I've seen some people and some attitudes out there that believe it really is. Some of the same people have no problem biting the hand that feeds them, it seems. Or rather, biting the hand that they're asking "please sir, can I have some more" of.
You've got it backwards. The state feeds the capitalist system, not the other way around. There are states without capitalist economies, but no capitalist economies without states to provide basic property rights, defense, etc. What do you get when you drop Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai, and Satya Nadalla into the middle of Somalia or Yemen? Not titans of enterprise, just easy targets.
I think the fundamental reason people latch onto it as "Late Stage" is because they see the future of this way of building a society as very grim. And I am inclined to agree with them.
Capitalism is one thing, but fundamentalist capitalism, which is preached in the US (not followed, mind you, we have lots of monopolies and very closed markets), is something of a horror show of awful virtues. The trick is, capitalism in the US has ALWAYS been a horror show. This country was literally founded on the ideals of slavery and not paying taxes. England wasn't cool with slavery when we founded this nation, but we sure were. If this country wasn't founded on slavery, then the 3/5ths compromise would never have taken place, and we'd have ended the practice at inception.
It is a good thing that we now no longer have an actual price tag on the heads of human beings in this country, but is it really so difficult to see such a thing coming about again, with corporations as the "owners," and individuals as the investment properties? Apple was colluding to keep employee pay down, a few years back, showing this type of behavior already fomenting again.
"Late Stage Capitalism" refers, really, to early stage capitalism as it existed in the US: that view that money is more important than human life. That the only reasonable pursuit of humans is money. It beacons to the hollowness of the American life, where your job defines you more than any other single attribute.
Yes, there is no real alternative in our modern world. The term "Late Stage Capitalism," however, insinuates that there is a solution out there, and we'll be moving on to it sometime in the next couple of decades. What will that be? I personally feel as though we'll splinter into border less societies with their own crypto currencies, populated by people who live in the real world societies as ghosts, without tax-paying jobs or rent paying housing. Some sort of reputation-based world like a Doctorow novel, but with the real government still in place, but being ignored and circumvented by people in a million ways.
Think of this like a game of Civilization. You start as a dictatorship, but you can research better forms of government. Civ always stopped at Democracy, like that was the be all and end all. But that's just because humanity hasn't yet discovered the next good way of organizing large groups for mutual protections. We will, some day.
This is probably the best examination that I (individually) been given on the topic, it makes a lot of sense and with my limited exposure to certain aspects of economic theory, I don't have much to disagree with.
This is the root of my 'head-tilt' at certain arguments against the topic of late stage capitalism. As I mentioned in another comment, I'm often seeing memes and groups that poke sticks at participants and individuals who exist within this late stage versus the systems that enable and provide a continuance for some of the issues that cause people to have a problem with where we are.
I'd love your feed back on my proposal for a kind of post capitalism. It seems to propose some of the things you expect: http://skilesare.github.io/immortality
Right, so you're advising the "if you don't like it get out" method... which is completely useless.
Whether or not someone likes capitalism, it's our current system and you have to make a living or some asshole is going to tell you that you can't get healthcare.
It's a topic worthy of critique but the circles I inhabit seem to be filled with individuals take a position of critiques that amount to memes and hollow arguments that seem more focused on poking fun at the participants than criticizing the system-leaving me with an uncomfortable level of fatigue.
Well no, not exactly. It's just I've come across arguments (really memes) about "late stage capitalism" that are fueled with snark but really nothing substantive to convince me of what their individual argument is against 'late stage capitalism' (like the completely valid argument you've just made) and it's left me with a bit of fatigue on the face of it being preached at regarding the topic.
I'll own that this isn't a perfect position to be in and I'm not portending it is.
Perhaps they feel that the hand that's feeding them is feeding them feces instead of the promised food.
Or perhaps they feel that the hand that's feeding them while siphoning off their wallet is not actually doing them much good.
Capitalism isn't bad in and of itself, but neither is it good. When combined with proper regulation, it can lead to a lot of growth, while raising the tide for everyone. But when deregulated, or subverted with poor (or hostile) regulation, it results in... well... what we have today. Very few rich people building their fortunes on the backs of everyone else.
The issue with these comments is that you present no alternatives. Wealth is not something that exists by itself. Wealth exists because people create it. We have as much wealth as we do because people create so much.
You're complaining that the incentive to create (potentially becoming rich) itself is the problem. Well, okay, but what will replace it, while not causing everyone to do much less ?
Because if people do much less, then our wealth evaporates. And then well, as another comment put it, "some asshole is going to tell you you can't get healthcare".
Historically it can be put like this. There's 2 ways people were motivated:
* "do your job or we'll kill you" (slavery, but equally feodalism, communism, ...)
* "do your job and we'll reward you" (capitalism, and some related systems like mercantilism)
If you wish to reduce communism and socialism to the extreme "kill" state, you should do the same with capitalism. Those rewards offset (and frequently just barely offset) the costs of living. This means that capitalism can also be portrayed as "Do your job or you'll kill yourself."
The only real benefit is that people who have jobs can shed responsibility for a death due to a lack of working.
But that's talking in ridiculous extremes.
I'd say most people are motivated (not all, but most) to do work because they consider it to be the right thing to do. Most people want to provide for themselves; but capitalism doesn't always let them do so. If they have the wrong skills, live in the wrong area, or are otherwise incapable of earning enough to offset the cost of living, capitalism shifts the blame to them (Learn the right skills! Move to the right area! Don't get sick!) and leaves them behind.
> I'd say most people are motivated (not all, but most) to do work because they consider it to be the right thing to do.
People who have $100k jobs, like most here, perhaps. But that's a perspective that only comes with such jobs.
Do you seriously think McDonalds servers have this perspective ?
> Those rewards offset (and frequently just barely offset) the costs of living. This means that capitalism can also be portrayed as "Do your job or you'll kill yourself."
In theory, those jobs are meant to convey the message "improve yourself, or ...". Now I get that it probably doesn't feel like that but on the other side I must say that I know plenty of younger folks that certainly can learn how to program, but won't. Instead taking service jobs, being exploited, but also nobody expecting anything of them in terms of achieving something. They refuse to put in any kind of effort (including at those service jobs btw, where they are not exactly working at peak efficiency).
Now I understand this attitude, but let's not pretend that this isn't voluntary self-sabotage (I understand the psychology surrounding it may be hard to break out of, but ... well you have to), or that it's good for society to have lots of people like that.
My experience is that people tend not to be against many of the fundamental ideas of capitalism; tit for tat for example is a strategy that we're biologically wired up to favour. This is purely anecdotal, but when I've asked people who identify as being anti-capitalist, their objections are ones specific to our current system, and perhaps not capitalism in a general sense.
I am grateful for capitalism, from which I have benefited mightily.
I just don't think it's the end state. It's a stop. The next stop is anarcho-syndicalism, which is much easier with good information tech.
It probably won't be the last stop either, but I expect I'll have to be told by the younger generation what makes sense next, as my brain had been formed in capitalism.
Late Stage Capitalism is the realization that mankind produces enough material wealth to satisfy the bottom two tiers of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs for every single person in the world and the frustration that we haven't bothered to try.
And the ignorance about the fact that distribution and management of said material wealth has always been and will always be a difficult problem to solve. Yes, we produce enough food in the world such that no one should go hungry. No, we don't have the infrastructure (actual, political, economic) to distribute it.
Organizing people is hard. Dealing with corruption is hard. Nothing suggested by Late Stage Capitalist meme spreaders even comes close to solving those problems.
Capitalism will never go away. Just as monarchism still exists on various corporate boards in some form. And just as anarchism still exists in some form in a capitalist society.
But capital allocation will cease to be the dominant protocol for social organization.
I don't see any realistic alternative. Capitalism creates wealth more efficiently than any other system, and over the long run even the poorest people in a capitalist country will be wealthier than people in countries with command economies.
The problems we're having today result from corruption, which can happen with any system.
>"Mandel did warn about the forces of automation, globalization, and wage stagnation, and feared that they would tear at the social fabric by making workers miserable."
Funny. Most people are living better lives today in the era of High Capitalism than they ever have in the past. As technology growth - spurred by the incentives capitalism generates - continues, and new products and services are created by the capitalist system, people's lives will continue to improve.
What's beautiful about capitalism is that it, through automation, is eliminating drudgery and danger from people's work. Eventually when we reach very high levels of automation in society, we may be able to transition to an economy in which people don't have to work (much) but still get to own things through universal basic income or some other sort of scheme.
So no revolution needed to get us to the promised land folks. Capitalism is taking us there.
Capitalism is taking some there. Not all. Most. The averages look good. When you look outside a standard deviation or two there is intergenerational suffering with no end.
So, you're right. As long as you can plug your nose and ignore the people at the very bottom, everything is pretty good!
Under capitalism the people at the very bottom have it much better than they ever have had it, just like the rest of the population. And things continue to improve.
In fact it's plausible that as automation picks up it's the people at the bottom who will stand to gain the most.
I assume you're talking about bottom income bracket. I was not. I was talking about bottom in terms of power. Income is only one form of power. The people truly at the bottom are being held there by triangulated cultural practices. Capitalism is not seeking to lift them up because they serve a crucial purpose as a warning to those who might question the social order.
I am thinking of people at the intersection of some combination of poverty, domestic violence, addiction, racism, gender politics, etc. One or two of these issues can be overcome, but when you pile several into one family you get a machine that can be permanently stuck in suffering.
"I am thinking of people at the intersection of some combination of poverty, domestic violence, addiction, racism, gender politics, etc."
Have you ever met any of these people? Domestic violence, addiction, poverty; anyone with that trifecta is probably not a very pleasant person to know, much less employ. Giving people with an addiction more resources is not going to help them unless you're talking about opening up a methadone clinic, which is plenty compatible with capitalism.
