Whether late stage capitalism is something one could wish for is a good question, since there seems to be no non-traumatic way out of it. In my young adult years (let’s say late 1980s, early 1990s), I was a little (but only a little) inclined toward what would today be called “accelerationism.” I hadn’t yet heard the gospel of MMT, so I believed that some generation, sooner or later, would suffer the consequences of profligate state spending and public debt. In spite of my ignorance of MMT, I somehow sensed that an aggressive campaign to shrink public spending would almost certainly trigger a recession, but that not addressing the “problem” would somehow be worse. My thinking was, I’m young, at least somewhat “strong,” why not rip the bandage off all at once, get it over with, and if we’re exceptionally lucky, maybe come out of it with the political left not totally obliterated.
I take a decidedly dim view of cyclical models of history. My thinking on that is somewhat informed by David Brin’s excellent blog. David is fiercely critical of the Strauss and Howe “Fourth Turning” worldview, for example. The “soft men make for hard times” etc. meme that get flung around so much by the reactionary elements of the larger public, has what to me look like deeply fascist implications.
Granted, the “cycles” mentioned by The Arthurian concern a much longer arc of history, perhaps a whole millennium if he’s saying (as seems the case) that the end of capitalism will be the beginning of another Dark Ages. My sense of historical ebb and flow is admittedly more on the scale of one (or maybe two) human lifetimes, so the so-called post-war era (except of course for the extreme racism and sexism of that time) was sort of a golden age, and 1980-present (the post-Reagan era, as I call it) has been sort of a dark age, one that I may have referred to in jest a few times as late capitalism, but I’m not entirely convinced that late stage capitalism is something that will happen or maybe even can happen. As indicated, I believe (sincerely believe) that capitalism is a hardy weed, although unlike most people who proclaim that, I don’t see that as a good thing. As I see it, the post-Reagan era has been an era characterized by aggressive restructuring of the labor market (at least in the so-called first world) to replace gainful employment with contingent employment. When my age cohort (the largely invisible “generation X”) reached working age, Management’s agenda was drawing The Firm’s labor inputs as much as possible from either temp agency workers or part-time employees. By now, social expectations have eroded all the way to piecework pay scams (gig “economy”, “sharing” “economy,” whatever one would wish to call it.)
Since I believe capitalism to be a hardy weed, I’m not really a socialist in the strictest sense (well, my heart is, but my head isn’t, but that’s too long a discussion for here). I approve of social democracy, as I see it as a mirror image of Gorbachevism. If it can be achieved, it would be a sort of “capitalism with a friendly face,” and if nothing else a shred of dignity that the American public is so hungry for.
The cyclical history buffs referred to in the article see the upward arc of capitalism as an earlier, competitive form, followed by a decadent, monopolistic form. Is there a possibility of forestalling late capitalism and the subsequent Dark Age by getting aggressive on antitrust legislation or adjudication? As we speak, Kroger’s is going to acquire Albertson’s. In theory, it isn’t a done deal, but just as when it was T-Mobile and Sprint, we all know mergers are only ever a question not of if, but of when. Should we believe that if, by some miracle, the American System rediscovered antitrust, that capitalism could have a new lease on life? Or is late capitalism, the end of capitalism, and the start of the next Dark Age, like all proposed mergers under late capitalism, a matter of not if, but when?
While I’m opposed in principle to grand cycle narratives of history, I’m tempted to believe at least in a sort of “pendulum swing” model. 1932 to 1980 was 48 years. I want to believe that by 2028, perhaps Red America will get bitch slapped hard by majority public opinion, and America Herself will proceed to dismantle the House That Reagan Built, the deregulation, the union busting, the regressive taxation, the whole stinking mess, and rebuild the New Deal, hopefully minus the redlining and other compromises that had to be made with fundamentally evil people in the name of political feasibility.
here is Michael Leddy, blogger at Orange Crate Art, that I think of when I come across a sentence so badly written that I have to point it out to someone.
And now there is Lorraine Lee, blogger at In Defense of Anagorism, that I think of when I come across something on the stages of capitalism, something subtle that catches me off guard or opens my eyes a little wider.
Yeah I read it before, 20 times before, probably. But this time I read it after talking about Late Stage Capitalism, and something clicked. Suddenly there was a reason for the subtle details to be there.
In Chapter 23 of The General Theory, Keynes writes:
“Locke was the parent of twin quantity theories… But — standing with one foot in the mercantilist world and with one foot in the classical world[11] — he was confused concerning the relation between these two proportions…”
In footnote 11, Keynes writes:
“Hume a little later had a foot and a half in the classical world…”
I think this “one foot” versus “a foot and a half” is a detail Keynes uses to show that he is comfortable thinking in terms of the stages of capitalism. I think he wanted us to know it.
To appreciate the subtle detail, it may help to remember that a reporter once asked Keynes if anything like the Great Depression had ever happened before. Yes,” Keynes replied. “It was called the Dark Ages and it lasted 400 years.” That was related, and relevant, but not subtle. But then, Dark Ages are never subtle.
Keynes quotes Hume from his 1752 book. Note that 24 years after 1752, Adam Smith took that last half-step, and wrote the book that not only gave mercantilism a name but also moved on from it.
Chapters 23 and 24 are the very best part of The General Theory, and I never tire of reading them.
But it was only during this most recent read that I figured out why Keynes went out of his way to talk about “one foot in the mercantilist world and with one foot in the classical”.
And that’s because you brought up late-stage capitalism, Lorraine. Thank you.