3 ms·

Yeah I continue to not understand the “late capitalism” label of current events. Very little of what we have today can be called capitalist in the original, com

Yeah I continue to not understand the “late capitalism” label of current events. Very little of what we have today can be called capitalist in the original, competition-focused sense of the term. Most markets are very regulated and anticompetitive.

krapp 3y ago
Capitalism in the original, competition-focused sense of the term has never existed in the real world, any more than Communism in the purely egalitarian stateless and classless sense. Late stage capitalism refers to the inevitable end-state of what capitalism actually evolves into, which is essentially oligarchy, preceding collapse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism
- keiferski 3y ago
  The fact that a pure thing never existed doesn’t mean that something more pure didn’t / can’t exist. That’s also not what late stage capitalism, the term, generally refers to. If a key part of capitalism is competition, then clearly whatever we have now is not very capitalist. The primary reason this term (late stage capitalism) is used is because people lack knowledge about economic history and can’t seem to operate on anything more complex than good-bad, capitalist-communist, private-public.
  - TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
    A key part of capitalism is rhetoric about competition. Oppressive monopoly is the inevitable outcome of "competitive" capitalism. The point is so obvious it's trivial to model mathematically. I believe there was even a board game invented to make the point.
    - keiferski 3y ago
      What do you think anti trust laws are? And do you think we have an abundance of them now?
      - struant 3y ago
        Ineffective and barely enforced.
  - krapp 3y ago
    Competition isn't a key part of capitalism - it only exists where governments force markets to optimize for "fairness" over efficiency. Left to their own devices, corporations will tend towards oligopoly and monopoly, so they can control the most capital with the least risk.
    - keiferski 3y ago
      Which capitalist theorists say that competition isn’t crucial for the success of capitalism? It’s entirely integral to the proper functioning of the system. What you’re describing is that not being followed, which is exactly the point I’m making.
      - sham1 3y ago
        > Which capitalist theorists say that competition isn’t crucial for the success of capitalism? > > It’s entirely integral to the proper functioning of the system. What you’re describing is that not being followed, which is exactly the point I’m making. Well, what's good for the system is not necessarily the optimal state for any given individual actors in the system. I'm sure that you'd agree that from a profit perspective, monopolistic market dominance would be the ideal state, since you wouldn't have competitors to force prices down. Or would you argue that these kinds of companies want competition and that they wouldn't choose total market dominance if given the chance? This, meanwhile, would not be good for the system as a whole, which is why you get competition and also things like anti-trust laws to make sure that this kind of thing doesn't happen, or that even if a natural monopoly, things are still functional.
idle_zealot 3y ago
The idea of late-stage capitalism is that if you create a system that prizes monetary gain over all else and allow companies to become sufficiently large and powerful then in the process of optimizing for maximum profit those companies are incentivised to capture the state and wield its power.
- keiferski 3y ago
  That may be the case, but it’s not capitalism as defined by any classical theorist or economist. As in, the people that actually defined the term. What you’re describing is more like profit-maximizing corporatism. Classical capitalist theory explicitly puts competition as the solution to this.
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    This is like the difference between communist theory and communism as it was actually practiced in the late USSR. The former had many good intentions but no real mechanism to ensure that it wouldn’t rapidly devolve into the latter. With capitalism we even have enough economic theory to understand why businesses are incentivized to move away from the ideal competitive environment, and to undermine the political mechanisms (like anti-trust) that should keep them there.
    - keiferski 3y ago
      And then the solution would be …increasing competition and anti trust legislation. No? I’m fairly certain that most people using the term late capitalism aren’t advocating for more competition, they’re advocating for more state control.
      - idle_zealot 3y ago
        Anti-trust regulations are a form of state control though. Are they the only good sort of control?
        3y ago
TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
I recommend that anyone with these views should test them in the real world. For example, by going to an Amazon warehouse and telling the people who work there that their wretched conditions are the result of government overreach.
- keiferski 3y ago
  The response to this is to point out that Amazon has very little competition and that in a more competitive environment, other companies would treat workers better. See: Henry Ford’s treatment of workers compared to competitors.
ravelfan 3y ago
[flagged]

krapp 3y ago

Capitalism in the original, competition-focused sense of the term has never existed in the real world, any more than Communism in the purely egalitarian stateless and classless sense. Late stage capitalism refers to the inevitable end-state of what capitalism actually evolves into, which is essentially oligarchy, preceding collapse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism

keiferski 3y ago
The fact that a pure thing never existed doesn’t mean that something more pure didn’t / can’t exist. That’s also not what late stage capitalism, the term, generally refers to. If a key part of capitalism is competition, then clearly whatever we have now is not very capitalist. The primary reason this term (late stage capitalism) is used is because people lack knowledge about economic history and can’t seem to operate on anything more complex than good-bad, capitalist-communist, private-public.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  A key part of capitalism is rhetoric about competition. Oppressive monopoly is the inevitable outcome of "competitive" capitalism. The point is so obvious it's trivial to model mathematically. I believe there was even a board game invented to make the point.
  - keiferski 3y ago
    What do you think anti trust laws are? And do you think we have an abundance of them now?
    - struant 3y ago
      Ineffective and barely enforced.
- krapp 3y ago
  Competition isn't a key part of capitalism - it only exists where governments force markets to optimize for "fairness" over efficiency. Left to their own devices, corporations will tend towards oligopoly and monopoly, so they can control the most capital with the least risk.
  - keiferski 3y ago
    Which capitalist theorists say that competition isn’t crucial for the success of capitalism? It’s entirely integral to the proper functioning of the system. What you’re describing is that not being followed, which is exactly the point I’m making.
    - sham1 3y ago
      > Which capitalist theorists say that competition isn’t crucial for the success of capitalism? > > It’s entirely integral to the proper functioning of the system. What you’re describing is that not being followed, which is exactly the point I’m making. Well, what's good for the system is not necessarily the optimal state for any given individual actors in the system. I'm sure that you'd agree that from a profit perspective, monopolistic market dominance would be the ideal state, since you wouldn't have competitors to force prices down. Or would you argue that these kinds of companies want competition and that they wouldn't choose total market dominance if given the chance? This, meanwhile, would not be good for the system as a whole, which is why you get competition and also things like anti-trust laws to make sure that this kind of thing doesn't happen, or that even if a natural monopoly, things are still functional.

idle_zealot 3y ago

The idea of late-stage capitalism is that if you create a system that prizes monetary gain over all else and allow companies to become sufficiently large and powerful then in the process of optimizing for maximum profit those companies are incentivised to capture the state and wield its power.

keiferski 3y ago
That may be the case, but it’s not capitalism as defined by any classical theorist or economist. As in, the people that actually defined the term. What you’re describing is more like profit-maximizing corporatism. Classical capitalist theory explicitly puts competition as the solution to this.
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  This is like the difference between communist theory and communism as it was actually practiced in the late USSR. The former had many good intentions but no real mechanism to ensure that it wouldn’t rapidly devolve into the latter. With capitalism we even have enough economic theory to understand why businesses are incentivized to move away from the ideal competitive environment, and to undermine the political mechanisms (like anti-trust) that should keep them there.
  - keiferski 3y ago
    And then the solution would be …increasing competition and anti trust legislation. No? I’m fairly certain that most people using the term late capitalism aren’t advocating for more competition, they’re advocating for more state control.
    - idle_zealot 3y ago
      Anti-trust regulations are a form of state control though. Are they the only good sort of control?
      - 3y ago

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago

I recommend that anyone with these views should test them in the real world. For example, by going to an Amazon warehouse and telling the people who work there that their wretched conditions are the result of government overreach.

keiferski 3y ago
The response to this is to point out that Amazon has very little competition and that in a more competitive environment, other companies would treat workers better. See: Henry Ford’s treatment of workers compared to competitors.

ravelfan 3y ago

[flagged]