2 ms·

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 - develo

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.
- keiferski 3y ago
  I think you've turned this into some sort of word game and no, your examples still don't work. We can call something a developing country because we know what a developed country looks like. We cannot call something a late capitalist country because we do not know what a post-capitalist country looks like. My complaint was merely that the term "late capitalism" implies that we are in a late stage of a process, that it will be surpassed soon, and that something new will come after. That's how the term is used, in the article posted and in general. 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. The term is not used to refer to the entire 20th century. It's used to refer to a more recent era.
jjoonathan 3y ago
Oh come on, I don't think highly of the "late stage capitalism" theory but even I know this one. The answer is Feudalism (as the goal: ownership class cemented into a hereditary nobility that doesn't just own the means of production but also the monopoly on violence), with a more likely short-term next stage of Fascism (a democracy will go populist when it feels the jaws closing in, and fascism is the flavor of populism that is compatible with the class interest of the wealthy). I don't think much of Marxist class-apocalypse narratives because we've been here before and the correct answer was negotiated settlement rather than feudalism, fascism, or socialism. Roosevelts, not Hitlers or Stalins. We've figured it out before, we can figure it out again. The only thing to fear is fear itself. Denying the existence of the argument or the problem that inspired it is just silly, though.

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.

keiferski 3y ago
I think you've turned this into some sort of word game and no, your examples still don't work. We can call something a developing country because we know what a developed country looks like. We cannot call something a late capitalist country because we do not know what a post-capitalist country looks like. My complaint was merely that the term "late capitalism" implies that we are in a late stage of a process, that it will be surpassed soon, and that something new will come after. That's how the term is used, in the article posted and in general. 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. The term is not used to refer to the entire 20th century. It's used to refer to a more recent era.

jjoonathan 3y ago

Oh come on, I don't think highly of the "late stage capitalism" theory but even I know this one. The answer is Feudalism (as the goal: ownership class cemented into a hereditary nobility that doesn't just own the means of production but also the monopoly on violence), with a more likely short-term next stage of Fascism (a democracy will go populist when it feels the jaws closing in, and fascism is the flavor of populism that is compatible with the class interest of the wealthy). I don't think much of Marxist class-apocalypse narratives because we've been here before and the correct answer was negotiated settlement rather than feudalism, fascism, or socialism. Roosevelts, not Hitlers or Stalins. We've figured it out before, we can figure it out again. The only thing to fear is fear itself. Denying the existence of the argument or the problem that inspired it is just silly, though.