4 ms·

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 o

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.

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.