I keep on seeing this term used and I can’t tell if there’s actually truth behind the term or if it’s just ideological.

Late stage just means “of late” as in recent. People distort the meaning. So yes we are in the latest stage of capitalism

Yeah, I see a lot of people use it to imply that capitalism is on its way out.

State directed Socialism as a legitimate system ended with the fall of the Soviet Union, so that late stage stuff means next to nothing

there's still socialist countries so, guess it didnt end

There’s an argument for it. Companies have gotten to the point where they are way too big and it can only get so much worse before an inevitable collapse imo

Capitalism proliferates in form, however. We have in front of us: finance capitalism, cognitive capitalism, biocapitalism, state capitalism, racial capitalism and so much more

"late stage" refers to imperialism, as in, we live in the era of imperialism which began with state monopoly capitalism and exists today as globalization/outsourcing/etc.

Well the only 2 (Cuba and North Korea) have each made steps to gradually allow their people to engage in some limited private businesses so, guess it did

In Tijuana, the latest stage is gore capitalism.

mitpress.mit.edu/books/gore-capitalism

there are 5 socialist countries, and cuba letting people own businesses with no employees doesnt exactly undo that. but we've already established in other threads that you never have a clue what you're talking about.

There are 2. China, Laos, and Vietnam allow too much private enterprise to be considered socialist. The majority of business in Norway is in the public sector, but you wouldn’t call that a socialist country now would you

Norway never had a socialist revolution.

Like, you're not a communist bro, why do you think you're some authority on communism lol, s*** really blows my mind

yo why when criticizing capitalism mfs instantly act like socialism, communism and capitalism the only options like we arent humans with working brains who can just

idk

come up with sum new s***??

yeah just invent a new mode of production out of thin air, get on that homie

as opposed to what?

us risking the perfect system we have now? where no one starves to death while every major food chain in your city throws out pounds of perfectly fine food nightly? the perfect system we have where no one is socioeconomically f***ed?

are u saying we have better things to do? rather than try to prevent an inevitable societal collapse? (whether our generation or our grandkids)

lol

This all stems from a post-Marxist perspective where the idea is that capitalism adapts to its own threats and capitalises on them for its own survival. Capitalism is no longer a monolith, but the way it works on a global scale is through the differentiation of capital across all state-level economies. For example, gore capitalism is concerned with how the violence against migrants in the southern border is seen as profitable, since it creates demand for new technologies of interception to be created. This, however , creates a new market altogether for which new forms of capital become the stable commodity. But the other idea is that a country not affected by violence against migration, (say Iceland) does not play a role in a direct role in the maintenance of gore capitalism

Socialism isn’t communism. Having a socialist revolution isn’t the only way to be a socialist country. There are also democratically elected people who shift their country to a socialist direction like in Chile and Tanzania, and socialist coming to power through coups like in Benin, Burkina Faso, and Somalia.

Also you saying that because I’m not a communist I can’t speak on socialism is as idiotic as if someone were to say that because you’re communist, you don’t know what capitalist countries are

Shut up and help me autopan 23 tracks

i mean, you cant speak on socialism because you dont know nearly enough about it and refuse to learn anything. china, laos, and vietnam are still socialist because the commanding heights of the economy remain in the hands of the working class, which dictates the overall economic logic of the state.

lets put it another way.

the roman empire had monied currency. the roman empire also had proto-industrial commodity production and even had primitive forms of property law. but nobody calls the roman empire capitalist. why is that? because all these other things were dictated by the overall logic of the slave economy, which was where the commanding heights of the roman economy were. you have to actually use a class a***ysis to figure out where the economic base is.

The communist party of China is a very selective body that chooses what it considers its best citizens for admission. Their control over the economy doesn’t have them actually direct how things are going to be made like in the Maoist era. If there are billionaires (or under current rules, people can become billionaires) in a country where part of the population is still low income, it’s safe to say that country isn’t socialist

the Chinese GDP is $12.2 trillion, but suddenly it means something that their are billionaires?

its not "safe to say" anything, you have to actually do a***ysis which you refuse to do in favor of some lousy common sense argument. like you're literally arguing right now that five-year plans arent still in effect when its very easy to look up that they still are. why not just learn about China instead of being wrong, bro?

china as a socialist state? ridiculous. post-Deng capitalist restoration scrubbed any notion of a socialist foundation or path towards a communist entity.

it's an authoritarian regime backed by capital and the bourgeoisie.

No, what he's saying is you can't just invent a new mode of production and who owns it

It is either the bourgeoisie (or the capitalist class) who dominates, or its the workers.