Obviously "late-stage" is a continuum. Capitalism is always "progressing", and you can draw a line wherever you want and say: "That's it, that's where it cros

Obviously "late-stage" is a continuum. Capitalism is always "progressing", and you can draw a line wherever you want and say: "That's it, that's where it crosses the line into what people will no longer tolerate, and something is going to have to change". While maybe "late-stage" is a newish term, of course the idea itself isn't. Why might we credibly think that what's happening now is really "late-stage" as compared to, e.g. the industrial revolution? I think you can make a case for it. You can make a case against it as well, but that leaves you arguing essentially "it's been just as bad for a long time, so there's nothing special about now". And at that point, it's a semantic quibble and you've nearly bought into the idea behind the phrase, which is "maybe something is going to have to change".