this is just a very brief and very overdue rant, because.
“late capitalism” is bullshit. it’s a meaningless phrase that exists only to pretend that the leninist theology of a Guaranteed Path To Salvation Revolution is real. which, as the past century of the abject failure of leninism (with or without other names added to it*) to create any form of socialism anywhere except in its own press releases shows, is patent garbage.
capitalism does indeed look different, and function rather differently, today than it did fifty years ago, or a hundred, or a hundred-fifty, or back when it emerged a few centuries ago. there are quite a few excellent books analyzing those shifts: personally, i like the Monthly Review gang’s analysis of the mid/late 20th century (braverman, sweezey, and magdoff being the Big Names), rosa luxemburg’s analysis of the previous turn-of-the-century period, cedric robinson’s analysis for the whole arc, and the johnson-forrest/Facing Reality circle’s analysis for many different periods (c.l.r. james, grace lee & james boggs, etc).
but the only reason to call any of these modes of capitalism “late” is a teleological fortune-telling fantasy, which has been a massive obstacle to actual strategizing for over 150 years. it was dumb and wrong when marx did it. it was dumb and wrong when lenin did it. it was dumb and wrong when trotsky, stalin, mao, castro, che, and anyone else you care to name did it. it’s dumb and wrong when people do it now.
stuart hall was talking about the desperate need for “a marxism without guarantees” forty-two years ago. it’s disheartening to hear people – even people who align themselves with hall and his thinking; even people who aren’t marxists at all – still using language that exists only to insist on the fiction of a guarantee.
“contemporary capitalism” is right there. it’s specific, and it’s accurate. “late capitalism” tips your hand that you haven’t actually thought about political economy, whether you’ve managed that by just not doing it, or by internalizing leninist theology instead.
you can use “late” for capitalism after we’ve defeated it – as in “the late capitalism”. and that time will come more speedily, and more likely in our days, if we don’t reinforce a fantasy of inevitability that inhibits creativity and encourages repeating failed approaches like the ones leninism offers.
.
* as a side-note, the leninist way of naming ideological currents is hilarious, and gives away the uncritical reliance on The Authority of the Great Fathers that’s at the heart of that tradition. leninists call themselves “marxists”; trotskyists, stalinists and maoists call themselves “marxist-leninists” or “leninists”; followers of various later apostles (gonzalo, avakian, etc) call themselves “marxist-leninist-maoists” or “maoists”. the actual immediate authority, the one whose orders and whims are being followed unquestioningly, must not be named; instead, followers have to make it clear that they do indeed Know Who His Father Is. (you can fill in your own christian-theology glosses on this; it’s trivially easy, and every one of them is accurate as well as funny)