156
its not that people hate capitalism. its that they hate capitalism with a descriptor i just ascribed to it to pretend its something else. everyone else is economically illiterate. NOT me. (hexbear.net)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

lolbertarians are some of the dumbest people on earth.

okay, let’s say it is “crony capitalism run by the state” (he doesn’t mean state capitalism, he doesn’t know what that means)

what else can capitalism become, especially without extremely strict regulation and wealth/income caps- all things these people are against? and to the extent that the state has its hand in the economy, is it not ONLY to benefit corporations? they’re not regulating these companies or anything to any meaningful degree. so if the government is bad because they only serve big business, even in their own completely nonsensical analysis, doesnt that still make capitalism the problem?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

The worst part is that "late stage capitalism" as a term isn't even real. It's a corruption of "late capitalism," a concept invented (at least in the English speaking world; in German it's a much older concept) in the 70's to describe neoliberal financialised capitalism (as opposed to industrial capitalism) that had just been unleashed upon the world, most famously in the book Late Capitalism by Ernst Mandel and Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism by Fredric Jameson. Both of these writers use the term "late capitalism" not meaning "late stage capitalism" ie this is the last version of capitalism and it's close to collapsing, but "late" as in "the latest." So really "late capitalism" is "capitalism as of late" or "the latest stage of capitalism," not "the last stage of capitalism." The term has taken on a meaning of its own, morphing into this "late stage capitalism" by commentators who don't actually read these works and don't really know what it means, wishcasting "late stage capitalism" as a fact of the world rather than a fundamental misinterpretation of a long standing term.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    However the both Marx and Lenin had a word on late stage capitalism. Perhaps not the phrase but the stages." Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Yeah, and neither lived until now and I think both would agree that what they wrote about was not the last stage of capitalism. Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism was mostly correct for his time, but imperialism today (especially the American financialised imperialism that Michael Hudson has so thoroughly explored in Superimperialism) is meaningfully different and "higher" than Lenin's rather vulgar imperialism, which was naked territory grabbing and domination. Unfortunately we've yet to see "late stage" capitalism, nor will we until capitalism itself is smashed. For it's not on track to destroy itself any time soon, and every crisis it's encountered it's been able to absorb and change to suit its needs rather well. Capitalism will not die of its own accord, it must be killed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think you might be a little off here. I really appreciate that you brought up Ernst Mandel's and Fredric Jameson's works, but I have to disagree about them not intending the word "late" to mean "closer to the terminal end." Without going and spending a bunch of time digging for quotes, it seemed pretty clear to me that they were referring to the concept that there are certain stages to capitalism (as already noted both Marx and Lenin discussed) and not using the word just to mean "the most recent" not to mention that would be an odd way to phrase it. I also agree with you that Michael Hudson (and slightly more tangentially Edward Said) have further developed the concept of modern imperialism beyond Lenin's analysis, but that said, Lenin's conception of imperialism was not at all vulgar, not even in comparison to modern Marxists additions to it. Have you read Lenin's work on imperialism? He specifically developed it beyond the idea of "naked territory grabbing and domination" of old school colonialism to mean what it means today, including how Hudson mean and use it.

    Capitalism will not die of its own accord, it must be killed.

    Distinction without a difference. Capitalism will be killed because of its own inherent contradictions which make its killing an inevitability.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I have read Lenin, and yes it's a bit more complicated since he does talk about financial imperialism but not in the same way things have developed post war. Also this is Jameson, in the introduction, describing his choice of "late."

    What 'late' generally conveys is... the sense that something has changed, that things are different, that we have gone through a transformation of the life world which is somehow decisive but incomparable with the older convulsions of modernization and industrialization, less perceptible and dramatic, somehow, but more permanent precisely because more thoroughgoing and all-pervasive.

    And Mandel on "late":

    ... will enable us to explain THE history of the capitalist mode of production and above all the THIRD phase of this mode OF production, which we shall call late capitalism', (page 42)

    Neither of these convey the idea that this is the last stage or a terminal stage, just another, most recent stage. And indeed Mandel does try and claim late capitalism is different than the imperialism described by Lenin, writing

    the structure of the world economy in the first phase of late capitalism is distinguished by several important characteristics from its structure in the age of classical imperialism. (page 69)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I don't think Marx nor Lenin said it would. However the options are not capitalism or socialism, the options are socialism or extinction. Or call it barbarism.

    Just like a cancercell capitalism need to expand to survive even if it kills the host in the process.

    Sure you can control the water in the post apocalyptic desert . That way it would adapt.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent