The term "late-stage capitalism" is frequently invoked today, often to describe a wide array of economic and social grievances. However, I'd argue that we are far from reaching this threshold. My contention is that the term is currently ill-defined, leading to a potentially complacent outlook that prevents us from recognizing the true depth to which an economic system can descend. I would call our current situation "mid-stage capitalism", or perhaps even "early-mid".
My Specific Definitions for Late-Stage Capitalism
To move beyond vague notions, I propose two very specific metrics. By my definition, late-stage capitalism has been reached when:
- The bottom 80% of the population, whether by wealth or income, own less than one percent (1%) of the means of production (e.g., stocks, shares, bonds).
- The bottom 80% own less than five percent (5%) of the total products that have been produced (by dollar value). This includes all other assets that don't necessarily produce wealth, such as TVs, food in the refrigerator, the refrigerator itself, stuffed animals, streaming subscriptions, and so forth.
The core idea here is that we haven't reached late-stage capitalism until the vast majority truly owns next to nothing, and crucially, are initially "happy" about it. This implies a societal shift where the owning class successfully convinces the populace that they neither need nor desire to own any means of production or even significant personal items. And when this dispossession inevitably leads to unhappiness, the blame is expertly redirected towards convenient scapegoats: immigrants, trans people, "the left," or geopolitical rivals like China.
The Walmart Bunk Bed Scenario: A Hypothetical Reality
Consider a thought experiment to illustrate this point. Imagine a future where Walmart, driven by unchecked corporate greed, begins to offer "housing" to its employees. This isn't just a break room, but rows and rows of bunk beds in the basement of its stores. Initially, employees might be genuinely happy about this. Why?
- Housing costs have become so astronomically expensive that this "solution" offers a glimmer of hope.
- They might even believe this arrangement allows them to save for a down payment on their own place.
However, the cycle continues. Wages remain stagnant for decades, while housing and other essential goods continue to skyrocket in price. The employees, trapped in their bunks, eventually realize their dream of ownership is an illusion. And at this point, the corporate narrative kicks in, convincing them that their predicament is not due to systemic issues or corporate policies, but rather the fault of immigrants, trans people, "the left," or China.
"Once Walmart has rows and rows of bunk beds in the basement where employees are sleeping, and these employees are happy about it initially because housing is so expensive... and then Walmart continues to not raise wages for decades more, yet housing and other goods keep getting even more expensive... and the people in the bunks realize they'll never leave the bunks, and are convinced it's because of immigrants, trans people, 'the left', or China, at that point, MAYBE we'll be in late capitalism. But maybe not."
This scenario, while extreme, outlines the kind of economic and psychological manipulation that, in my view, defines truly "late-stage" capitalism. The numbers—1% ownership of the means of production and 5% of total goods by the bottom 80%—are exceedingly difficult to reach. We are not there yet, and calling our current situation "late" risks fostering a dangerous complacency.
Acknowledging that there is still a significant "distance to fall" should not lead to despair, but rather to a more urgent and precise understanding of the challenges ahead. It encourages us to actively resist the trajectory that could lead us to such a future, rather than passively accepting what we mistakenly believe is the end-stage.