Category: Uncategorized

In recent years, “late-stage capitalism” has become the go-to term for describing the conditions and contradictions of modern society. As a phrase, it has been in use for well over a hundred years but has gained popularity in American academia as a shorthand for the second half of the 20th century, starting with the postwar economic boom and continuing on through modern day. Think “multinational oligopolies” rather than “robber barrons.”

In its casual usage, it has grown to be the preferred shorthand for anti-capitalist critique from the left. This idea of “late” capitalism has been used for almost a century to indicate that the current form of capitalism will be its last, and that an alternative socioeconomic modelNamely, socialism. is imminent. Which seems very presumptuous.

The phrase is attributed to Werner Sombart in Der moderne KapitalismusNever translated to English and seemingly unavailable in digital format, so I am just providing meta-analysis.. In Sombart’s chronology, capitalism is divided into four eras:

• Proto-capitalism (1300s to early 1500s) – The transition from feudalism to mercantilism
• Early capitalism (1500s to early 1800s) – Consolidation of capital
• Mature capitalism (1800s to early 1900s) – The rise of the bourgeoisie and increased class stratification
• Late capitalism (1900s to present day) – The hellscape nightmare which we all presently endure

The successor to this late capitalism (and its expected arrival date) is open to the speculation of every socialist philosopher of the last 200 years. But the very term itself implies that we are in the endgame, that capitalism is against the ropes and on its last legs and that whatever comes next will be categorically different from the progression of capitalism over the last, oh, seven centuries.

I can appreciate this usage for the purpose of propaganda to indicate that the people’s revolution and liberation is just around the corner. And certainly it sometimes feels the capitalist model must be reaching the theoretical maximum of soul-crushiness allowed by the known laws of physics. But the reality is that it is simply naive terminology.

Sombart– and the successive economists and academics who popularized this term through the 1970’s– simply could not foresee the new perversions of capitalism that would run rampant at the end of the 20th century, nor did they have the imagination for the iterations yet to come.

Fukuyama’s “end of history” focused on liberal democracy as the final form of humanity’s societal progression, and although he argues that this end-state model includes a market-based economy, there is not as much discussion about the economic model that accompanies this pinnacle of social organization.

As an ideology, capitalism has worked tirelessly for the last seven hundred years to sculpt the foundations of modern society around its ideals; it has consolidated wealth, resources, and power into the hands of its controlling few, and has spun the delicate thread of modern civilization intricately around itself. This inextricability has only accelerated in the past fifty years with the advent of technological dependence, intangible financial markets, and the abandonment of pretense regarding a separation between our government officials and the ultra-rich that control them… or simply are them.

Why, then, do we feel that a collectivist revolution is imminent? Why do we assume that those with all the power and all the resources are anywhere near defeat? Why do we ignore that they are, in fact, at the peak of their power and continuing their upward progression? Is it because of the disgruntled grumblings in our online, leftist echo chambers? Is it the fiery rhetoric of a handful of congresspeople whom, well-intentioned as they may be, have thus far failed to grow their movement or exert any meaningful power?

The bleak truth is that leftists have failed to meaningfully move the needle in this direction in over two centuries. Yes, labor reforms and worker protections are important and wonderful achievements and yes, Scandinavian Europe has robust social welfare policies. But these have done nothing to erode the power of the capitalist class or to challenge the ideals of free-market capitalism. The biggest swings we took all ended up as failed states and cautionary tales, try as we might to justify their failures¹And boy howdy, do we ever try..

Perhaps the end of capitalism really is nigh; maybe the next sick meme on Left Twitter will convince billions of subjugated people to shake loose their chains and reclaim their liberty. Maybe proletariat solidarity or permanent revolution is right around the corner. Or maybe the capitalists continue to masterfully consolidate their power and find new, innovative ways to exploit the masses. Either way, this idea of capitalism is in its “late stage” is disingenuous at best and harmfully naive at worst; the term paints a false portrait of an oppressive and destructive force whose downfall is imminent and assured, when nothing could be further from the truth. Capitalism is merely in its latest stage.

In the midst of the COVID pandemic, we have seen the full spectrum of human response: obedience, indifference, and resistance. The reasons for each response are varied, of course; nothing is a monolith. However, the dominant theme in resistance has been a rejection of tyranny, some patriotic duty to uphold the neoliberal ideal of doing literally whatever we want. Elected officials attempting to enforce the bare minimum of public safety have been deemed tyrants attempting to snuff the flame of American individualismI recognize that such arguments have been made in other Western countries as well, but I’d argue that the underlying, ‘personal-freedom-at-all-costs’ mentality is rooted in the distinctly American flavor of right-wing libertarianism.. This is, of course, a confusing and incoherent stance for a number of reasons.

Let us ignore, for the moment, the profoundly anti-social mentality of refusing to sacrifice anything for public health on principle. Actually, let’s not ignore it. Let’s start there. It is perfectly rational (and actually encouraged by the teachings of this church) to evaluate the cost of the requested sacrifice against the proposed benefit. In this case, the sacrifice is the mild inconvenience of wearing a piece of cloth on your face and avoiding large gatherings for a while, and the benefit is saving hundreds of thousands of lives. If someone refuses to even consider the cost/benefit ratio and consider any attempt at protecting public health an imposition of tyranny, they are fundamentally irrational. If they consider this tradeoff honestly and decides that the sacrifice is too great for the benefit, they are fundamentally irrational or dangerously anti-social.

That said, let us skip over the other undercurrents of the “anti-mask” protest movement, including the anti-science and anti-intellectual sentiments and the frankly deranged conspiracy theories that the virus doesn’t exist or it’s a scheme by Bill Gates to embed us with microchips and make us all 5G hotspots or something. Both of these are impediments to self-salvation, but we can revisit these topics later.

The main point of consideration for this discussion is the perverted concept of “tyranny” itself. The American mythos is founded on a notion of rugged individualism, of pioneers and cowboys who set out all alone and sculpted this great land with their bare hands. Immigrants pursuing the American dream must be self-made, just like all the great titans of industry in America’s history. Similarly, in the face of a deadly and highly-contagious virus, it is your own responsibility not to die from it, now get out of my way.

Conservative ideologies, and the American right in general, want America to be a savage and ruthless nation. It is the foundation on which their entire philosophies are constructed. It’s still the Wild West, and guns are the only thing preventing us all from raping and murdering each other. The reductionist argument is that capitalists want to condition the masses to perceive society as cruel and uncaring so that it will seem natural and proper that companies are cruel and uncaring. I think that is one element of it, but the roots of this ideology go deeper into fascism than simple corporate capitalism.

Fascism can be defined many ways, but a core tenet is hierarchy. Hierarchies, by definition, demand inequality in power. It goes without saying that the conservative masses are just as powerless as their progressive counterparts in the bigger picture, but this idea that they are all lone wolves enduring the hardships of this life solely on their own strength makes them feel powerful, and therefore higher in the hierarchy than the feeble masses who want to cooperate and take care each of each other.

And so, this train of thought somehow merges neoliberal individualism with paleo-fascist hierarchical constructs. The inconsistencies in these ideologies are glaringly obvious, but we’ll leave that for another day.

The broader point is that anti-maskers represent such a radicalized form of individualism that they are willing, nay, are eager to sacrifice the good of society, under the belief that their accomplishments are solely the result of their own hard work and that they owe society nothing.

Most of the protestors are who you’d expect: white suburbanites in the lower echelons of middle class. The lives of relative comfort and stability afforded by neoliberal democracy have entitled them to never be inconvenienced. I don’t wanna wear a mask, and I want a goddamned Trenta Frappe right now. Any new rule that encroaches on these daily routines and whims for instant gratification? Tyranny. The tens of thousands of rules they otherwise adhere to everyday? Well, those are obviously fine.