TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

A Discourse on Capitalism

Go To

raziel365 Anka Aquila from South of the Far West (Veteran) Relationship Status: I've been dreaming of True Love's Kiss
Anka Aquila
#176: Nov 23rd 2021 at 9:34:58 AM

Well, anything that derives from Leninism still has the problem of being authoritarian in nature so there's that.

Instead of focusing on relatives that divide us, we should find the absolutes that tie us.
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#177: Nov 23rd 2021 at 10:15:34 AM

Whew, this went places. I saw the initial post last night but decided I was tired and I'd answer it in the morning.

The answer the original question: late-stage capitalism (which is the version of the phrase I usually hear thrown around) isn't really an academic or technical term. As mentioned above, it's mostly invoking "late-stage cancer" (ie, the kind that's about to kill you) as a way of sneaking in several unexamined assumptions. 1) capitalism advances in a simple, linear fashion from "early stage" to "late stage" or "end stage"; 2) later "stages" of capitalism are worse for the people living with it; 3) the inevitable endpoint of capitalism is death, of either the society (the patient) or capitalism itself (the cancer).

To be clear, I don't think this is deliberate propaganda or anything. I think it started as a tongue-in-cheek joke and people picked it up because they thought it was a good joke and/or a compelling analogy. The problem is when people start to forget the joke and take it seriously as economic philosophy. Using "this is late-stage capitalism" to highlight amusing absurdities is one thing, but trying to use it for serious economic discussion falls pretty flat. It doesn't really withstand analysis, so it only appeals to people who are already on board with the idea that "these problems are capitalism's fault, and the only solution is to end capitalism".

In other words, it's a slogan, not a thesis statement. Which is fine, as long as people accept that and don't try to use it for serious discussion.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#178: Nov 23rd 2021 at 5:28:01 PM

To be clear, I don't think this is deliberate propaganda or anything.

No, but it is rooted in Hegelian dialectics and other Marxist theory. The assumption that humanity progresses from capitalism to socialism is baked into the phrase.

Wibbles Since: Jul, 2011
#179: Nov 25th 2021 at 12:26:44 AM

The answer the original question: late-stage capitalism (which is the version of the phrase I usually hear thrown around) isn't really an academic or technical term. As mentioned above, it's mostly invoking "late-stage cancer" (ie, the kind that's about to kill you) as a way of sneaking in several unexamined assumptions. 1) capitalism advances in a simple, linear fashion from "early stage" to "late stage" or "end stage"; 2) later "stages" of capitalism are worse for the people living with it; 3) the inevitable endpoint of capitalism is death, of either the society (the patient) or capitalism itself (the cancer).

Where have you read that late capitalism (or late stage) is in any way a reference to cancer? Late capitalism as a concept has widely been used to refer to post-war capitalism in general and post-industrial/post-Fordist capitalism specifically. It originates from much further back than 1945, but it certainly wasn’t popularized until afterward.

To be clear, I don't think this is deliberate propaganda or anything. I think it started as a tongue-in-cheek joke and people picked it up because they thought it was a good joke and/or a compelling analogy. The problem is when people start to forget the joke and take it seriously as economic philosophy. Using "this is late-stage capitalism" to highlight amusing absurdities is one thing, but trying to use it for serious economic discussion falls pretty flat. It doesn't really withstand analysis, so it only appeals to people who are already on board with the idea that "these problems are capitalism's fault, and the only solution is to end capitalism".

I mean, it’s not a joke and it’s use has been well understood to describe the absurdities and contradictions we find in the post-industrial capitalist mode of production. I would argue “late stage capitalism” is absolutely useful in describing the unique circumstances we have seen in the Global North since 2008.

(I haven’t been on TV Tropes forums in a long time. I accidentally hit post and wound myself up in to a neurotic mess trying to cover all my bases. My original comment past this point was unnecessary and perhaps even combative, the last thing I intend to be.)

No, but it is rooted in Hegelian dialectics and other Marxist theory. The assumption that humanity progresses from capitalism to socialism is baked into the phrase.

To be fair those are two different things. While Marx supposed that capitalism would provide the material conditions necessary to progress to the socialist mode of production, he and Engels both disclaimed this outcome in any kind of economically deterministic manner. We have ideological (and especially self-serving) fanatics like the Bolsheviks to thank for inhumanly destructive readings like “Marx said once X, Y, and Z conditions have been met then magically socialism will exist” to justify the dogmatic stupidity necessary to attack a world of round holes with square damned pegs.

Edited by Wibbles on Nov 25th 2021 at 1:16:14 AM

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#180: Nov 25th 2021 at 6:20:35 AM

"Late capitalism" as a concept has existed since Marx, but that's not what I'm talking about. The specific phrase "late-stage capitalism" is a much more recent and popular (meaning part of popular culture, as opposed to academic theory) usage. I don't have any specific sources or anything for the idea that late-stage capitalism is explicitly a direct reference to late-stage cancer, but that's not my claim in the first place (and would probably be impossible to prove unless you could track the phrase back to a specific author and then ask them).

Whether or not it's deliberate isn't particularly relevant — the association is there whether it was a conscious association the first time it was used or not. Outside of late-stage capitalism, "late-stage" refers almost exclusively to diseases. If you don't believe me, Google "late-stage " and look at the suggestions. You can do it in an incognito window if you don't want your existing search history to influence the results. The only thing I get that isn't capitalism or a medical condition is a technical term relating to chemical processing, which obviously isn't in widespread common use.

In any case, you say you would argue that "late-stage capitalism" is a useful phrase for discussing modern economic conditions, but you don't actually provide any reasoning why, and you skip over the part in my post where I argue why it isn't. I can't really respond to that except to say "see my previous post for why I disagree", which is somewhat awkward when my previous post is ostensibly the one you're replying to in the first place.

Edited by NativeJovian on Nov 25th 2021 at 9:21:37 AM

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
minseok42 A Self-inflicted Disaster from A Six-Tatami Room (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
A Self-inflicted Disaster
#181: Nov 25th 2021 at 6:39:19 AM

A quick search on Wikipedia says that the term originated from German. Does the term "late-stage capitalism" have the same connotation in German?

"Enshittification truly is how platforms die"-Cory Doctorow
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#182: Nov 25th 2021 at 6:42:43 AM

No, the term "late capitalism" originated in German (spätkapitalismus). My whole point is that late-stage capitalism is a new phrase with roots in popular culture instead of academia.

Obviously there's some cross-pollination, and people can use "late capitalism" the same non-academic way they use "late-stage capitalism". But what I'm trying to do is separate the economic theory term (which is decades old and the concept older than that) from the social media term (which is much more recent)

Edited by NativeJovian on Nov 25th 2021 at 9:45:10 AM

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#183: Nov 25th 2021 at 6:55:33 AM

It's somewhat amusing that economic theories diverge sharply on the outcome of capitalism.

On the one hand, we have the Marxian view that it will create such inequality and privation that it will inevitably collapse and be overthrown by the people, who will allegedly form a superior system from the rubble.

On the other hand, we have the utopian view that it will lead into post-scarcity because productivity will increase to the point where nobody has to work to support themselves. This is my optimistic outcome, but I freely admit that we're a long way from it.

Those aren't the only two possible outcomes, of course; I'm simplifying a bit. Fascism and religious dictatorship aren't economic ideologies, strictly speaking.

All of the popular solutions for the "evils of capitalism" rely on faulty ideas about human nature, usually taking the form of, "If we just changed X, things would be great." "If it weren't for those rapacious capitalists, society would be equal."


Objectively, standards of living even for the poorest people have grown immeasurably in developed countries over the past century and a half. The simple fact that we are sitting here having debates on an obscure Internet forum is proof of that. Nobody in this conversation has to wake up at dawn and spend sixteen hours in backbreaking labor just to feed themselves and their families (I presume). Heck, nobody has to send their children to work in the factories.

To suggest that capitalism uniquely enshrines inequality is such a grotesque misreading of history that I have a hard time giving credence to anyone who says it unironically. Capitalism, as practiced in the United States, does a fairly good job of keeping its labor class sustained just well enough to work and not well enough to consider themselves equal to the masters, so in that sense it's quite successful, especially compared to Communism.

Where it appears to be falling apart, I look and see political divisions that have racism, not classism, at their root. More specifically, American democracy and capitalism have two major axes of division: Hamiltonians vs. Jeffersonians and abolitionists vs. slave owners. These are the core problems we face, not capitalism itself.

While reforming capitalism is a noble goal and one that I support, those who wish to tear it down and replace it have abjectly failed to provide any functional concept for what things would look like afterwards.

Edited by Fighteer on Nov 25th 2021 at 10:02:31 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Kayeka (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#184: Nov 25th 2021 at 7:25:28 AM

Objectively, standards of living even for the poorest people have grown immeasurably in developed countries over the past century and a half. The simple fact that we are sitting here having debates on an obscure Internet forum is proof of that. Nobody in this conversation has to wake up at dawn and spend sixteen hours in backbreaking labor just to feed themselves and their families (I presume). Heck, nobody has to send their children to work in the factories.

While this is true, I can't help but feel this is despite capitalism, not because of it. The factory owners were quite happy to keep the labourers in those circumstances you describe. The only reason I and many others here get to enjoy the benefits of increased production is because of labour unions and social-minded governments, with the capitalist class fighting tooth and nail to keep themselves from having to share their ridiculous wealth and power.

minseok42 A Self-inflicted Disaster from A Six-Tatami Room (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Wishfully thinking
A Self-inflicted Disaster
#185: Nov 25th 2021 at 7:29:45 AM

Nobody in this conversation has to wake up at dawn and spend sixteen hours in backbreaking labor just to feed themselves and their families (I presume). Heck, nobody has to send their children to work in the factories.

Uh, this was clearly not the case during the industrial revolution in the US and in Britain. There's a reason that at least primary school is mandatory, (and in most countries) free, instead of being optional and for-profit.

"Enshittification truly is how platforms die"-Cory Doctorow
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#186: Nov 25th 2021 at 7:46:32 AM

Yeah, it's weird to claim that it's because of capitalism that people don't have to work 16 hours a day just to stay alive, when that was the conditions that capitalism was imposing and that people keep finding themselves falling into. And unpaid overtime, wage theft, etc.

The improvements in quality of life for everyone seem to be despite capitalism's best efforts, not because of it.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#187: Nov 25th 2021 at 7:47:47 AM

[up][up] and [up][up][up]: Which means that the system is working to curb those excesses, and I must remind you that it is not capitalism that was the core of the problem, but industrialization. The same labor abuses occurred everywhere in the world that factories sprung up regardless of the economic or political system.

[up] I'm talking about subsistence farming, which industrialization replaced.

The point is that those conditions are no longer the norm for the developed world, so saying that things are worse today is objectively false.

Edited by Fighteer on Nov 25th 2021 at 10:48:45 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Zarastro Since: Sep, 2010
#188: Nov 25th 2021 at 9:06:50 AM

[up][up]

The industrial revolution - which was driven to a large part by profit-minded industrialists is the main reason why things we nowadays consider cheap have become affordable. The invention of the power loom was bad news to weavers, who worked at home and had usually a safe-middle class existence, but great news to the rest of the population who could suddenly afford several sets of clothes.

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#189: Nov 25th 2021 at 9:59:39 AM

I'm talking about subsistence farming, which industrialization replaced.

Except the job weren’t inherently non-backbreaking or over limited hours. Capitalism isn’t the reason we have the 40 hour work week and the weekend, those are Socialist inventions fought for by trade unions.

Capitalism created an increase in productivity, but the fruits of that productivity increase only bought about an increase in standards of living because Socialist groups clawed that fruit out of the hands of the capital controlling classes.

Nobody in this conversation has to wake up at dawn and spend sixteen hours in backbreaking labor just to feed themselves and their families (I presume). Heck, nobody has to send their children to work in the factories.

Capitalism invented child factory labour when it invented factories, the only reason we don’t still have children working in factories (in the developed world) is again because of Socialist groups.

Which means that the system is working to curb those excesses,

Except the things curbing the system aren’t Capitalist things, they’re Socialist things.

“Capitalism works because it causes the rise of Socialists who curb the excesses of Capitalism” may be technically correct, but it’s hardly an argument against Socialism, as it notes Socialism as a key component in functional Capitalism.

Edited by Silasw on Nov 25th 2021 at 6:05:44 PM

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#190: Nov 25th 2021 at 10:14:43 AM

Again, this is not Capitalism, but industrialization. Worker abuses occurred everywhere factories sprung up, in all parts of the world, regardless of the political or economic system.

And yes, obviously capitalism needs a balance. Nobody has argued against that. What we cannot do is dismantle it completely.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#191: Nov 25th 2021 at 10:56:33 AM

Industrialisation didn’t put children to work in factories, the need for children to provide labour so as to sustain their family did.

Now that’s also often a requirement under feudalism (due to the effective ownership of peasant families by their feudal lords), Leninist communism (due to the effective ownership of everyone by the state) and state capitalism (see China). But, as Capitalism only recognises the end goal of increasing profit it’s got a great incentive for that exploitation. Feudalism also has that incentive due to the end goal of preserving the class divide meaning that peasant children need to learn the trade of their parents, but Communism has the end goal of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”, which has no requirement for child labour. Leninism has the end goal of enriching the party above all else, so in that way it operates very similar to Feudalism, with party leaders being the new nobility.

And yes, obviously capitalism needs a balance. Nobody has argued against that.

You regularly argue that any system other than Capitalism is a total failure and worse than Capitalism, how is that not an argument for having only Capitalism and nothing else?

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
TotemicHero No longer a forum herald from the next level Since: Dec, 2009
No longer a forum herald
#192: Nov 25th 2021 at 11:09:38 AM

Stating child factory labor was a particularly horrible evil when child labor was mostly the standard pre-industrialization note  is one of the more inaccurate takes I've seen in a while. Let's try to curb our Values Dissonance for a bit on this subject, okay?

I think part of the problem is that we're in the early messy stages of post-scarcity transition, and traditional CEOs and managers don't really have a clue what to do when the labor market shifts from demanding unskilled labor to demanding specialized skilled workers in many industries. This is not a systemic failing of capitalism at all - market transitions can be and often are messy, regardless of the underlying economic system. (It can be argued that industrialization, with the early factory designs and machinery being deathtraps, was a similar mess.) It just so happens to be much more visible to the general public, thanks to the internet, than earlier events.

Edited by TotemicHero on Nov 25th 2021 at 2:09:53 PM

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#193: Nov 25th 2021 at 11:19:38 AM

Child labour post-industrialisation is very different from pre-industrialisation. Pre-industrialisation the child labour was carried out largely as part of subsistence living and was managed by someone (normally parents) who had an incentive to minimise the labour carried out by the child and use efficiency boosts to reduce workload rather than increase productivity/profits. While post-industrialisation that labour was managed by someone with no connection to the child (a manger or factory owner) and whose incentive when efficiency boosts came along was to increase productivity/profits rather than reduce labour.

If a child doing farm labour as part of a peasant family gets all their work done they stop work for the day, if a child in a factor gets all their work done they are given more work. That’s a very different dynamic.

Child labour has never been good, but family farming is very different to sending your child to work in the mines.

Obviously exploitative child labour did still exist back then, children might be utilised for labour by a feudal lord, they might be seized by the state, they might be sold into slavery or they might just be exploited by family.

Edited by Silasw on Nov 25th 2021 at 7:22:47 PM

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
TotemicHero No longer a forum herald from the next level Since: Dec, 2009
No longer a forum herald
#194: Nov 25th 2021 at 11:36:53 AM

Where did working in the mines come from? That really has nothing to do with the current discussion.

Look, since it appears we can both agree that child labor is not specifically endemic to capitalism (even if it took on a nastier edge under it), we probably should re-rail this discussion back to matters than are more relevant to the thread topic.

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#195: Nov 25th 2021 at 11:39:44 AM

Sure, while child-labour isn’t only a thing it Capitalism it very much is a thing under Capitalism. So it’s false to assert that Capitalism has gotten rid of child-labour.

As for where mines came from, children in mines was (alongside children in factories) a common thing under early-modern Capitalism in the UK at least.

Edited by Silasw on Nov 25th 2021 at 7:41:38 PM

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#196: Nov 25th 2021 at 11:43:48 AM

Objection on Leninism. In the Soviet Union, they did manage to get inequality almost to modern Norway levels (sauce). Of course, under Communism, everyone's equal because nobody has any money.

Which kind of proves the point about the benefits of, at the very least, markets. (And the one example I can think of of markets without capitalism was Yugoslavia, which I'm...not calling a success story.)

Edited by Ramidel on Nov 25th 2021 at 10:44:38 AM

Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#197: Nov 25th 2021 at 11:58:45 AM

That’s chart is income distribution, just because the party leaders had income that was somewhat equal to that of others doesn’t mean there wasn’t staggering inequality.

We can play the same game with Capitalism and get similarly absurd results. I’m pretty sure Elon Musk has a pretty minimal income, does that mean there’s not inequality between him and his workers?

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#198: Nov 25th 2021 at 12:18:19 PM

The idea of eliminating inequality is a windmill. It's not possible because people are not equal and will never be equal. To use a trite example, I'm 73 inches tall. I can reach higher shelves than other people. Cutting off part of my legs so I don't have a height advantage is not reasonable. However, if I am standing on top of other people to reach those shelves and they have no say in the matter, asking me to stop is reasonable.

Elon Musk is an exception in many ways. He's autistic and comes from a broken home, he's often petty and vindictive, but he's also brilliant, driven, and works harder than almost anyone I've ever heard of. He also benefits from a remarkable amount of luck and a system designed to prop up white men. Is it reasonable for him to be worth so much? This is an impossible question. If his businesses had not succeeded, he would have been broke and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

By risking every single bit of his personal resources and going as deeply into debt as he could manage, he built a empire. Does he not deserve to be rewarded for it? Is he to be blamed for the stock market that has given his companies such extreme valuations? This is the question of capitalism. We can extrapolate the question of "do they deserve it" to anyone else in a similar position.

The problem is that it sounds like we are passing moral judgment on the person rather than on the system that enabled that wealth. "To be a billionaire, you must have done something unethical," is an ad hominem position that confers no usable remedy. Convicting people on the grounds that they have too much money is... well, if you can't see why that is a problem, there is no point in having this conversation.


Now, I would like to address the idea that being "pro-capitalism" means that one must reject socialist remedies to capitalism's problems. This is a strawman. Most modern nations have come up with compromises that combine socialist reforms with free-market capitalism to produce mixed economies. These efforts seek to retain the advantages of the capitalist system: primarily, its ability to reward innovation with financial benefits, while shoring up its weak points: primarily, its tendency to abuse labor.

There are no Fox News hosts here. We don't need to play these rhetorical games. The question that I am seeking is where that balance should lie. I categorically reject either extreme position: completely unregulated capitalism or full socialism.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
TheWildWestPyro from Seattle, WA Since: Sep, 2012 Relationship Status: Healthy, deeply-felt respect for this here Shotgun
#199: Nov 25th 2021 at 12:21:58 PM

So why are you rejecting stuff that is common on those social democratic countries you have described as the ideal compromise?

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life

Total posts: 368
Top