5 ms·

The term “late stage capitalism” drives me nuts and anyone using it immediately gets flagged as not neutral to me, injecting their own hopes into what should be

The term “late stage capitalism” drives me nuts and anyone using it immediately gets flagged as not neutral to me, injecting their own hopes into what should be a dispassionate analysis. Some form of capitalism may continue for another millennium. It may not. As we can’t predict the future, we can’t call contemporary capitalism a late stage of anything. I should also add that basically nothing called “capitalism” today has much to do with capital, and in fact is better labeled corporatism, financialization, and consumerism, but that’s another discussion.

JackFr 3y ago
I feel the same way. It’s a term mostly devoid of meaning, useful as a signal telegraphing what’s to follow.
ben_w 3y ago
> The term “late stage capitalism” drives me nuts I was feeling much the same, but you've just made me realise how similar this is to "the dawning of the new age of Aquarius".
pierat 3y ago
It's called "late stage capitalism" because we're moving out of capitalism and into a techno-feudalism. And instead of feudalist manors and city-states, it's feudalist gentries of tech companies that can exert their control technologically rather than with state-sanctiondd violence.
- keiferski 3y ago
  Yeah, this is a common meme too, and again it’s historically nonsensical. Corporations may be growing in power, but they are in no way comparable to the feudal lords of yore.
- automatic6131 3y ago
  It's been called "late stage capitalism" for over 150 years now.
- MSFT_Edging 3y ago
  Sadly the state sanctioned violence is still hand in hand with the economic control the tech middlemen and landlords are exerting. Also sadly, the type of system where state actors work with high capital to exert control is also simply just fascism.
- ameister14 3y ago
  The violence is key, though. It's much more similar to the robber-baron era, at least in the US, except with even less real power. Robber barons could, if pressed, get men with guns or ax handles to beat and kill strikers. I don't think a tech company can do the same today. Tech companies do not have the power of high, middle or low justice, and are without the ability to effect corporal punishment.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    The pinkertons still exist, and the people behind a fucking card game sicced them on an innocent person.
    - ameister14 3y ago
      I'm not saying violence doesn't exist anymore, I'm saying that tech companies don't and likely can't get hundreds of men together to beat and kill striking workers a la Standard Oil and Paul Bergoff. They also don't currently own Congress, like Rockefeller and the other robber barons did. And they still didn't come close to the power of feudal lords.
- IAmGraydon 3y ago
  This is such a bizarre and warped take in a world where literally anyone with an internet connection and the will to learn can launch a business or spread a message for almost zero startup cost. I don’t think you understand just how wrong you are. There are big businesses just as there have been in every sector, but at no time in history has the common man been given so much power as right now. The playing field is more level than ever.
  - kevinsync 3y ago
    Yes, the barrier to entry has lowered, but IMO the proportion of people with something special/unique/intriguing/insightful to offer hasn't shifted at all. That's why there's so much "content" -- don't have a message or a useful product to sell? Regurgitate, or drop-ship. All you need is to be consistent, persistent and present, following the prescribed 'best practices' of your chosen distribution channel(s) and you'll magically appear in front of people. That print-on-demand 'I think about the Roman Empire 3 times a day' or Tyrion Lannister quote t-shirt you just sold will be in a landfill within months. Your daily YouTube content in one ear and out the other, forever rotting in a digital graveyard until time immemorial. That said, I actually think it's great that people are taking advantage of this stuff to make money and better their lives -- more power to them! -- but objectively, it's still just content, while the cream always rises to the top. Never bet against the Macho Man!
    - keiferski 3y ago
      This is a really cynical view that doesn't accurately describe reality. I follow a number of people that make high-quality, philosophical content and make a living (not millions, but a living) from it.
      - kevinsync 3y ago
        I admit I was a bit sensational in my comment, but what I was really talking about is signal-to-noise ratio, as well as creative intent. I suspect the people you're referencing are simply a cut above, believe in their work, and are excellent at it. I'd also suspect that the amount of people who produce similar material that you DON'T follow is disproportionate to the ones that you do. Many people view content creation as a means to an end, which is almost always MLM-adjacent and a mixture of: * Monetizing views * Directly selling a product / subscription * A brand-building exercise to eventually attract sponsored advertising None of that is evil or immoral -- it's actually fantastic for people who would have never had the opportunity to do this in the past, and can be very directly impactful to their livelihoods in a positive way. The inescapable byproduct of these activities though is the staggering amount of "content" that gets created, not in the authentic spirit of "I have a valuable perspective on a topic" or "I -need- to put this out in the world", but rather "this is a viable way to generate money" (sometimes as an alternative to working a dead-end job). That said, the average monthly take on OnlyFans is only ~$150; the top 1% of accounts make 33% of the revenue paid out. [1][2] There are 158 million songs on DSPs (Spotify et al), 24% of which have literally never been streamed a single time ever. 42% have been streamed less than 10 times total. [3] 67 million songs that nobody has ever heard before! That's a lot of pepperoni, man. This label "content" even applies to highly-quality, professional creations, as articulated by Robert Downey Jr. [4] I do genuinely believe that good, quality stuff will usually break through to the niche audience that its intended for though, while at the same time we remain drowning in the tidal wave of crap that people are generating lol [1] https://www.amraandelma.com/onlyfans-statistics/ https://www.amraandelma.com/onlyfans-statistics/ [2] https://earthweb.com/onlyfans-statistics/ https://earthweb.com/onlyfans-statistics/ [3] https://www.xxlmag.com/38-million-tracks-streaming-services-never-played-2022/ https://www.xxlmag.com/38-million-tracks-streaming-services-... [4] https://variety.com/2023/film/news/robert-downey-jr-dolittle-flop-important-avengers-content-1235665123/ https://variety.com/2023/film/news/robert-downey-jr-dolittle...
carlosjobim 3y ago
The capitalists are now just a step away from their doom, that's why it's called "late stage". Us socialists are always a step ahead of you capitalists.
- meiraleal 3y ago
  Interesting thing is that most developers are a company of just one person, be it at their free time, contributing to open source or developing a side project. having both capital and labor, we are not capitalists nor socialists. But we can cooperate, which is the free software movement.
JKCalhoun 3y ago
Would you have forgiven writers using the term "late stage Capitalism" in the 1890's just before the Sherman Antitrust Act? I'm not a historian, but it seems like one rather nasty form of Capitalism was reined in once before (albeit for a new also-insidious form to creep in some decades later).
- keiferski 3y ago
  “Late stage” implies we are in the end stage of something. I see nothing to indicate that we are about to surpass capitalism and get something new, merely that it has some issues and many people wish and hope for an alternative.
  - layer8 3y ago
    The term means to imply the worst effects of capitalism, such that there can be no “later” stage of capitalism with worse (new kinds of) effects. Basically, it implies the “end game” of capitalism.
    - keiferski 3y ago
      I don’t think that’s how most people use it. But let’s imagine it is - it seems pretty obvious to me that the effects of capitalism were worse circa 1860 to 1920 than they are today. I don’t think this is a controversial take.
      - danaris 3y ago
        While some things (like labor laws and certain kinds of pollution) are better today than they were back then, income and wealth inequality are significantly worse today than they were during the "Gilded Age".
        keiferski 3y ago
        You seriously think that factory workers in 1880 had it better than low income workers today?
4ndrewl 3y ago
"what should be a dispassionate analysis" - why should it be dispassionate objective?
- keiferski 3y ago
  Because it tells me that your sociopolitical opinions are coloring your read of historical facts, and therefore your commentary is suspect. Again, this isn’t about an opinion piece; I’m complaining that people use this term as if it were an obvious description of reality, when they have no basis for doing so. I consider it a milder form of, “The Rapture is almost upon us!” Maybe, but you don’t know that.
  - 4ndrewl 3y ago
    My reply was questioning your suggestion that the article "_should be_ a dispassionate analysis".
    - keiferski 3y ago
      I don't have a problem with people hoping, arguing for, dreaming of an alternative future. My complaint is that this term is used so casually and so frequently in a matter-of-fact way that it distracts from whatever point the author is trying to make.
  - usrcc 3y ago
    Literally everyone's sociopolitical opinions color their interpretations of history, current events or anything else. Making the claim that your particular political opinions constitute some kind of neutral default seems to me to be rather absurd.
    - keiferski 3y ago
      I don't think you've understood my comment. I didn't say my political opinions were better or more neutral. I criticized the term for making predictions about the future into an assumption about present reality. We can't call the present time "late stage capitalism" because we don't know what will happen in the future. It's a criticism of fortune-telling, not of a particular political stance. "Late" is a descriptor of past events, not of future ones. The Late Roman Empire already happened. We are looking back on it. We can't do that with capitalism, because we are still in the midst of it.
jollyllama 3y ago
Yes you are essentially correct. One more concept that is useful to consider, going back even a little bit further is the concept of the "revolution of mass and scale."
podgorniy 3y ago
> anyone using it immediately gets flagged as not neutral to me People write and do what they care about. If they claim to be neutural - they are not honest with either themselves either audience. > The term “late stage capitalism” drives me nuts and anyone using it immediately gets flagged as not neutral to me, injecting their own hopes into what should be a dispassionate analysis. Do you imply that term "late stage capitalism" implies that it's about to end. Do you also believe that "developing economies" will eventually develop the level of the developed ones? Or that you can sink you watch 5 meter under water which says 5m water resistent? These are misleading descriptions which do decsribe reality. It's only our assumptions about nature of the described reality are false as we base on our understanding of words, not subject of description.
- keiferski 3y ago
  These would be valid analogies if there weren’t already examples of their intended end results. Developing countries aim at a model that already exists - developed countries. What is end stage capitalism working towards? What model already exists that we can use to say, “oh yes, we can see that this thing is in the end stage of the form now.” Nothing, because it’s not an accurate description, it’s a political opinion pushed on to reality. “I want X, so obviously reality is proceeding in a way to make X happen.”
  - podgorniy 3y ago
    It's hard to argue when understanding is derived from words which terms consist of, not descriptions of those terms. Did you try the trick with the watch? How open is openAI? Developing economies in relation to developed is same as I'm in relation to billionaire. Technically you may say that I'm becoming billionaire, but chances are very very slim and only under curtain circumstances I could become one. That's what I mean by misleadingness of the term. > What is end stage capitalism working towards? Direction is not implied. It's a description of state of capitalism under domination of multinational corporations, consumerism, increasing commodification of life (seems to be the part author had in mind), growing inequality. And it was described in 1902. Speaking of direction everything has an end, and this form of capitalism will end. It won't end by ending capitalism (though this scenario is possible with nuclear winter thingy). Capitalism as a driving factor of organisation strong thing to abandon or to replace it. People who use this term rather show their despise to the dark side of the system.
drcongo 3y ago
Just because you don't know what a term means, doesn't automatically mean other people using it don't know what it means. Do you automatically "flag" almost all economists for using an established and well defined term that's been around for over a century?
- keiferski 3y ago
  Yeah, I’m pretty sure that no one using this term is referring to the historical stages of capitalism over the last five centuries. As I said, it’s more of a “I want this thing to happen, therefore my model of reality is that it will happen” phenomenon.
IAmGraydon 3y ago
I agree. A lot of people who were raised in the instant gratification culture of the last 25 years seem to like to use this phrase. I think it’s because they grew up with the ability to click a button and fire their brain’s reward pathway instead of learning that the best rewards come from delayed gratification and hard work. Instead of admitting that the problem lies within, they blame a corrupt system and “elites”, identifying the capitalistic economy as a late-stage disease. Effectively, it’s the same as losing a game and saying “I didn’t want to be a winner anyway because the winners are terrible and cheat.” Pretty childish, right? That said, it does make losing feel a bit better.
danaris 3y ago
Nothing is neutral. Some things are objective facts, of course, but the English language is such that any way you choose to describe those facts will convey something of your opinion of them. You might not like the term "late-stage capitalism", but it is a term in common use today, and describes a real phenomenon. The simplest way I know of to summarize it is that it's what happens when a significant percentage of businesses cross the line from "we make a product/provide a service, and if we do it well we make a good profit" to "we are here to make money as fast as possible by whatever means necessary; if we have to make a product/provide a service to do that, that's a necessary evil". Additionally, calling it "late-stage" doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to go away; it just means that it's a different stage of capitalism (which seems clear from observation), and that it came after (ie, later than) the more classical capitalism.

JackFr 3y ago

I feel the same way. It’s a term mostly devoid of meaning, useful as a signal telegraphing what’s to follow.

ben_w 3y ago

> The term “late stage capitalism” drives me nuts I was feeling much the same, but you've just made me realise how similar this is to "the dawning of the new age of Aquarius".

pierat 3y ago

It's called "late stage capitalism" because we're moving out of capitalism and into a techno-feudalism. And instead of feudalist manors and city-states, it's feudalist gentries of tech companies that can exert their control technologically rather than with state-sanctiondd violence.

keiferski 3y ago
Yeah, this is a common meme too, and again it’s historically nonsensical. Corporations may be growing in power, but they are in no way comparable to the feudal lords of yore.
automatic6131 3y ago
It's been called "late stage capitalism" for over 150 years now.
MSFT_Edging 3y ago
Sadly the state sanctioned violence is still hand in hand with the economic control the tech middlemen and landlords are exerting. Also sadly, the type of system where state actors work with high capital to exert control is also simply just fascism.
ameister14 3y ago
The violence is key, though. It's much more similar to the robber-baron era, at least in the US, except with even less real power. Robber barons could, if pressed, get men with guns or ax handles to beat and kill strikers. I don't think a tech company can do the same today. Tech companies do not have the power of high, middle or low justice, and are without the ability to effect corporal punishment.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  The pinkertons still exist, and the people behind a fucking card game sicced them on an innocent person.
  - ameister14 3y ago
    I'm not saying violence doesn't exist anymore, I'm saying that tech companies don't and likely can't get hundreds of men together to beat and kill striking workers a la Standard Oil and Paul Bergoff. They also don't currently own Congress, like Rockefeller and the other robber barons did. And they still didn't come close to the power of feudal lords.
IAmGraydon 3y ago
This is such a bizarre and warped take in a world where literally anyone with an internet connection and the will to learn can launch a business or spread a message for almost zero startup cost. I don’t think you understand just how wrong you are. There are big businesses just as there have been in every sector, but at no time in history has the common man been given so much power as right now. The playing field is more level than ever.
- kevinsync 3y ago
  Yes, the barrier to entry has lowered, but IMO the proportion of people with something special/unique/intriguing/insightful to offer hasn't shifted at all. That's why there's so much "content" -- don't have a message or a useful product to sell? Regurgitate, or drop-ship. All you need is to be consistent, persistent and present, following the prescribed 'best practices' of your chosen distribution channel(s) and you'll magically appear in front of people. That print-on-demand 'I think about the Roman Empire 3 times a day' or Tyrion Lannister quote t-shirt you just sold will be in a landfill within months. Your daily YouTube content in one ear and out the other, forever rotting in a digital graveyard until time immemorial. That said, I actually think it's great that people are taking advantage of this stuff to make money and better their lives -- more power to them! -- but objectively, it's still just content, while the cream always rises to the top. Never bet against the Macho Man!
  - keiferski 3y ago
    This is a really cynical view that doesn't accurately describe reality. I follow a number of people that make high-quality, philosophical content and make a living (not millions, but a living) from it.
    - kevinsync 3y ago
      I admit I was a bit sensational in my comment, but what I was really talking about is signal-to-noise ratio, as well as creative intent. I suspect the people you're referencing are simply a cut above, believe in their work, and are excellent at it. I'd also suspect that the amount of people who produce similar material that you DON'T follow is disproportionate to the ones that you do. Many people view content creation as a means to an end, which is almost always MLM-adjacent and a mixture of: * Monetizing views * Directly selling a product / subscription * A brand-building exercise to eventually attract sponsored advertising None of that is evil or immoral -- it's actually fantastic for people who would have never had the opportunity to do this in the past, and can be very directly impactful to their livelihoods in a positive way. The inescapable byproduct of these activities though is the staggering amount of "content" that gets created, not in the authentic spirit of "I have a valuable perspective on a topic" or "I -need- to put this out in the world", but rather "this is a viable way to generate money" (sometimes as an alternative to working a dead-end job). That said, the average monthly take on OnlyFans is only ~$150; the top 1% of accounts make 33% of the revenue paid out. [1][2] There are 158 million songs on DSPs (Spotify et al), 24% of which have literally never been streamed a single time ever. 42% have been streamed less than 10 times total. [3] 67 million songs that nobody has ever heard before! That's a lot of pepperoni, man. This label "content" even applies to highly-quality, professional creations, as articulated by Robert Downey Jr. [4] I do genuinely believe that good, quality stuff will usually break through to the niche audience that its intended for though, while at the same time we remain drowning in the tidal wave of crap that people are generating lol [1] https://www.amraandelma.com/onlyfans-statistics/ https://www.amraandelma.com/onlyfans-statistics/ [2] https://earthweb.com/onlyfans-statistics/ https://earthweb.com/onlyfans-statistics/ [3] https://www.xxlmag.com/38-million-tracks-streaming-services-never-played-2022/ https://www.xxlmag.com/38-million-tracks-streaming-services-... [4] https://variety.com/2023/film/news/robert-downey-jr-dolittle-flop-important-avengers-content-1235665123/ https://variety.com/2023/film/news/robert-downey-jr-dolittle...

carlosjobim 3y ago

The capitalists are now just a step away from their doom, that's why it's called "late stage". Us socialists are always a step ahead of you capitalists.

meiraleal 3y ago
Interesting thing is that most developers are a company of just one person, be it at their free time, contributing to open source or developing a side project. having both capital and labor, we are not capitalists nor socialists. But we can cooperate, which is the free software movement.

JKCalhoun 3y ago

Would you have forgiven writers using the term "late stage Capitalism" in the 1890's just before the Sherman Antitrust Act? I'm not a historian, but it seems like one rather nasty form of Capitalism was reined in once before (albeit for a new also-insidious form to creep in some decades later).

keiferski 3y ago
“Late stage” implies we are in the end stage of something. I see nothing to indicate that we are about to surpass capitalism and get something new, merely that it has some issues and many people wish and hope for an alternative.
- layer8 3y ago
  The term means to imply the worst effects of capitalism, such that there can be no “later” stage of capitalism with worse (new kinds of) effects. Basically, it implies the “end game” of capitalism.
  - keiferski 3y ago
    I don’t think that’s how most people use it. But let’s imagine it is - it seems pretty obvious to me that the effects of capitalism were worse circa 1860 to 1920 than they are today. I don’t think this is a controversial take.
    - danaris 3y ago
      While some things (like labor laws and certain kinds of pollution) are better today than they were back then, income and wealth inequality are significantly worse today than they were during the "Gilded Age".
      - keiferski 3y ago
        You seriously think that factory workers in 1880 had it better than low income workers today?

4ndrewl 3y ago

"what should be a dispassionate analysis" - why should it be dispassionate objective?

keiferski 3y ago
Because it tells me that your sociopolitical opinions are coloring your read of historical facts, and therefore your commentary is suspect. Again, this isn’t about an opinion piece; I’m complaining that people use this term as if it were an obvious description of reality, when they have no basis for doing so. I consider it a milder form of, “The Rapture is almost upon us!” Maybe, but you don’t know that.
- 4ndrewl 3y ago
  My reply was questioning your suggestion that the article "_should be_ a dispassionate analysis".
  - keiferski 3y ago
    I don't have a problem with people hoping, arguing for, dreaming of an alternative future. My complaint is that this term is used so casually and so frequently in a matter-of-fact way that it distracts from whatever point the author is trying to make.
- usrcc 3y ago
  Literally everyone's sociopolitical opinions color their interpretations of history, current events or anything else. Making the claim that your particular political opinions constitute some kind of neutral default seems to me to be rather absurd.
  - keiferski 3y ago
    I don't think you've understood my comment. I didn't say my political opinions were better or more neutral. I criticized the term for making predictions about the future into an assumption about present reality. We can't call the present time "late stage capitalism" because we don't know what will happen in the future. It's a criticism of fortune-telling, not of a particular political stance. "Late" is a descriptor of past events, not of future ones. The Late Roman Empire already happened. We are looking back on it. We can't do that with capitalism, because we are still in the midst of it.

jollyllama 3y ago

Yes you are essentially correct. One more concept that is useful to consider, going back even a little bit further is the concept of the "revolution of mass and scale."

podgorniy 3y ago

> anyone using it immediately gets flagged as not neutral to me People write and do what they care about. If they claim to be neutural - they are not honest with either themselves either audience. > The term “late stage capitalism” drives me nuts and anyone using it immediately gets flagged as not neutral to me, injecting their own hopes into what should be a dispassionate analysis. Do you imply that term "late stage capitalism" implies that it's about to end. Do you also believe that "developing economies" will eventually develop the level of the developed ones? Or that you can sink you watch 5 meter under water which says 5m water resistent? These are misleading descriptions which do decsribe reality. It's only our assumptions about nature of the described reality are false as we base on our understanding of words, not subject of description.

keiferski 3y ago
These would be valid analogies if there weren’t already examples of their intended end results. Developing countries aim at a model that already exists - developed countries. What is end stage capitalism working towards? What model already exists that we can use to say, “oh yes, we can see that this thing is in the end stage of the form now.” Nothing, because it’s not an accurate description, it’s a political opinion pushed on to reality. “I want X, so obviously reality is proceeding in a way to make X happen.”
- podgorniy 3y ago
  It's hard to argue when understanding is derived from words which terms consist of, not descriptions of those terms. Did you try the trick with the watch? How open is openAI? Developing economies in relation to developed is same as I'm in relation to billionaire. Technically you may say that I'm becoming billionaire, but chances are very very slim and only under curtain circumstances I could become one. That's what I mean by misleadingness of the term. > What is end stage capitalism working towards? Direction is not implied. It's a description of state of capitalism under domination of multinational corporations, consumerism, increasing commodification of life (seems to be the part author had in mind), growing inequality. And it was described in 1902. Speaking of direction everything has an end, and this form of capitalism will end. It won't end by ending capitalism (though this scenario is possible with nuclear winter thingy). Capitalism as a driving factor of organisation strong thing to abandon or to replace it. People who use this term rather show their despise to the dark side of the system.

drcongo 3y ago

Just because you don't know what a term means, doesn't automatically mean other people using it don't know what it means. Do you automatically "flag" almost all economists for using an established and well defined term that's been around for over a century?

keiferski 3y ago
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that no one using this term is referring to the historical stages of capitalism over the last five centuries. As I said, it’s more of a “I want this thing to happen, therefore my model of reality is that it will happen” phenomenon.

IAmGraydon 3y ago

I agree. A lot of people who were raised in the instant gratification culture of the last 25 years seem to like to use this phrase. I think it’s because they grew up with the ability to click a button and fire their brain’s reward pathway instead of learning that the best rewards come from delayed gratification and hard work. Instead of admitting that the problem lies within, they blame a corrupt system and “elites”, identifying the capitalistic economy as a late-stage disease. Effectively, it’s the same as losing a game and saying “I didn’t want to be a winner anyway because the winners are terrible and cheat.” Pretty childish, right? That said, it does make losing feel a bit better.

danaris 3y ago

Nothing is neutral. Some things are objective facts, of course, but the English language is such that any way you choose to describe those facts will convey something of your opinion of them. You might not like the term "late-stage capitalism", but it is a term in common use today, and describes a real phenomenon. The simplest way I know of to summarize it is that it's what happens when a significant percentage of businesses cross the line from "we make a product/provide a service, and if we do it well we make a good profit" to "we are here to make money as fast as possible by whatever means necessary; if we have to make a product/provide a service to do that, that's a necessary evil". Additionally, calling it "late-stage" doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to go away; it just means that it's a different stage of capitalism (which seems clear from observation), and that it came after (ie, later than) the more classical capitalism.