Talk:Late capitalism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 4 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Icarrion1224, Sara.moore2020, Juliastephens, The Squirrel Genius.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Late capitalism is a term used by continental socialists? New page introduction suggested ...
Inappropriate and unscientific. We all have opinions; we're all "the best" and "everyone else wants to be us". If they don't agree, then they are socialists, unAmerican, libtards, (insert derisive here), but - if you're not citing research nor a lucid understanding of a working system of economics, your comments are non-fact-based and belong in a local blog. They don't belong in an encyclopedia.

"Mature capitalisms", "mature monetary systems", etc. are recorded in researched papers, bibles, legal texts, books, historical records, etc. and can be quantitatively observed in hard statistics as well - usually in debt, birthrates, wars per decade, Treasury bills, inequity (% ownership by top-10 or 1%), savings rates, and other statistics.

I suggest the following explanation should start this wikipedia page - for discussion here first:

"Give any country’s citizens one-million dollars each and sixty years later you will have gross inequity. This is how successful monetary systems are designed to work.

Since 1960, our world GDP is fifty-nine-times its original size – and yet it has not even kept up with simple inflation. Laws of compound annual interest guarantee that monetary systems are not sustainable without resets and active management. Monetary systems, therefore, have cycles and a lifespan - see Kondratiev wave.

Today’s record number of wars, international debt, populisms, recessions, populisms, and extremism are evidence that 68% of economies worldwide are collapse-trending with negative trade balances – indicating that these ecomomies are not being properly managed by their governments. [spam link redacted]

And, this situation is perfectly normal, within the context of dozens of past mature capitalisms back in written record as early as 1763 BCE on the Code of Hammurabi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Past_Great_Depressions.jpg Edtilley4 (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the introduction you present would better fit an essay on historical economic cycles and monetary theory and their relationship to political trends, not this article about the specific term "late capitalism". Subvisser5 (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

untitled initial thread
"an ideology of postmodernism which postulates liberal democracy as the end of history, i.e. the summit or horizon of what human life can reach."

what is going on here? i would try to edit it, except that i don't understand what they're really going for. i know postmodernism definitely doesn't postulate liberal democracy as the end of history, but i don't know what the exact association between either of the two specifically in terms of late capitalism. but i know that's definitely not right. i'll just delete it if nobody says anything in a day or so

71.56.70.127 07:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

^ that was me, by the way. i just finally got around to signing up. anyways, i didn't want to wait the more i thought about it -- you know, be bold and all -- so it got snipped. anyhow, here's the quote if anyone knows how to salvage it:

"* an ideology of postmodernism which postulates liberal democracy as the end of history, i.e. the summit or horizon of what human life can reach."


 * Thanks for snipping it. It reads like a description of Hegelianism rather than of postmodernism. --Duncan 19:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Qoute : ["an ideology of postmodernism which postulates liberal democracy as the end of history, i.e. the summit or horizon of what human life can reach."] 71.56.70.127 07:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Is pomo an/has an ideologie? rather fuzzy logic

Qoute : [A description of Hegelianism rather than of postmodernism.] Duncan 19:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ping, Hegel and Marx?


 * When will we hear about Late Postmodernism?78.19.203.111 (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually we started hearing of "Late Postmodernism" more than a decade ago. There was, for example, Jeremy Green's book of literary criticism entitled Late Postmodernism: American Fiction at the Millennium (2005). But that usage was itself rather 'late'.  A more recent development is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-postmodernism  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.178.22 (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Characteristics of Late Capitalism
The list of characteristics of 'late capitalism' could just as well be a description of how things are right now in the United States. This causes me to wonder if these are actually predictions or if they are postdictions written down by someone eager to portray the modern world as being in the last throes of capitalism. If it is the former, then this list of characteristics is a very impressive accomplishment of Marxism and I would like to see how they were derived from its first principles. If it is the later, however, then this list is not very meaningful since presumably we will just continue to alter it to match whatever the facts are about the world we are living in. It is the difference between having a useful list of features that could help us recognize late capitalism, versus a wishful list of features that validate the prejudices of someone convinced that we must be living under late capitalism right now. Is there a way to know which it is? --Emeriste 01:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating
I suggest that the people who believe in late capitalism have no understanding of the millions of third world people who would love to move to America and Europe and generate some capital for themselves. LC is obviously nothing to do with money and everything to do with control.86.42.203.108 (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTAFORUM Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Paul K. Samuelson
I think that referred to the son of the more famous father with middle initial A, leaving out as unclear and needs a citation anyway. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

History of the term
With the 1975 English-language edition of Mandel's Spaetkapitalismus did the term make its first appearance in an English-language book title? Separately: Is a "See also" link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_economic_expansion warranted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.178.22 (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Spruce up
I have spruced up the article. Because all sorts of editors who are not knowledgeable about the topic began to introduce all kinds of changes, the article became a mess. I hope to have improved things somewhat, without adding a lot of new material.Cambridge Optic (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

First sentence makes no sense
"Late capitalism is a term used by continental socialists since the 1930s to refer to modern capitalism from World War 2 onward."

This is impossible because the 1930s was before World War 2. Therefore, if the term was coined in the 1930s, it could not have had anything to do with World War 2 at the time when it was coined. Also, "citation needed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.177.246.16 (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it needs changing. The confusion comes from the fact the term was first used in 1902, but came to mean something else by the time Mandel popularised it. It's confusing to lead with "is a term coined by continental socialists in the late 1930s" if its current meaning is different to its meaning then. ClassicallyTrainedLama (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Compounding the confusion, the first paragraph in the 'History of the term' section seems to be saying that Sombart in 1902 was saying "late capitalism is the sort of capitalism we've had since the first world war". It does mention 'and subsequent writings', but it says that he first used the term in his 1902 work and goes on to say he defined late capitalism in a way which cannot be what he meant by the term in his 1902 work. I am left wondering what he meant by the term in his 1902 work. Looking at Sombert's wikipedia page it's not clear at all that he said anything about it in the 1902 Der moderne Kapitalismus - is seems that that period is covered in Der moderne Kapitalismus in the third volume, which was added in 1927. Scatterkeir (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Reddit
r/LateStageCapitalism Benjamin (talk) 07:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The "In popular culture" section
Why is this section here? All it tells us is that a character in a book once said something about Late Capitalism, and it provides no relevant context. Was he a smart character? Stupid? Is he a protagonist? An antagonist? Is there some reason that the author is putting these words in his mouth? I just don't see how it tells you anything about the subject to have this section. Zachyng (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

"Late-end-final-stage-royale" capitalism
I found myself curious about the term "late-stage capitalism", and how it differed from "late capitalism" -- to my surprise, it doesn't actually seem to be mentioned in any sources. It did appear in this article, but it wasn't cited to anything, and the sources just say "late capitalism".

Well, it turns out it was added to the article in Special:Diff/913844574 with a driveby IP edit in 2019, with no source or anything; I think this might be a citogenesis. At any rate, I'm removing it. jp×g🗯️ 16:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)