Late capitalism

The concept of late capitalism (in German: Spätkapitalismus), also known as late-stage capitalism, was first used by the German social scientist Werner Sombart (1863–1941) in 1928, to describe the new capitalist order emerging at that time. He claimed that it was the beginning of a new stage in the history of capitalism.<ref>Günther Chaloupek, ""Werner Sombarts 'Spätkapitalismus' und die langfristige Wirtschaftsentwicklung'". Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Vol. 22, Issue 3, 1996, pp. 385-400, at p. 386.</ref> As a young man, Sombart was a socialist who associated with Marxist intellectuals and the German social-democratic party. As a mature academic who became well known for his own sociological writings, Sombart had a sympathetically critical attitude to the ideas of Karl Marx.<ref>Friedrich Lenger, Werner Sombart 1863-1941: eine Biographie, 3rd edition. Munchen: Verlag C.H. Beck, 2012, chapter 4.</ref> Sombart's clearly written texts and lectures helped to make "capitalism" a household word in Europe, as the name of a socioeconomic system with a specific structure and dynamic, a history, a mentality, a dominant morality and a culture.<ref>Francis X. Sutton, "The social and economic philosophy of Werner Sombart: the sociology of capitalism", in: Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.), An introduction to the history of sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1948, pp. 316-331.</ref>

The use of the term "late capitalism" to describe the nature of the modern epoch existed for four decades in continental Europe, before it began to be used by academics and journalists in the English-speaking world—via English translations of German-language Critical Theory texts, and especially via Ernest Mandel's 1972 book Late Capitalism published in English in 1975.<ref>Ernest Mandel, Late capitalism. London: New Left Books, 1975; Robert Rowthorn, "Late capitalism" [review essay]. New Left Review, July-August 1976. Reprinted in: Robert Rowthorn, Capitalism, conflict and inflation: essays in political economy. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1980, pp. 95-128. </ref> For many Western Marxist scholars since that time, the historical epoch of late capitalism starts with the outbreak (or the end) of World War II (1939–1945), and includes the post–World War II economic expansion, the era of neoliberalism and globalization, the 2008 financial crisis and their aftermath in a multipolar world society. Particularly in the 1970s and 1980s, many economic and political analyses of late capitalism were published. From the 1990s onward, the analyses focused more on the culture, sociology and psychology of late capitalism.

Different labels and interpretations

The idea of "late capitalism" was never accepted by the majority of social scientists and historians, because it was considered that the expression was tinged with political biases about capitalism, and because it is unknowable or uncertain whether capitalism is "on its last legs", or "if and when it will end". In addition, the theory of "late capitalism" failed to explain the global resurgence of competitive market capitalism since 1980 (the era of neoliberalism and globalization) and the collapse of state socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in 1989–90. There seemed to be no real evidence of (1) long-term economic stagnation or prolonged negative economic growth in the advanced capitalist countries, (2) pervasive social decay and persistent cultural degeneration, or (3) pervasive and persistent popular rejection of capitalism and business culture by the population. Template:Citation needed

The Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin famously declared in 1920 that there are no "absolutely hopeless situations" for capitalism; short of an anti-capitalist political revolution overthrowing the rule of the bourgeoisie, the system could always recover sooner or later.<ref name="marxists_Lenin_1920">Template:Citation</ref> Lenin considered that the fate of capitalism was essentially a political issue, as it depended on the outcome of class struggles. The leaders of the Communist International (founded in 1919) believed that with the First World War, a new world epoch of wars and revolutions had begun, and the Comintern programme defined imperialism as the highest and final stage of capitalism.<ref name="marxists_Lenin_191606">Template:Citation; John Riddell (ed.), Lenin’s Struggle for a Revolutionary International. Documents, 1907-1916: The Preparatory Years. New York: Pathfinder Press, 1984; "The Platform of the Communist International", in: Theses, Resolutions and Manifestos of the First Four Congresses of the Third International, translated by Alix Holt and Barbara Holland. London: Ink Links 1980.[1]; Jane Degras (ed.), The Communist International, 1919-1943. London: Routledge, 1971.</ref> The term "late capitalism" was generally not used by Marxist-Leninists. They used the concept of state monopoly capitalism (originally formulated by Lenin) to denote the highest developmental stage of capitalism.<ref>Gerd Hardach et al., A short history of socialist economic thought. New York: St Martins Press, 1978, chapter 4, p. 63f.</ref>

Many non-Marxist historians and sociologists, however, have preferred more neutral terms, such as the "late modern era"<ref>David Inglis, "Better late than modern? Between ‘late capitalism’ and ‘late modernity’". European Journal of Social Theory, Volume 27, Issue 4, 2024, pp. 521–539.</ref> or "post-modern era". Some Continental and Anglo-Saxon historians refer to late bourgeois society, in contrast to early bourgeois society in the 17th and 18th century and classical bourgeois society in the 19th and early 20th century.

According to Google Books Ngram Viewer, the frequency of mentions per year of the term "late capitalism" in publications has increased steadily since the 1960s. In 2017, an article in The Atlantic highlighted that the term "late capitalism" was again in vogue in America, as an ironic term for modern business culture.<ref name="theatlantic_Lowrey_20170501">Template:Cite magazine See also: Kimberley Amadeo, "What is Late Stage Capitalism?". The Balance (New York), 17 June 2024.[2]; David Aviles, "We live in a time of ‘late capitalism’. But what does that mean? And what’s so late about it?" The Conversation, December 7, 2022 [3]; David Elias Aviles Espinoza, "Unpacking late capitalism". University of Sydney News, 20 December 2022.[4]</ref> In contemporary academic or journalistic usage, late capitalism often refers to a new mix of (1) high-tech advances, (2) the concentration of (speculative) financial capital, (3) post-Fordism (transition of mass production in huge factories, as pioneered by Henry Ford, towards specialized markets based on networks of smaller and more flexible manufacturing units),<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> and (4) growing income inequality.<ref>Harry Targ, Challenging late Capitalism, Neoliberal Globalization, & Militarism. Carl Davidson, 2006, p. 15–26</ref>

Intellectual history of the concept

Sombart's legacy

The term "late capitalism" was first used by the German social scientist Werner Sombart in a 1928 publication<ref>Specifically, Werner Sombart, "Die Wandlungen des Kapitalismus" [="The transformations of capitalism", a lecture given at the conference of the Vereins für Sozialpolitik in Zürich, on 13 September 1928]. In: Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, Vol. 28, 1928, pp. 243-256. Transcripts of the conference were published in 1929: Franz Boese (ed.), Wandlungen des Kapitalismus. Auslandanleihen. Kredit und Konjunktur auf Grund der stenographischen Niederschrift. München, Duncker & Humblot 1929. See also Talcott Parsons, "'Capitalism' In Recent German Literature: Sombart and Weber." Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 36, No. 6, December 1928, pp. 641-661.</ref> after he had completed his three-volume magnum opus Der Moderne Kapitalismus ["Modern Capitalism"], which was published from 1902 through 1927 (only the first volume of Sombart's Modern capitalism has been translated into English so far.<ref>Werner Sombart, Modern Capitalism - Volume 1: The Pre-Capitalist Economy: A systematic historical depiction of Pan-European economic life from its origins to the present day, parts I and II. Wellington, New Zealand: K. A. Nitz Publishing, 2019 and 2023.</ref> Sombart divided capitalism into different historical stages of development:

• Pre-capitalist or proto-capitalist society (vorkapitalistische Wirtschaft) from the early Middle Ages up to 1500 AD, the subject of the first volume of Modern capitalism.
• Early capitalism (Frühkapitalismus) in 1500–1800, dealt with in the second volume.
• The heyday of capitalism, or advanced capitalism (Hochkapitalismus) from 1800 to World War I, the subject of the third volume.<ref>In this volume, Sombart does not explicitly mention or analyze "late capitalism", although he identifies some new trends, such as the increased role of the state in the economy.</ref>
• Late capitalism (Spätkapitalismus) since then, discussed or referred to in a few lectures and articles.<ref>Werner Sombart, "Die Wandlungen des Kapitalismus".In: Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, Vol. 28, 1928, pp. 243-256; Werner Sombart, "Economic Theory and Economic History". The Economic History Review, Vol. 2, No. 1, January 1929, pp. 1-19; Werner Sombart, "Kapitalismus". In: Alfred Vierkandt (ed.), Handwörterbuch der Soziologie [1931], 2nd edition. Stuttgart: Enke Verlag, 1931 , pp. 258-277; Werner Sombart, Die Zukunft des Kapitalismus[=The future of capitalism, a lecture dated 29 February 1932, edited by Elmar Altvater]. Berlin: Mimesis Verlag, 2017; Werner Sombart, "Capitalism", in: Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Volume 3. New York: Macmillan, 1930, pp. 195-208.</ref>

Concluding his 1928 Zürich lecture on the transformations of capitalism, Sombart stated:

Beyond a few articles and lectures, however, Sombart never published any comprehensive treatise on late capitalism. His studies were disrupted by the new Nazi government when he was 70 years old (he died in 1941, when he was 78). Like many other German intellectuals, he hoped that Hitler's leadership would revive Germany from more than a decade of economic woes, social decay and misery; he regarded national socialism as a type of socialism, and he supported the Nazi Party (while retaining much of his intellectual independence, as a septuagenarian). Because of this fact and because of his sociological portrayals of Jews and Judaism in some of his writings,<ref> See for example: Werner Sombart, The Jews and modern capitalism. Kitchener: Batoche Books, 2001.</ref> he was often regarded as a "Nazi intellectual" and as antisemitic.<ref>According to the antisemitic ideologue Theodor Fritsch, Sombart was far too friendly to Jewry in his analysis, but Fritsch (like many other antisemitists) was not averse to plagiarizing Sombart's ideas to bolster his own case. See: Jerry Z. Muller, The Mind and the Market: Capitalism in Modern European Thought. New York: Alfred A. Knopf 2002, p. 255; Theodor Fritsch [under the pseudonym of F. Roderich-Stoltheim], The riddle of the Jews' success. Leipzig: Hammer Verlag, 1927, chapter 6.[5]</ref> It meant that after World War II, his writings and ideas largely vanished from university curricula.<ref>Reiner Grundmann and Nico Stehr, "Why Is Werner Sombart Not Part of the Core of Classical Sociology?: From Fame to (Near) Oblivion." Journal of Classical Sociology, Volume 1, Issue 2, 2001.</ref> Only since the late 1980s<ref>Bernhard vom Brocke (ed.), Sombart's "Moderner Kapitalismus": Materialien zur Kritik und Rezeption. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1987.</ref> and 1990s<ref>Jürgen Backhaus (ed.), Werner Sombart (1863-1941), Social scientist. Vol. 1: His life and Work, Vol. 2: His Theoretical Approach Reconsidered, Vol. 3: Then and Now. Weimar bei Marburg: Metropolis Verlag, 1996; Jürgen Backhaus (ed.), Werner Sombart (1863 - 1941) - Klassiker der Sozialwissenschaften Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme. Marburg: Metropolis Verlag, 2000; Nico Stehr & Reiner Grundmann (eds.), Werner Sombart: Economic Life in the Modern Age. New Brunswick: Transaction, 2001; Christopher Adair-Toteff, Werner Sombart und der „Geist“ des modernen Kapitalismus. Wiederentdeckung eines Klassikers. Cham: Springer Gabler, 2025.</ref> did significant scholarly interest in Sombart's intellectual legacy begin to revive, with new appraisals and studies of particular aspects of his oeuvre.

Interwar years and World War II

Ever since the famous theoretical controversy between orthodox Marxists and revisionists in the 1890s, socialists have been discussing the decline, breakdown and collapse of bourgeois society.<ref>F.R. Hansen, The breakdown of capitalism. A history of the idea in Western Marxism, 1883–1983. London: Routledge, 1985.</ref> There were many attempts at theoretical and mathematical proofs of the downfall of capitalism, but also attempts to create a perspective on the nature of the epoch and the future of society, to guide political action.

In the post–World War I reconstruction era, many of the wartime regulations in Europe continued, and the state played the leading role in repairing, rebuilding and reorganizing society.<ref>Ivan T. Berend, An economic history of twentieth-century Europe. Cambridge University Press, 2016, chapter 2.</ref> According to historian Edward H. Carr, "In Europe after 1919, the planned economy... became the practice, if not the theory, of almost every state."<ref>Edward H. Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis. New York: Harper & Row, 1964, p. 51 (cited in Ivan T. Berend, An economic history of twentieth-century Europe. Cambridge University Press, 2016, p.58.</ref>

Addressing the Kiel congress of the German Social-Democratic Party in 1927, Rudolf Hilferding claimed that:

The term "late capitalism" began to be used by socialists in continental Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, in the context of the Great Depression.<ref>See, for example, Natalie Moszkowska's Zur Dynamik des Spätkapitalismus. Zurich: Verlag Der Aufbruch, 1943.</ref> At the time, this was not an especially radical turn of phrase, because many people of different political persuasions really believed that the existing social order was doomed, or was at least ripe for renewal and transformation. The European economy became highly regulated, and that reached a peak during the years of war economy in 1939–45.

During World War II, even leading American economists believed that the economic problems might eventually become insurmountable. In their book Capitalism since World War II, Philip Armstrong, Andrew Glyn and John Harrison commented that:

In his book Capitalism, socialism and democracy (1943), Schumpeter also stated:

Post–World War II era

In Russia, the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the "general crisis of capitalism" in the imperialist epoch and the theory of state monopoly capitalism defined the official government perspective for the postwar era.<ref>Gerd Hardach et al., A short history of socialist economic thought. New York: St Martins Press, 1978, chapter 4.</ref> The historian Paolo Spriano describes how this caused the dismissal of one of Russia's top economists, after he dared to suggest that there would not be a deep capitalist crisis after the end of World War II:

In the West, there had been similar expectations (across the whole political spectrum) that a severe systemic crisis would very likely occur after the war. When that did not happen, it was a surprise and a relief. However, what exactly could explain this turn of events is open to debate.<ref>Philip Armstrong, Andrew Glyn and John Harrison, Capitalism since World War II: the making and breakup of the great boom. London: Fontana paperbacks, 1984, Part 1: post-war reconstruction, 1945-1950.</ref> Different theories about the success of the postwar reconstruction effort have been proposed.<ref>For example, Charlie Giattino states that during the US post-war baby boom 1946-1964, the fertility rate averaged nearly 4 children per woman, twice as many as in the 1930s (according to US Census data). An estimated 70 million new people were born in the US between 1946 and 1964. In 1964, this baby boom generation represented almost 40% of the total US population (Charlie Giattino, "The 'baby boom' saw a sharp rise in the fertility rate in the United States". Our world in data, 10 October 2024). [6]Template:Creative Commons text attribution notice</ref>

The concept of "late capitalism" was used in the 1960s in Germany and Austria, by Western Marxists writing in the tradition of the Frankfurt School and Austromarxism. In 1965, Fritz Vilmar published Rüstung und Abrüstung im Spätkapitalismus ["Armament and Disarmament in Late Capitalism"].<ref>Fritz Vilmar, Rüstung und Abrüstung im Spätkapitalismus (1965, reprint Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag, 1973).</ref> Leo Michielsen and Andre Gorz popularized the term "neo-capitalism" in France and Belgium, with new analyses of postwar capitalism.<ref>Leo Michielsen, Neo-kapitalisme. Brussel: Jacquemotte Stichting, 1969. André Gorz, Stratégie ouvriére et néocapitalisme, Paris: Le Seuil, 1964.</ref> Jacques Derrida preferred neo-capitalism to post- or late-capitalism.<ref>Catherine Malabou/Jacques Derrida, Counterpath (2004) p. 114–115</ref> In 1968, Rudi Dutschke, a leading spokesman of the German student revolt, published a pamphlet entitled "The contradictions of late capitalism, the anti-authoritarian students and their relationship to the third world."<ref>Rudi Dutschke, Die Widersprüche des Spätkapitalismus, die antiautoritären Studenten und ihr Verhältnis zur Dritten Welt, in: U. Bergmann, R. Dutschke, W. Lefevre, B. Rabehl, Rebellion der Studenten oder Die neue Opposition. Reinbek bei Hamburg : Rowohlt Verlag, 1968.[7]</ref> Theodor Adorno preferred "late capitalism" over "industrial society," which was the theme of the 16th Congress of German Sociologists in 1968.<ref>Theodor W. Adorno (ed.) Spätkapitalismus oder Industriegesellschaft. Verhandlungen des 16. Deutschen Soziologentages. Stuttgart, 1969.</ref> In 1971, Leo Kofler published a book called Technologische Rationalität im Spätkapitalismus ("Technological Rationality in Late Capitalism").<ref>Leo Kofler, Technologische Rationalität im Spätkapitalismus. Frankfurt: Makol Verlag, 1971.</ref> Claus Offe published his essay "Spätkapitalismus – Versuch einer Begriffsbestimmung" ("Late Capitalism—an Attempt at a Conceptual Definition") in 1972.<ref>Claus Offe, Strukturprobleme ds kapitalistischen Staates. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1972, pp. 7–25.</ref> In 1972, Alfred Sohn-Rethel published Die ökonomische Doppelnatur des Spätkapitalismus.<ref>Alfred Sohn-Rethel, Die ökonomische Doppelnatur des Spätkapitalismus. Luchterhand: Darmstad/Nieuwied, 1972.</ref> In 1973, Jürgen Habermas published his Legitimationsprobleme im Spätkapitalismus (Legitimacy problems in late capitalism).<ref>Jürgen Habermas, Legitimationsprobleme im Spätkapitalismus Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1973.</ref> In 1975, Ernest Mandel published his 1972 PhD thesis Late Capitalism in English at New Left Books. Herbert Marcuse also accepted the term.<ref>Herbert Marcuse, "Protosocialism and Late Capitalism: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis Based on Bahro's Analysis". International Journal of Politics, Vol. 10 No. 2/3, Summer-Fall 1980, 25–48.</ref> In 1979, Volker Ronge published Bankpolitik im Spätkapitalismus: politische Selbstverwaltung des Kapitals?, a study of banking in late capitalism.<ref>Volker Ronge, Bankpolitik im Spätkapitalismus: politische Selbstverwaltung des Kapitals? Frankfurt am Main : Suhrkamp, 1979.</ref> In 1981, Winfried Wolf and Michel Capron extended Mandel's analysis of the long recession in Spätkapitalismus in den achtziger Jahren.<ref>Winfried Wolf and Michel Capron, Spätkapitalismus in den achtziger Jahren. Bilanz der Weltwirtschaftsrezession 1980/81; die Strukturkrise der Autoindustrie und der Stahlbranche. Frankfurt/Main : ISP, 1981.</ref>

Ernest Mandel's analysis

Mandel aimed to explain the unexpected revival of capitalism after World War II, and the long economic boom during 1947–73,<ref>Ernest Mandel, "History and the laws of motion of capitalism" [Lecture at Tilburg Polytech, The Netherlands, 1970]. Amsterdam: International Institute for Research and Education, translated 13 June 2023.[8]</ref> which showed the fastest economic growth ever seen in human history.<ref>The Jameson Reader, p. 257.</ref> His analyses<ref>Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism. London: New Left Books, 1975, chapter 4: "'Long waves' in the history of capitalism"; Ernest Mandel, Long waves of capitalist development: a Marxist interpretation (2nd. edition). London: Verso, 1995.</ref> stimulated new interest in the theory of long waves in economic development.<ref>Christopher Freeman (ed.), Long waves in the world economy. London: Frances Pinter Publishers, 1984; Alfred Kleinknecht, Ernest Mandel and Immanuel Wallerstein (eds.), New findings in long-wave research. Houndmills, UK: Macmillan Press, 1992; Francisco Louçã & Jan Reijnders (eds.), The foundations of long wave theory: models and methodology, Vols. 1 and 2. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 1999; Grace K. Hong, The Ruptures of American Capital (2006) p. 152.</ref>

According Ernest Mandel, late capitalism involves the commodification and industrialisation of more and more parts of the economy and society, where human services are turned into commercial products.<ref>Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism (London: New Left Books, 1975) p. 406.</ref> Mandel believed that "[f]ar from representing a 'post-industrial society', late capitalism [...] constitutes generalized universal industrialization for the first time in history".<ref>Ibid., p. 387</ref> At the same time, the role of the state in the economy and society kept growing. During and after World War II, the size of enterprises, ownership concentration and the scale of mass production increased, the activities of multinational corporations expanded,<ref>Ernest Mandel, "International capitalism and 'supranationality'" [1967], reprinted in: Hugo Radice (ed.), International firms and modern imperialism. Harmondsworth: Penguin books, 1975, pp. 143-157.</ref> and there were more and more attempts at coordinated economic planning (or "economic programming").<ref>Ernest Mandel, Late capitalism, op. cit., p. 231f. and p. 495.</ref>

Until the late 1960s, Mandel preferred to use the term "neo-capitalism", which was most often used by intellectuals in Belgium and France at that time.<ref>Ernest Mandel, The economics of neocapitalism. Socialist Register 1964, pp. 56–67 [9].</ref> This idea drew attention to the fact that new characteristics of capitalism had emerged in its postwar recovery. At the time, however, ultraleftist Marxists objected to the term "neo-capitalism", because, according to them, it might suggest that capitalism was no longer capitalism, and this would lead to reformist deviations rather than to the total overthrow of capitalism.<ref>Paul Mattick, "Ernest Mandel’s 'Late Capitalism', in: Paul Mattick, Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory. London: Merlin Press, 1974.[10]; Chris Harman, "Mandel’s Late Capitalism". International Socialism, Vol. 2, number 1, July 1978, pp. 79ff;[11] Max Boddy, "The ICFI’s exposure of Ernest Mandel’s “neo-capitalism” and the analysis of the global economic crisis: 1967–1971". World Socialist Web Site, 8 September 2023.[12]</ref> The proof of this seemed to be that Mandel argued—at the zenith of the capitalist postwar boom—for "anti-capitalist structural reforms".<ref>Ernest Mandel, A socialist strategy for Western Europe. London: Institute for workers' control, 1965.[13]</ref>

Mandel distinguished three stages in the development of the capitalist mode of production:

• Freely competitive capitalist production, roughly from 1700 to 1870, through the growth of industrial capital in domestic markets.
• The phase of monopoly capitalism, roughly from 1870 to 1940, is characterized by the imperialist competition for international markets, and the exploitation of colonial territories.
• The epoch of late capitalism emerging out of the Second World War, which has as its dominant features the multinational corporation, globalization, consumerism, and increasingly internationalized financial markets.<ref>The Jameson Reader p. 165–166</ref>

The French edition of Mandel's Late Capitalism was titled The third age of capitalism.<ref>Ernest Mandel, Le troisième âge du capitalisme. Paris: Editions 10/18 (Série Rouge), 1976; 2nd. ed. Éditions de la Passion, 1997.</ref>

In part, Mandel's analysis was a critique of Henryk Grossmann's breakdown theory, according to which capitalism would collapse after a series of business cycles, because of insufficient surplus value production.<ref>Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism. London: New Left Books, 1975, pp. 31-32.</ref> But Mandel also criticized the methodological approach of Rudolf Hilferding, Rosa Luxemburg, Nikolai Bukharin, Otto Bauer, Michal Kalecki, and Charles Bettelheim.<ref>Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism. London: New Left Books, 1975, chapter 1.</ref> Mandel argued that important qualitative changes occurred in the functioning of the capitalist system during and after World War II. Intermediate between the periodization of business cycles and the postulated ultimate collapse of capitalism, Mandel argued, there were epochs of faster and slower economic growth.

In the history of capitalist mode of production since the 1820s, "long waves" of economic growth could be observed in time series data on economic activity. These waves typically lasted about 20 to 25 years, from peak to trough or from trough to the next peak.<ref> Ernest Mandel, Long Waves of Capitalist Development – the Marxist Interpretation (2nd expanded edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.</ref> However, Mandel did not accept the hypothesis of Nikolai Kondratiev that there existed endogenously predetermined "long cycles" in the history of capitalism.<ref>Ernest Mandel, "Het lange golven debat: de inzet". Vlaams Marxistisch Tijdschrift, Vol. 25, Issue 1, March 1991, pp. 7-17.</ref> In particular, there existed no enduring economic mechanism which automatically created an economic recovery after a severe economic depression; much depended on state policy decisions and on the outcome of political battles between warring social classes.

In a series of publications, Mandel analyzed the dynamics and results of the unexpected postwar boom, the long world recession of 1974 to 1982,<ref>Ernest Mandel, The second slump. London: Verso, 1978; Ernest Mandel, Die Krise: Weltwirtschaft 1974-1986. Hamburg: Konkret Literatur Verlag, 1987.</ref> the debt crisis of developing countries, the 1987 stock crash and the long-term systemic crisis of late capitalism, as basis for his projections about the long-term prospects of world capitalism in the future.<ref>See the Ernest Mandel bibliography by Wolfgang Lubitz, Petra Lubitz and others.</ref>

In the tradition of the orthodox Marxists, Mandel tried to characterize the nature of the modern epoch as a whole, with reference to the main long-run laws of motion of capitalism specified by Marx.<ref>The Jameson Reader, p. 216–217</ref> These laws of motion were: 1. The capitalist compulsion to accumulate and invest for profit, under the pressure of business competition. 2. The tendency towards constant technological revolutions, which increase productivity. 3. The constant attempt to increase absolute and relative surplus value. 4. The tendency toward increasing concentration and centralization of capital. 5. The tendency for the organic composition of capital to increase. 6. The tendency of the average profit rate on capital invested in industries to decrease, in the long term. 7. The inevitability of class struggle (or class conflicts) under capitalism. 8. The tendency of the working class to grow in size and social polarization to increase. 9. The tendency towards growing objective socialization of labour. 10. The inevitability of recurrent economic crises in capitalist society.<ref>Ernest Mandel, "Karl Marx", in: John Eatwell et al., The New Palgrave Marxian Economics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1990, pp. 1-38.[14]</ref>

Mandel thought that six basic variables were most important for the long-term global growth pattern of the capitalist mode of production and its average profitability: (i) the evolution of the general and sectoral organic compositions of capital; (ii) the division of constant capital between circulating and fixed capital; (iii) the evolution of the rate of surplus value; (iv) the development of the rate of accumulation, and more specifically the reinvestment of surplus value in production; (v) the development of the turnover of capital; and (vi) the interactions between the producer goods sector and the consumer goods sector. These variables could to an extent fluctuate semi-independently of each other. <ref>Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism. London: New Left Books, 1975, p. 39, 42-43. See also: Ernest Mandel, "Partially independent variables and internal logic in classical Marxist economic analysis" in: Social Science Information (London), Volume 24, Issue 3, 1985, pp. 485-505. Reprinted in: Ulf Himmelstrand (ed.), Interfaces in economic & social analysis, London: Routledge, 1992, pp. 33-50. </ref>

Fredric Jameson's analysis

{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}

Fredric Jameson borrowed Mandel's vision as a basis for his widely cited Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism.<ref name="Jameson_Postmodernism_1991">Template:Cite book</ref> Jameson's postmodernity involves a new mode of cultural production (developments in literature, film, fine art, video, social theory, etc.) which differs markedly from the preceding era of Modernism, particularly in its treatment of subject position, temporality and narrative.

In the modernist era, the dominant ideology was that society could be re-engineered on the basis of scientific and technical knowledge, and on the basis of a popular consensus about the meaning of progress. From the second half of the 20th century, however, modernism was gradually eclipsed by postmodernism, which is skeptical about social engineering and features a lack of consensus about the meaning of progress. In the wake of rapid technological and social change, all the old certainties have broken down. This begins to destabilize every part of life, making almost everything malleable, changeable, transient and impermanent.Template:Cn

Jameson argues that "every position on postmodernism today—whether apologia or stigmatization—is also...necessarily an implicitly or explicitly political stance on the nature of multinational capitalism today".<ref>The Jameson Reader, p. 190</ref> A section of Jameson's analysis has been reproduced on the Marxists Internet Archive. Jameson regards the late capitalist stage as a new and previously unparalleled development with a global reach—whether defined as a multinational or informational capitalism. At the same time, late capitalism diverges from Marx's prognosis for the final stage of capitalism.<ref>The Jameson Reader p. 164–171</ref>

Other analyses of the epoch

Immanuel Wallerstein believed that capitalism was in the process of being replaced by another world system.<ref>Michele Dillon, Introduction to Sociological Theory (2009) p. 39.</ref> The American literary critic and cultural theorist Frederic Jameson thought Rudolf Hilferding's term the latest stage of capitalism (jüngster Kapitalismus) perhaps more prudent and less prophetic-sounding<ref>M. Hardt/K. Weeks eds., The Jameson Reader (2000) p. 257</ref> but Jameson often used "late capitalism" in his writings. Hegel's theme of "the end of history" was rekindled by Kojève in his Introduction to the Reading of Hegel.

Further reading

• Jacques Derrida, Specters of Marx (1994)
• Fredric Jameson, "Culture and Finance Capitalism" Critical Inquiry 24 (1997) pp. 246–65
• Template:Cite book
• Immanuel Wallerstein. The Essential Wallerstein (New York: The New Press, 2000), World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction (Durham: Duke University Press, 2004).

External links

• Youtube late capitalism FAQ video by The Atlantic
• Video: What Is Late Stage Capitalism?