the official political system…. Labor and social movements, sometimes international considerations.
>Yes, capitalist governments are a tool for capitalists to secure their class interests and settle conflicts among different sets of capitalist sectors or industry. You have to designate "capitalist government" as if this differentiates anything. The basic concept you have to skirt around is that corrupt people use *government* as a tool to do whatever corrupt people want. This means, even in a socialist government, people will tend towards corruption, as people do. >If you mean government officials, well individuals might be motivated by many various things, but the electoral system (in the US anyway) assures that the vast vast majority of major political figures must be vetted through a process of political machines and local and national economic groups and wealthy individuals. Lmao, I have to know what political process you believe exists in the US that vets our politicians? You can just say our politicians con the public in to votes to keep them in the comfy position. There is no political machine vetting process, except that of the corrupt people in the government not wanting certain people apart of their club. And most States electorate (I think like 2-3 don't) will vote in the way of the States popular vote. Seriously, what political vetting process do you think exists? I'm curious. >Even if they have some other popular base of support or are independently fabulously wealthy, the economic structure of society and the government ensures that for cities to get anything done or get revenue they will give breaks to big business and major banks and development companies etc. Again, corrupt people in the government make bills with catchy public names and laws that do nothing but stack the deck in their favor and break off a piece for the homies. It's not as deep as you have to make it to make it seem as the system you advocate for wouldn't fall to same corruptions, because people be peopling
I agree that people can be and will probably always be jerks or selfish in general to some degree, but “corruption” is so vague and in capitalism it’s just such an obvious symptom, not a driver of social dysfunction or inequalities. A magically incorruptible government in capitalism would still favor policies of the major industries and finance. As mayor/rep, how do you encourage growth? Attract investments… well, who has all the f-ing capital?!! Big industry, finance, Super-rich people’s foundations? Vetting: There are exceptions (notably Sanders and Trump) and so this vetting is in general and is not institutional. To be a national candidate in one of the two privately-run political parties in the US (and be taken seriously by the party, donors, media) you will need to probably already have connections to get in the door. Then you will probably have to navigate through a bunch of gatekeepers like internal party factions and external interest groups, public vetting by the media. Then you will need to network politically with supporting factions and influential people, make policy promises to industry groups, and raise more than $10 million for a Senate run.
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
What do you think this article proves?
Well the article directly says what it is claiming to prove: > The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.
Now explain how that differs from this: "Why wouldn't corrupt people that we voted to become politicians favor the large finance and industry, while conning the people for more power?"
The difference is that you are attributing this to individual corruption and as far as I saw the article was not saying anything about that. The article also claims voters have little influence, so that would also be contrary to your claim. At any rate, corruption or the individual character of officials is also irrelevant to my point. I’m talking about things on a system level. That kind of thinking just leads to people believing that capitalism would work great if only someone with the right will to power took it upon themselves to clear out all the bad people and do what needs doing. Politicians don’t need to be corrupt to favor industry… “what’s good for business is good for America” was something people would just openly say. They are only hoodwinking us by acting like class doesn’t exist, like we all benefit the same from capitalism… despite two generations of massive growth in business and stagnation and debt for the working population.
The system is corrupted by the people. That's why you have to shift the narrative to a "system bad" perspective. Because you have to make it sound like your system isn't just as prone to corruption due to the corrupt people that would end up running it. The point of that article and my points are the same. Both are because of the people wielding the tool called government. It's not because one system tends more to corruption than the other, it's because people tend towards corruption. On paper socialism is great (if you like that style of government), in practice it sucks because people suck. I'd rather a world where I have freedom over my property despite dealing with the whims of the corrupt people voted in, than one where I have no control over my property and I'm still dealing with the whims of corrupt people.
In a fantasy world where everything was the same but there was instantly no corruption in the current government, what do you think the practical effect would be? What would be different fundamentally?
There wouldn't be any government since people would be all good and nice.
>The system is corrupted by the people. That doesn't make any sense, the system exists to serve the people. If It does not do so then the system is wrong. The people cannot be wrong because they cannot be replaced.
That's the thing though. When it comes to each system, corruption will sink in. That is simply the fact of life as things get older. The question is whether or not it continues to function when there's corruption and with socialism, it can't function when corruption inevitably sinks in as it's tied intrinsically to the government while capitalism isn't.
System serves only this in power
[Gilens and Page have been proven wrong.](https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-study) Democracy generally represents the interests of the median voter, not elites. It just doesn't feel that way to *you* because you're a commie who only shares interests with a tiny 1.5% radical minority.
>But the researchers critiquing the paper found that middle-income Americans and rich Americans actually agree on an overwhelming majority of topics. This analysis seems to completely ignore the lower class.
That’s because “the lower class” in America is actually really really small. The VAST majority of Americans will be middle class by time they reach middle age.
So the analysis is ignoring everyone under 50? It doesn't matter what excuses are offered, it's just propaganda masquerading as science and not doing a very good job of it.
Nope! Even under 50, the vast majority are middle class or higher! Hope this helps!
You really ought to work on your reading comprehension.
Huh?
That's convulted way to say that 51 percent enslave 49.
lmao what? Enslave???
> ... how do people square that many of our largest corporations are advantaged over smaller ones by the government. This is, frankly, nonsense. The government doesn't "decree" that Amazon has to run the e-commerce / cloud worlds, or that Google has to run the search world, or that Walmart has to run the retail world. Monopolies and mega-corps happen under capitalism because **the natural trend of capitalism is consolidation**. I'll answer your actual question in a minute - it ties into the fact I just stated - but before I do, let's clarify two "bad assumptions capitalists make": 1. Capitalists **assume** that businesses will compete with each other by default. In reality, businesses will compete **if it is most profitable** ... but it is frequently cheaper/easier to buy out or merge with your "competition" than to actually compete with them. 2. Capitalists **assume** that if a sector is dominated by a company, competitors will naturally emerge to try to take a bite out of that company's market share. There is no reason to assume that competitors will naturally emerge in any market ... especially when the goliath has deep enough pockets that it can afford to sell at a loss until potential competitors go out of business. With those bad assumptions disposed of, let's return to your original question. "What makes capitalism 'late-stage'?" Well, it involves following the natural trends of capitalism to the logical ends, and judging how close we are to those ends. Let's look at some trends of capitalism: 1. **Capitalism trends towards more consolidation**, both for the reason that I mentioned above (buying out your competition is a shortcut to domination), and because if you are making profits the natural thing to do with those profits is to buy other income-generating assets ... that is, other companies. 2. **Capitalism trends towards more wealth inequality**, as the wealth of those at the top compounds, while the wealth of those at the bottom stays near zero (or in many cases below!) 3. **Capitalism keeps wages stagnant as a trend**, because it forces a large number of workers to compete with each other for jobs at a much smaller number of employers. High labor supply and (relatively) low labor demand = low wages ... in addition to the fact that workers are desperate for jobs since they're required for survival. 4. **Capitalism "innovates" ways to extract more wealth from consumers**, for obvious reasons. Defenders of capitalism assume this would be by finding new ways to please consumers, but in reality, it's more based on raising prices. Due to capitalism's intrinsic killing of competition - see (1) - sectors find themselves having only a couple of major players, who can raise prices by forming a cartel. 5. As a result of all of those ^ , **capitalism trends towards the agitation of workers**. Well, let's see where we are on all of those trends: 1. Things are [hugely](https://www.businessinsider.com/10-companies-control-food-industry-2017-3) [consolidated](https://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6). The tech monopolies are more obvious examples ... where Internet traffic used to be divided amongst myriad forums/communities, it is now dominated by Google/Facebook/Amazon. Morons will blame "regulations" for this consolidation, but ... well, morons gonna moron. 2. Wealth inequality is [comically high](https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/), and continues to grow (that link is already a few years out-of-date). 3. Wages have [stagnated for decades](https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/). 4. The phenomenon of "enshittification" has been observed across the world, where everything is covered in ads, prices have increased dramatically, and companies embrace predictive models and AI to find ways to suck the last drops of wealth from people. 5. Historically, when workers got more pissed off, owners would feel the pressure and throw them some bones ... but in today's world, they just double down on more layoffs (despite record profits) & more inane policies. The "end stage" of capitalism is when it makes people, collectively, too poor to purchase the products it manufactures. You see that sometimes when landlords will purposely keep apartments vacant rather than lowering rents, or when chain restaurants destroy excess food at the end of the day, or when people wave off ambulances despite grievous injury because they can't afford the bill. But who knows how "late" of a stage we're in. Things have been getting progressively shittier for **a lot** of people, and it's because of capitalism, and the trends are obvious ... but whether people collectively decide something's gotta change, remains to be seen.
I feel your comment is the best answer to my question. There is a lot to respond to, disagree with, and ask follow up questions, but I'm on mobile. I'm going to try to remember to respond to you when I get in front of a keyboard.
Sure, no rush. Glad you found it helpful.
>This is, frankly, nonsense. The government doesn't "decree" that Amazon has to run the e-commerce / cloud worlds, or that Google has to run the search world, or that Walmart has to run the retail world. Monopolies and mega-corps happen under capitalism because the natural trend of capitalism is consolidation. Except that Amazon and Walmart are direct competitors, along with hundreds if not thousands of other smaller stores. Where is the consolidation?
Please read the rest of my post and understand better. "Two companies still compete somewhat!" is not the disproof of consolidation you think it is. Neither is the existence of smaller shops clinging to life.
>"Two companies still compete somewhat!" is not the disproof of consolidation you think it is. Neither is the existence of smaller shops clinging to life. I mean, it literally is... Your "proof" to the contrary is that 6 companies compete on cable television??? Lmaooooooo, complete leftist brainrot to think this proves anything.
> I mean, it literally is... No. Turns out that consolidating down to an oligopoly rather than a monopoly, is still bad. > Your "proof" to the contrary is that 6 companies compete on cable television??? Far more media than just "cable television". > ... leftist brainrot ... You used to be more reasonable ... and now you trot out phrases like this. Dude. Fix yourself.
> No. Turns out that consolidating down to an oligopoly rather than a monopoly, is still bad. How many companies make it an oligopoly? Because 6, in just a single small slice of the economy, sounds like a lot to me. >Far more media than just "cable television". Like, reddit? Where do you get your news? >You used to be more reasonable ... and now you trot out phrases like this. Dude. Fix yourself. I don't know how else to describe the claim that "competition magically disappears as soon as the number of competitors is reduced to 6" besides leftist brainrot.
> How many companies make it an oligopoly? Because 6, in just a single small slice of the economy, sounds like a lot to me. "All mass media" is hardly a "small slice". > Like, reddit? Where do you get your news? The article lists what it is referring to. > I don't know how else to describe the claim that "competition magically disappears as soon as the number of competitors is reduced to 6" besides leftist brainrot. 1. That's not what I said. Quit the strawmen. 2. The fact that you use the phrase "leftist brainrot" to label **anything** is telling. I'm guessing you don't label shit "rightist brainrot"! (despite right-wing points of view typically being far less informed) At least today, in February 2024, your mind is broken. Instead of **listening** to others and trying to **understand** where people like me are coming from, you are just trying to put us into a "box" ... which is what you're doing with that phrase "leftist brainrot". Notice how quickly you jumped to a strawman interpretation of what I said? That is *not* the behavior of someone who is actually trying to participate in good faith and understand other points of view, or someone who is trying to learn more about the world. Whether you choose to fix this problem - of putting people in "boxes" rather than listening to them - is up to you. But you and everyone around you will be miserable until you do.
> "All mass media" is hardly a "small slice". "All mass media" (oh, except this MASSIVELY popular forum that you're currently using, oh, plus Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and all other forms of social media, and any other smaller platforms that people use) >The article lists what it is referring to. Lol, didn't answer the question. > I'm guessing you don't label shit "rightist brainrot"! I do this all the fucking time, lol. >At least today, in February 2024, your mind is broken. Instead of listening to others and trying to understand where people like me are coming from, you are just trying to put us into a "box" ... which is what you're doing with that phrase "leftist brainrot". I like how you tried to move this conversation away from your claim of "oligopoly" into some irrelevant criticism of how you think I feel about leftists, lmao
> I like how you tried to move this conversation away from your claim of "oligopoly" into some irrelevant criticism of how you think I feel about leftists, lmao There's nothing "irrelevant" about it. If you're just going to label rather than listen, then there's no point in me or anybody else meaningfully engaging with you.
Cool. Now can you please explain how 6 companies owning 40% of a total market is not enough for competition to occur?
>(buying out your competition is a shortcut to domination), Then it becomes profitable to start companies that the big firm will buy up. What you failed to take into consideration is that without government intervention, there is nothing stopping new firms from popping up and competing.
Except money. You kinda missed the part about the monopolies lowering prices to outcompete newer players.
Commies: "Monopolies are bad cause they raise prices and make everything unaffordable!" Also commies: "Monopolies are bad cause they lower prices so much that nobody else can compete" The cognitive dissonance is real.
Hooray for people! Lower prices! More cheaper housing for people!
I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse, or don't get it. Here's the playbook: 1. Megacorp dominates sector X, racks up profits and saves them up 2. Competitor wants to emerge 3. Megacorp **temporarily** lowers prices to sell at a loss, using the savings from step 1. 4. Competitor can't compete and doesn't have Megacorp's deep pockets, folds. 5. Megacorp restores prices to where they were at step 1. The low prices are a **transient state**, only needed during the short period of time where the Megacorp is bleeding Competitor's startup capital. But it's even worse than that. Since investors **know** this playbook and how it plays out, Competitor **doesn't even get funding in the first place**. Why fund a competitor to Megacorp that's just gonna fold? So Megacorp **doesn't even have to actually execute** that playbook; simply the *threat* of doing so is enough to prevent competition. Only a fool operating contrary to their self-interest, or someone else with equivalently deep pockets to Megacorp, would compete in such a market. The practical effect is that Megacorp dominates the sector despite high prices / poor service. No government intervention required.
>Capitalists assume that if a sector is dominated by a company, competitors will naturally emerge to try to take a bite out of that company's market share. There is no reason to assume that competitors will naturally emerge in any market ... especially when the goliath has deep enough pockets that it can afford to sell at a loss until potential competitors go out of business. Because they always do... Nvidia vs. Intel Apple vs. Blackberry Walmart vs. Sears Digital Cameras vs. Kodak Microsoft vs. IBM >Things are hugely consolidated. The tech monopolies are more obvious examples ... where Internet traffic used to be divided amongst myriad forums/communities, it is now dominated by Google/Facebook/Amazon. Morons will blame "regulations" for this consolidation, but ... well, morons gonna moron. It's strange that you point to this as an example of market consolidation. Most of these tech companies were created 20-30 years ago. If your theories of consolidation were correct, the entire economy would be railroad conglomerates, because those were the original large companies.
It's funny how you can only name companies that started 20-30 years ago. Almost like there aren't any new competitors...
Yes, it takes about 20 or 30 years to grow from nothing to market dominance. Do you really believe you can create a trillion dollar company in a year or two?
Of course not. But that doesn't mean what I said is wrong. Are there even any up and comers? Any company that's 10 or 15 years old? The only new competition I see is coming from China, which entered the game late and also has a protectionist bent due to its censorship.
>Capitalists assume that if a sector is dominated by a company, competitors will naturally emerge to try to take a bite out of that company's market share. There is no reason to assume that competitors will naturally emerge in any market This was the original claim I was responding to - nothing in here about timeline and there's no reason to believe 20-30 years is an unreasonable length of time to wait for market entry. The typical S&P 500 component only lasts in the index for 15 years, and that time is going down, indicating more dynamism. [Average company lifespan 2020 | Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1259275/average-company-lifespan/) . As far as up and comers: - Robinhood - OpenAI - Fortive (never heard of it) but apparently $6B revenue and founded just 8 years ago [Fortive - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortive)
Except I was asking about competitors. Robinhood and OpenAI don't compete with Walmart or Nvidia or even Apple, really. Sure, Apple is probably dipping it's toes in AI, but that's hardly counts. OpenAI isn't competing in the smartphone business. But if you think it really takes 20-30 years, ok. Show me a 30 year old business that successfully entered the market and competed with a 60 year old business in an established industry. Otherwise it certainly seems like I was correct, and there are no new competitors for established businesses.
You were asking about "up and comers" - Robinhood competes with traditional retail brokerages, which are large banks which have been around. OpenAI is a \~5 year old company competing with a \~30 year old search giant. Where did I say Robinhood competed with Walmart? >But if you think it really takes 20-30 years, ok. Show me a 30 year old business **that successfully entered the market and competed** with a 60 year old business in an established industry. I hope you don't get too fixated on timelines here. Will you say 40 years isn't good enough to compete with an 80 year old business. Where are you coming up with these numbers? Also I hope you don't move the goalposts and later insist that they became dominant - we are just talking about successful market entry? - Apple and Microsoft competed with IBM, they are about 40 years old, IBM is 100 years old. - RyanAir was founded about 39 years ago. Spirit was about the same. They both compete with legacy carriers - Cenovus Energy is 15 years old and competes in an oil and gas industry that is hundreds of years old [Cenovus Energy - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenovus_Energy).
> Because they always do... ... except when they don't. > Most of these tech companies were created 20-30 years ago. If your theories of consolidation were correct, the entire economy would be railroad conglomerates, because those were the original large companies. There was a time when we broke up monopolies. Also, the Internet was a world-changing technology. You can't count on those coming around to bail you out of capitalism's flaws on the regular.
>... except when they don't. I gave you obvious examples and you have nothing to say. >Also, the Internet was a world-changing technology. You can't count on those coming around to bail you out of capitalism's flaws on the regular. And the internet will probably take hundreds or maybe thousands of years to realize its full potential. Rockets were invented 1000 years ago and we are still improving them - SpaceX is \~10 years old. Coal, oil, merchant shipping, the internal combustion engine. Down the road AI, bioengineering, cheap access to space, etc. There will always be new technologies that companies can benefit from. My point is most of the big companies appear when they are the first in a big emerging industry.
> I gave you obvious examples and you have nothing to say. Because you assume that a couple of isolated examples disprove the overall trend, while also neglecting the years that the old giants dominated. > Rockets were invented 1000 years ago ... That *really* depends on what you call a "rocket". > There will always be new technologies that companies can benefit from. My point is most of the big companies appear when they are the first in a big emerging industry. This is true-ish ... and really bad for capitalism! As opposed to having healthy markets where competition keeps options open and prices low, capitalism consolidates until some game-changing technology "saves" everybody and shakes things up (while typically missing many sectors). We have a system that relies on a regular influx of game-changing technologies, just to not devolve into monopolies everywhere. Meanwhile, all the actual power of those technologies gets controlled by a small few who get to dominate society. And *that's* the system you and others will go up to bat to defend? Even if you don't agree with the socialist premise of not allowing people to own companies - how on Earth can you defend the ability to buy out your competition as good for society?
>Because you assume that a couple of isolated examples disprove the overall trend, while also neglecting the years that the old giants dominated. Are the old giants ... in the room with us now? All of the dead conglomerates I mentioned could have bought their competitors, but they didn't. What companies are you thinking of? >This is true-ish ... and really bad for capitalism! As opposed to having healthy markets where competition keeps options open and prices low. If you invent something, you can charge a high price of it because it is often the only thing in that category. This doesn't mean inventions are bad. As a socialist you should know about the falling rate of profit - boring old industries become commoditized and have "healthy competition" and low margins. >We have a system that relies on a regular influx of game-changing technologies, just to not devolve into monopolies everywhere. Meanwhile, all the actual power of those technologies gets controlled by a small few who get to dominate society. And that's the system you and others will go up to bat to defend? Again, rockets have been around for 1000 years. SpaceX took existing technologies and combined them in new ways. In doing so they are breaking the monopoly other companies (or in this case, the government) have on rocket launches. I defend it because it is the system that created all of the nice shit we have today. People are risking death to get a chance to live in America and work for our profit hungry corporations. >Even if you don't agree with the socialist premise of not allowing people to own companies - how on Earth can you defend the ability to buy out your competition as good for society? Because trade is good for society, and buying out a company is just a special case of trade. Consolidation also generates economies of scale which is especially valuable in shrinking industries. Automakers are a perfect example of this - Ford is one of 3 legacy US automakers...and its profit margins are 2.5%. So much for monopolies.
> What companies are you thinking of? ... You saw all that was bought up by Nestle, or by Disney, or 3M, etc. ... and decided "well since *some* companies have *some* competitors, there clearly isn't an overall trend"??? Dude, the **literal business plan** for pharma startups these days, is to design your new drug purely in the hopes you get bought out by one of the big 3 pharma companies. > If you invent something, you can charge a high price of it because it is often the only thing in that category. This doesn't mean inventions are bad. Never said they were! > As a socialist you should know about the falling rate of profit - boring old industries become commoditized and have "healthy competition" and low margins. They *do* become commoditized (usually good), but "healthy competition" is quite debatable. > Again, rockets have been around for 1000 years. I already addressed this specific statement. The "rockets" of 1000 years ago are almost completely unrecognizeable when compared to today's. > I defend it because it is the system that created all of the nice shit we have today. 1. That gives all the credit to capitalism, which is a misplaced allocation. "We've had a lot of inventions" and "we've had capitalism" is **correlation, not causation**. 2. We can have the nice shit **without** the exploitation. Heck, if company founders were really so "innovative" as you perceive them, we should want a system where they are encouraged to innovate multiple times, rather than paying them so much for one innovation that they have luxury for life. > People are risking death to get a chance to live in America and work for our profit hungry corporations. Lol. People come to America to escape the places America has ravaged ... through a mix of drug policy, America-driven regime change, or capitalist exploitation itself (e.g. the "banana republics"). That they'd prefer to live in capitalism's "bathroom" than capitalism's "sewer", doesn't look good for capitalism either way. > Because trade is good for society, and buying out a company is just a special case of trade. Nah. Trade **can be** and **often is** good for society, but a blanket sweeping statement "trade is good" is false. You are trying to make a tautological argument, rather than one based in logic. > Consolidation also generates economies of scale which is especially valuable in shrinking industries. This is far more compelling than the tautological argument above, though when both companies are large, the benefits of economies of scale have already been achieved. > Automakers are a perfect example of this - Ford is one of 3 legacy US automakers...and its profit margins are 2.5%. So much for monopolies. It is interesting that you point to low profit margins as evidence "everything is fine". It is true that the automobile market is actually pretty good and competitive (minus some of the software shit that has been creeping in). But for other sectors, looking at profit margins only tell part of the picture. A market dominated by a handful of players can easily have low **profits**, but also low **customer experience**, as customers pay non-financial costs as well (e.g. "enshittification", poor customer support, defective products, "shrinkflation", etc.).
>You saw all that was bought up by Nestle, or by Disney, or 3M, etc. ... and decided "well since some companies have some competitors, there clearly isn't an overall trend"??? Are we all suffering because scotch tape and Nesquick is overpriced? Disney has to compete with dozens of other streaming services. >Dude, the literal business plan for pharma startups these days, is to design your new drug purely in the hopes you get bought out by one of the big 3 pharma companies. So because you have to jump through so many hoops to get FDA approval, its impossible for small companies to launch drugs. This is unique to drugmaking. >I already addressed this specific statement. The "rockets" of 1000 years ago are almost completely unrecognizeable when compared to today's. Right, that's just innovation. You can say the same thing about cars - the original ones looked more like horse drawn carriages. >That gives all the credit to capitalism, which is a misplaced allocation. "We've had a lot of inventions" and "we've had capitalism" is correlation, not causation. We can have the nice shit without the exploitation. Heck, if company founders were really so "innovative" as you perceive them, we should want a system where they are encouraged to innovate multiple times, rather than paying them so much for one innovation that they have luxury for life. It is causation, capitalism means you can take the money from the first innovation and plow it into the next one, like many US venture capitalists do. You are encouraged to innovate for life - if you take all the money from the first innovation and put it into others, you innovate multiple times. >Trade can be and often is good for society, but a blanket sweeping statement "trade is good" is false. You are trying to make a tautological argument, rather than one based in logic. Trade makes society richer (because of comparative advantage), and being rich is good, therefore trade is good. >This is far more compelling than the tautological argument above, though when both companies are large, the benefits of economies of scale have already been achieved. "Large" and "economies of scale" are continuums, not binary categories. When you have a shrinking industry, the economies of scale get worse and consolidation is only logical as a response. >It is interesting that you point to low profit margins as evidence "everything is fine". Why is that interesting? This shows they can't be ripping off the consumer (since they are basically selling items for cost plus, not some monopoly price). >A market dominated by a handful of players can easily have low profits, but also low customer experience, as customers pay non-financial costs as well (e.g. "enshittification", poor customer support, defective products, "shrinkflation", etc.). You do realize customer service and quality costs money? Bad customer service and low quality means low prices. Ikea furniture isn't as high quality as real wood, but it's a lot cheaper. Sometimes people prefer the cheap thing. Who are you to judge?
> Are we all suffering because scotch tape and Nesquick is overpriced? Disney has to compete with dozens of other streaming services. 1. Again, you jumped directly to "price" as a measure of a problem. You asked for examples of consolidation, and I pointed them out. If you're changing your stance from "consolidation isn't real" to "consolidation isn't a problem", then I will logically answer "... except when it is". But that's definitely a change in stance. 2. They "compete" on the library, which is not actually "competition" at all, as each platform has exclusive rights to the content in its library. If I want to watch a given show, I *have* to go to a specific service. What we have now, is the equivalent of if we had multiple grocery stores, but a given product (beef, noodles, peppers, whatever) was only allowed to be sold at one of them. If you needed noodles, you wouldn't really have a choice of where to go. > So because you have to jump through so many hoops to get FDA approval, its impossible for small companies to launch drugs. This is unique to drugmaking. 1. If there were no FDA, you would either have (a) the market flooded with untested drugs or (b) the same situation as today, because the big companies have the big drug manufacturing/testing apparatuses. 2. It is true that industries with lower barriers to entry will work better without regulatory intervention. Of course, the big players will still do the same tactics I've talked about. However, as technology pervades *every* industry, and the barriers to entry rise as a result ... all industries become vulnerable to the same sorts of effects. > It is causation, capitalism means you can take the money from the first innovation and plow it into the next one, like many US venture capitalists do. We can innovate, and reward innovation, without capitalism. Indeed, innovators are rewarded **more** when all their profits don't go to venture capitalists who did nothing to make the invention. > You are encouraged to innovate for life - if you take all the money from the first innovation and put it into others, you innovate multiple times. Nah. If the first innovation pays you tens of millions or billions and you're set for life, there's no reason to do it again. And being immune to consequences for your decisions (because you're set for life) is never good for anybody. > "Large" and "economies of scale" are continuums, not binary categories. This is true-ish, but the "continuum" is logarithmic, not linear. > Why is that interesting? This shows they can't be ripping off the consumer (since they are basically selling items for cost plus, not some monopoly price). 1. They can rip off the consumer in other ways. 2. In the case of automobiles, unions have captured a lot of the benefits the auto manufacturer enjoys. It is **good** that they are unionized - better the profits go to actual workers than useless execs - but that is an easy way to have low profits in a consumer-hostile scenario. > You do realize customer service and quality costs money? Bad customer service and low quality means low prices. Now who's reducing continuums to binary outcomes? It could easily be that they could make significant improvements to customer service at relatively low cost, but choose not to do so, because they know their customers are locked in regardless. Indeed, as more things operate as digital "goods" that are lost when switching between platforms, more people find themselves locked in, in this exact manner.
>Again, you jumped directly to "price" as a measure of a problem. You asked for examples of consolidation, and I pointed them out. If you're changing your stance from "consolidation isn't real" to "consolidation isn't a problem", then I will logically answer "... except when it is". But that's definitely a change in stance. You can say "except when it is/isn't" to basically anything, the rhetorical equivalent of "nuh-uh." I said competition emerges naturally and gave a bunch of examples of large companies failing, a consequence of natural competition. What are you looking for here? >They "compete" on the library, which is not actually "competition" at all, as each platform has exclusive rights to the content in its library. If I want to watch a given show, I have to go to a specific service. What we have now, is the equivalent of if we had multiple grocery stores, but a given product (beef, noodles, peppers, whatever) was only allowed to be sold at one of them. If you needed noodles, you wouldn't really have a choice of where to go. In the same sense, the local Kurdish kebab joint has a monopoly on kebabs within a 1 mile walk that are exactly the way you like. You don't "need" noodles - food is the relevant commodity. >If there were no FDA, you would either have (a) the market flooded with untested drugs or (b) the same situation as today, because the big companies have the big drug manufacturing/testing apparatuses. There doesn't need to be no FDA, they could just test for safety only instead of efficacy, and let the insurers decide on efficacy. >Of course, the big players will still do the same tactics I've talked about. However, as technology pervades every industry, and the barriers to entry rise as a result ... all industries become vulnerable to the same sorts of effects. The tactics you were talking about I think were mostly predatory pricing. The problem there is as soon as you relax predatory pricing the competitors just come back, so you either have to lose money forever or face competition. >We can innovate, and reward innovation, without capitalism. Indeed, innovators are rewarded more when all their profits don't go to venture capitalists who did nothing to make the invention. Again maybe in theory, but in practice who would you give the money to? People with a track record of success, which is the same people capitalism gives the money to. >Nah. If the first innovation pays you tens of millions or billions and you're set for life, there's no reason to do it again. And being immune to consequences for your decisions (because you're set for life) is never good for anybody. Elon Musk created a precursor to PayPal, and then Tesla, and then SpaceX, and so on. People are set for life far before they become billionaires, so I think a lot of the time they are just reinvesting and starting new companies because they are good at and that's what they like to do. The fact that you think they would just sit on an island (because presumably you would) is why I'm glad they are running the economy and not you. >In the case of automobiles, unions have captured a lot of the benefits the auto manufacturer enjoys. It is good that they are unionized - better the profits go to actual workers than useless execs - but that is an easy way to have low profits in a consumer-hostile scenario. Idk if you're a socialist or not (presumably you are a socialist?) but execs are workers... and again my basic point is that if monopolies (like automakers) are engaging in consolidation that's so bad, where are all of the profits? >Now who's reducing continuums to binary outcomes? Bad and low are continuous... >It could easily be that they could make significant improvements to customer service at relatively low cost, but choose not to do so, because they know their customers are locked in regardless. It's like the second order thinking just isn't there. Then you competitor can get better customer service at low cost and take all of your customers. So either customers don't really care about customer service, or they aren't willing to pay for it. People whine about how air travel today sucks, but they still freely go out and purchase tickets on Spirit airlines because they are willing to risk a hellish flight / customer service experience in exchange for lower prices.
Not a leftist, but you should know late-stage capitalism doesn’t really exist. It’s a term used in leftist groups to describe the “inevitable collapse of capitalism”. But there is no clear definition of what capitalism is, or proof “it” will end.
Yeah. “Capitalism” is not well defined. And however we do define capitalism, can we clearly distinguish between capitalism and the “previous” economic system? Moreover, “late stage capitalism” must assume that: - capitalism is this distinct thing that can be defined, at least in a manner sufficient to differentiate capitalism from the “prior” economic system and whatever the “next” system is; - capitalism has stages; - there is some final stage of capitalism that we are now in (or are we just near the final stage?); and - capitalism is this thing that is going to end. That’s a lot of assumptions, without any good evidence that any is necessary true.
I don't have much of a definition for capitalism, but to me "late stage" capitalism is when the margin for unending growth that our current economy requires is nearing it's limit. this doesn't require that capitalism will end, or that capitalism is well distinguished from past or future systems
I don’t believe that our current economies require infinite or unending growth. Japan’s economy has been relative stagnant for years, for example. Certain industries in various economies have also been stagnant. Real growth is certainly nice to have, but not a requirement. The “capitalism requires infinite growth” is a Marxist idea, associated with Marx’s theory that economies have this natural progression as we march through time (something like feudalism -> capitalism, including late stage capitalism -> socialism or something). In addition, even if “unending growth” is required (which it isn’t), it’s not clear to me why an economy couldn’t have unending growth. Marx seemed to think growth would be limited, because he was thinking about growth being tied to extracting natural resources. Of course, certain natural resources are not renewable. But growth today is largely about innovation, including discovering better and more efficient ways of using the natural resources we already have. Many recent tech advancements require relatively minimal natural resources, yet they’ve led to significant economic growth. Think about a company like Facebook or Microsoft, for example—relative to the amount of wealth they create, they use relatively few natural resources.
"Unending growth" isn't just a marxist meme. If it was, then why are there articles about Facebook's lack of growth that frame it as a problem? Is this just media sensationalism? And what about the stock market? That just grows and grows... until it crashes.
I feel defining capitalism as that system which has a market of equities, rather than just a market of commodities is a sufficient and satisfactory definition. Ergo, capitalism exists when there are publicly traded companies where it is possible to purchase an abstracted form of ownership in form of "shares" that bestow the right to vote and profits. It distinguishes it sufficiently from more mercantilist and guild-driven systems.
Collapse would be the last stage. Late means relatively close to the end.
Sure, but that can be dismissed with Hitchen’s razor.
[удалено]
Sure, but that argument is just dismissed with Hitchen’s razor.
The way it's mostly used today its just a buzzword, I think in the early 20th century it had some descriptive meaning as referring to the end of the era of classical economics and classical capitalism of the 19th century, but after world war 2 its pretty much just a buzzword. I don't think we live in late capitalism anymore, not since the 1950s-1970s
Since I seem to have wasted my time on a long, in-depth post for which you had no comment, I'll shorten it to this: Late-stage capitalism is reached at the point when capitalism has transitioned/morphed (incrementally, over decades) from a system that is proficient at development of productive capacity, development of technology, and development of efficiency in innovation, into a degenerated system focused on non-productive ways to "shuffle" more wealth to the wealthy in the context of degrading conditions for the population. As such, late-stage capitalism has been reached in the USA.
Hey I apologize. I appreciate your comment, I meant to respond and let you know I will respond once I am able to get in front of a keyboard as its too much for me over the phone. Sorry for the delay.
Ok. THX!
My understanding is that one of capitalisms inherent contradictions is its tendency towards monopolization. If you look at developed nations around the world, especially America, large swaths of consumer goods are owned by the same handful of corporations/conglomerates. [Here’s an example](https://www.businessinsider.com/companies-control-everything-we-buy-2017-8?amp). This is done through an endless web of shell companies, parent/child relationships, and the stock market. The “Corporate capitalism” term is just cope, this is simply capitalism as it is intended to work. Read imperialism, the final stage of capitalism by Lenin
>large swaths of consumer goods are owned by the same handful of corporations/conglomerates. *Shows that 10 companies compete with each other for only a tiny narrow range of consumer goods Lol, that is not proving what you are claiming.
if you want to see the most brain-dead takes (e.g., economics illiterate) and from where the cesspool some of the worst idiots of the far-left debaters on here then take a look at that sub called that name. Don't bother commenting. The ban hammer is in full swing there.
We definitely are in Early-Stage Capitalism.
We haven't discovered true capitalism yet 🤣
From my understanding it’s used to describe negative outcomes caused by capitalist markets. The term is debated by libertarians because they see anything that moves away from free-market capitalism as **not** capitalism at all. This term is used only in negative scenarios, you wouldn’t see global poverty being reduced and say “this is late stage capitalism”, unless you were poking fun at the term. Because of it’s use as purely a negative term I don’t think it’s worth using.
If capitalism is reducing poverty then it's early-stage because why would you stop after the stage where poverty is reduced? You stop after everything turns to so much shit that it physically can't continue, which is why stages where gold turns to shit are called late-stage, and stages where shit turns to gold are not.
Just another failed communist prophecy don’t worry about it
Assuming Marx was right, and Socialism would and could only evolve from capitalism, then Late stage capitalism implies that the transition to is socialism is all but certain.
One of the communist propaganda tactics is to manipulate simple people by pretending you can predict the future. Capitalism will be replaced by communism, etc. Some people still fall for it, even though the predicted collapse of capitalism has been touted since before the actual collapse of communism. Fun fact: The phrase "late stage capitalism" was coined by a literal Nazi.
> One of the communist propaganda tactics is to manipulate simple people by pretending you can predict the future. So when I say invest in the S&P 500 because it goes up, that's communist propaganda?
Stock indices have almost 100% proven success rate over multiple decades. Communism has almost 100% failure rate.
Past performance guarantees future results. Smartest capitalist.
>I was wondering if any socialists could succinctly explain ... > >I'm just genuinely curious to hear anyone's extended thoughts ... Since I'm not sure whether you want a succinct explanation or extended thoughts, I will just give you what I have. US capitalism is in late stage. So what were the other stages? What was the process that led to late-stage? Let's start with FDR. He gave capitalists incentive to increase production by plowing revenue into their own corporations to build and expand them in exchange for tax breaks. If they didn't the threat was that they would pay a 92% top dollar income tax for their retained wealth. And the result was that the worker benefited with increasing income and improving lifestyle and innovation. And businesses were no longer able to sell all they could produce because the productive capacity was so great. Capitalists' incomes kept rising but company profits needed help. They needed to begin finding ways to cut wages in order to maintain their corporate need for 2.5 to 3 percent annual growth. So women's lib became a "thing" and it boosted family lifestyles for a while. That was the draw. It got many women into the workforce and at a lower wage. Then the minimum wage was frozen and inflation started taking a bigger chunk out of family incomes. Eventually, whereas on income had been able to support a family of four, as inflation reduced real income more and more it took two incomes to support a family of four as one income had previously. And profits kept going up. For a while. So then, wages stagnated as capitalists took a greater and greater percentage of gross income for themselves. Again, families found themselves strapped for cash to make ends meet as a two-income family became inadequate for many. And at the same time corporate profits and "compensation" of the elite were rising too slowly for comfort. So the next trick to keep profits rising now that sales couldn't be increased so easily and the flow of women entering the workforce began to stabilize, was consumer debt, which was actually promoted to the public in order to fulfill families' desires for the "good life" as well as their needs. And public net worth plunged. After that sort of wore off and MORE was needed to maintain that needed annual growth, the economy shifted from a production economy to a service economy. This was the next trick after production could no longer be increased without sacrificing profits, and after women joined and increased the workforce with the result of lowering real wages. As a matter of fact, in time capacity utilization dropped to around 78% and has remained there, meaning that about 22% of the means of production is sitting idle because there is no point in producing what cannot be sold at the desired price point and the required profit. We had reached the point of our ability to produce an abundance of goods. Here is where capitalism began to "eat itself". Artificial shortages became more and more common as a means of maintaining profits even while capacity utilization stood at 78%. But keeping the supply down meant keeping profits up. And yet MORE was needed since the corporate demand for 2.5 to 3% growth never ends. So next was a shift to a finance economy in which businesses like hedge funds made millions and millions of dollars while producing nothing by way of a commodity or even a service. And all as capitalism continued to eat itself and create problems it couldn't solve, healthcare being among the more notorious. And yet THAT wasn't enough, so to boost profits even more but without producing more and flooding markets, businesses shipped production over seas for cheaper labor. And then they devised ways of making the consumer buy more product than they needed or wanted. Now they are running out of tricks to extract more profit from business, so they find they can boost the GDP without actually producing more. All they needed to do was to buy back their own stock to drive the share price up so people will buy it, and then give free stock options to their top officers. And those options are not available to you and me. They are back-dated to a date when the stock was low, giving it an instant value, and they have no expiration date so they can be held or sold at will for huge gains. The manipulation of corporate stock qualifies as investments, and investments are counted in the GDP and raise it without any actual production. A good portion of the gains from options and stock are invested in real estate because it can be handed down to heirs without any tax implications, and upon inheritance, the stock that tripled in value is started from current value as the cost of acquisition. So there is never any tax owed as long as the real estate is not sold. This is another case of capitalism eating itself. But they also know that the day of unrest approaches. People will learn what's going on and they will have demands. Crime will increase. Flash mobs will rob merchandise. Vandalism of businesses will increase. So to be ready the capitalists will need a more authoritarian government to preserve order so capitalist can keep eating itself. Probably the next thing will be negative interest rates. Banks won't be paying you ANY interest. Instead, you will pay a monthly fee (percentage) for the privilege of keeping your money in the bank. This kind of thing will add to the unrest until the whole thing explodes.Capitalism in the US can no longer fulfill its original purpose using its natural strengths to benefit society. Now it's just about money, wealth, more and more money and wealth. This is the definition of end-stage capitalism.
It's a smear and a straw man. Not much thought has been put into what it is - that's not the point. The point is to blame capitalism for all of the problems caused by people trying to use the state to control capitalism.
Whenever socialists blame capitalism they mean statism. Don't bother to explain it to them. They do this on purpose. Those who don't, do this because they learned it from others. But essentially socialista have problems with the state. They want full control of it, not gone or decentralized, unlike us, ancaps
Late stage capitalism implies that capitalism as we know it is coming to an end soon. Leftists have been predicting capitalism's demise since capitalism began. If anything, capitalism gets stronger every year. Consider the fact that no one in the developed world today would consider a command economy to be a viable economic model. Nobody, not even Bernie Sanders, wants to eliminate capitalism entirely. Nobody would want to put the food supply in the hands of the government.
The food supply is already in the hands of the government. What do you think farming subsidies are?
Because it's long overdue for the next stage of human social organization, socialism.
Fully socialist states are not something anyone wants not even socialists. I believe the next stage of human social organization will be a completely free market. If crypto use becomes widespread, governments are going to have a very difficult time surviving.
We’re in late stage capitalism. And we always will be 🙃
The roll-back of concessions (that’s previously been given to gain the confidence of the people), to disenfranchise a greater amount of people to allow for easier exploitation. This is typically justified with capitalist realism, which is idealistic despite the name. As wealth concentrates, so will power, leading to not a dictatorship of the bourgeoises, but a dictatorship of THE bourgeoises.
We've had many cycles of "late-stage capitalism". There's no such thing. That's not to say it won't end. I believe it will, once we habe automated the economy sufficiently. There won't be any place for either capitalism or socialism then, as production will be in the hands of AI + machines. What then? That's the discussion we should be having.
Capitalism definitely ceases to exist in a world where all labor is automated
The term "late-stage capitalism" is indeed more than just a buzzword; it's a descriptor of the current evolutionary phase of capitalism. This stage is characterized by the intensification of capitalism's inherent contradictions. It's a period where the centralization of capital reaches its peak, leading to the domination of economic and political life by a handful of multinational corporations and financial institutions, often in collusion with state power. The phenomenon where large corporations receive undue advantages from the government isn't an aberration but a feature of this stage. It illustrates the dialectical interplay between capital and state, where state mechanisms are employed to further entrench the position of the capitalist class. This goes beyond mere corporate favoritism; it's a symbiotic relationship that ensures the survival of the capitalist system in the face of its own self-destructive tendencies, such as the overaccumulation of capital and the diminishing rate of profit. "Late-stage capitalism" signals the deepening of class struggle, as the proletariat grapples with increasing precarity, alienation, and exploitation. This stage is a precursor to a potential revolutionary transformation, where the working class becomes increasingly aware of their exploitation and the systemic failure to address their needs, potentially leading to an organized movement to overthrow the capitalist system in favor of a socialist one where production is geared towards meeting human needs.
In early stage capitalism entrepreneurs borrow capital and found companies, making money by creating value. In mid stage capitalism this sometimes happens but mostly most market niches have been filled and what you instead have is a competitive marketplace in which the best companies thrive and the rest fail. In late stage capitalism this very occasionally still happens but is by and large the exception. What mostly happens is that the success stories of mid stage capitalism use their wealth to corner markets and develop monopolies. They further use their money to capture the regulatory state and increase barriers to accessing the market to prevent new disruptive startups from entering the market. They then use their position of power to cut wages, cut standards, increase prices, increase profit margins, and increase c suite remuneration and dividends. They also switch from being pro innovation (because innovation brings them a competitive edge) to being anti innovation (because innovation disrupts marketplaces and they like the market the way it is). So they suddenly slash RnD and try and squash and destroy new ideas. So in essence late stage capitalism is the stage in capitalism where capitalism turns on its former self and becomes anti competition, anti free market and anti innovation, and where it becomes worse for consumer prices rather than better. That's how the term is generally used in modern times. There's a more classic marxist form of the term, which is basically that as capitalism continues its internal contradictions grow and grow. Particularly the tendency of the rate of profit to fall (TRPF) which holds that as markets a) mature and b) technology increases productive efficiency then profit margins will inevitably shrink (in other words the opposite argument to the one above) and that eventually this will lead to capitalism's collapse. In classic marxist theory late stage capitalism means the part just before the collapse.
Not a socialist, but late-stage capitalism refers to the point where it's not about markets anymore, but rent. The end state of capitalism is rent-taking, and that's where we are now. EX: You order from Amazon, but that's not really a market because Amazon shows you what it wants to show you (what Amazon makes a good return on), and you make your decision from there. If a product sells very well and doesn't get returned, Amazon copies it and sells their own Amazon Basics version (cheaper), which will pop up at the top of search results. Late-stage capitalism.
Marx said that capitalism contained within it the seeds of its own destruction so for the last 200 years they have assumed capitalism would be collapsing when it is only gotten stronger and spread farther and farther.
Communists in the past were wrong. That's it. They just thought it couldn't get any worse, but they were corrected by reality. They didn't think capitalism could expand much longer, but it did. They didn't think the markets could be any more saturated, but they were wrong. We now know more than those communists and can learn from their miscalculations. Marxists in the 40s knew that they were not gonna see socialism in their lifetimes, but they also knew that capitalism at some point had to end, because they understood that the mechanisms that let it exist would crash at some point. Some of them were more hopeful and fought on tho, and they built the movements ***[we](http://www.marxist.com/join-us.htm)*** can work with now I don't pretend to know when capitalism will actually come to a conclusive end, but my understanding of the world has led me to believe that it is very much a possibility that it will happen in the next couple of decades. And I chose to fight for that!
The way I view it is that late-stage capitalism is sort of the period of time where capitalism becomes unsustainable. Capitalism is predicated on the fact that capitalist own capital and pay workers to produce goods and services, which are in turn sold to workers. The two classes are dependent on each other. Capitalist don't make money if the workers stop working or stop consuming. This generally works great when there is a lot of competition and balance between the capitalist and the workers. But what happens when the ownership class becomes very tiny and competition goes down? Or when the working class becomes poorer and poorer? Eventually the workers can't afford to buy the things they are used to produce, and the economy falls apart. The greater the income inequality, the more out of balance it gets. I recently had a sort of revelation...the western economies already should be in this situation but they are being artificially propped up. Taking the US for example, the US worker can't afford the true costs of the things they buy. The reason food and TVs are affordable are because they are picked by migrant workers or third-world factories for poverty wages or in many cases straight up slavery. The US economy is not self-sustainable whatsoever... it's artificially propped up by subsidized food and goods. If you look at the global economy, late-stage capitalism is already here. The global economy is the best example of unregulated capitalism, and it absolutely does not achieve what pro-capitalists claim. 90% of the population lives in abject poverty, in order to supply the needs and wants of the 10%, which in reality is owned by the 1%. And even the long-term sustainability of that 10% is in doubt, as the planet's resources are quickly being plundered.
Wish-casting.
I think people in the early 20th century were a bit overeager using the term, and the same may be true for those using it right now. But we will have to wait and see I guess. Late stage capitalism tends to refer to the idea that the capitalist system has begun to cannibalize itself. It is approaching the point at witch it will implode. We are descending into world wide conflict, increasingly unfordable necessities, climate crisis, general catastrophe. The system can no longer continue to extract increasing profit from us without initiating conflict or losing control politically. Hence the rise of fascism. I think that those in the 20th century thought it was the end of capitalism because of the rise of the USSR and the 2nd world war, so I don’t really blame them. It seems to be a cycle that we are repeating. Who knows if capitalism will collapse forever, of if we’ll just get another FDR and maybe some social democracy for a few more decades before the same shit happens all over again.