Precisely because Marxism makes predictions, it can fail to understand the current and future state of economics, while capitalism is just an economic system that exists and doesn't have to understand anything (just as Communism would be).
> it is easy to see the weakness of the current system, to identify the pressure points and where it will fail, collapse.
I don't think it is actually that simple. Marx saw the working conditions of coal miners in Germany as a weakness that would lead to an uprising. That revolution never happened and their working conditions improved within the system (unions likely played a part). I'm actually not aware of any Marxist revolution in an already industrialized country. (The Soviet Union and Mao's China famously miscalculated their industrialization plans.)
Today we might identify Automation as the weakness that will lead to a Socialist restructuring of society, with shared ownership of the means of production and all that. But it might all come differently and we could end up in a completely stratified society, without replacing Capitalism.
> Because one is not good at the latter does not mean the critique of the former is illegitimate.
I don't think Banthum was trying to insinuate that, but talking about something that's still happening as "late stage" is a bit presumptuous about your ability to tell the future.
> Are you suggesting that perhaps things have not significantly changed in regards to technology and the economy since the 19th century?
The complete opposite, I would think. Since the various problems plaguing the Capitalist system at the time didn't lead to its downfall and have mostly disappeared, any similar claim needs some very good arguments to explain why it will be different this time.
I don't see any substance to your post. My response would be that it is easy to see the weakness of the current system, to identify the pressure points and where it will fail, collapse. It is not as easy to see where we are going.
Because one is not good at the latter does not mean the critique of the former is illegitimate.
So can you please contribute something other than incendiary platitudes? You lower the state of discourse on this site.
ETA:
> Of course, they've been predicting this 'late stage' and inevitable 'collapse of capitalism' since the 19th century.
Are you suggesting that perhaps things have not significantly changed in regards to technology and the economy since the 19th century?