Late stage capitalism is a doomer’s cult which implies that by definition these things cannot be solved. Which is, of course, nonsense - we can easily roll back to “mid stage” or “early stage” capitalism if we actually cared. I think we will, if not just yet.

Frankly, to me, it’s also one of the most annoying “look at how smart I am” terms online; especially considering there is nothing capitalist about how olympians or healthcare are funded. Criticizing a system built mostly on government handouts (by definition a socialist or communist structure) as being a late-stage capitalism problem shows you’ve got no clue what these terms actually mean.

> Criticizing a system built mostly on government handouts (by definition a socialist or communist structure) as being a late-stage capitalism problem shows you’ve got no clue what these terms actually mean.

That's just the capitalists outright purchasing the legislators, so Walmart can employ people at minimum wage and let the taxpayers foot the bill for their healthcare and food stamps.

>so Walmart can employ people at minimum wage and let the taxpayers foot the bill for their healthcare and food stamps.

Do those people magically start needing food and healthcare once they're employed by walmart? Why is it suddenly walmarts problem the moment they become a walmart employee? Would anyone stakeholder in this situation (the employees, society, walmart) be better off if the employee was no longer employed?

I think the argument is that their labour is being subsidised which amounts to a benefit for BigSam.

If we had a USB or negative income tax system then that benefit would be clearly spread across the whole population evenly but instead the stamp system has many rules and restrictions that allow Walmart to strategically benefit by both positioning the role at just the right amount to qualify for the benefit (but no more) and frustratingly by being the vendor honouring the stamps.

>If we had a USB or negative income tax system then that benefit would be clearly spread across the whole population evenly

But we do? The EITC is basically a negative income tax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit

>I think the argument is that their labour is being subsidised which amounts to a benefit for BigSam.

Ironically negative income taxes are closer to a labor "subsidy", than food stamps, because they're contingent on income (ie. labor), unlike food stamps which don't give you more money if you make more.

In that case, we’re not in a capitalist system at all, but a capitalist-socialist hybrid. Arguably, we’ve been in the hybrid since the New Deal, and it seems to have inherited the same socialism issues China is also grappling with.

Social democracy is the term that is usually used.

Late stage capitalism is just economics and philosophy for unlearned people who haven't read much or had much education in economics or philosophy.

Imagine believing in historicism in 2024. It is even dumber than believing in witchcraft or horoscopes.

Government assistance is neither socialism nor communism. You do not understand what those terms mean.

Additionally, most of the government handouts we see are going to large corporations or the military.

> Criticizing a system built mostly on government handouts

This was not what I was criticising. It was about turning someone’s life into entertainment and, in this extreme GoFundMe example, the right to life becoming a function of how entertaining one is.

> (by definition a socialist or communist structure)

Socialism and communism are not about government handouts. Both are about controlling the means of production (industries, farms) by the people (implying democratic representation). You might correctly argue that the Soviet Union was not a shining beacon of how to implement it, and this is what details almost every discussion on the subject.

> You might correctly argue that the Soviet Union was not a shining beacon of how to implement it

India as implemented Socialism btw. Which lead to economic crisis[0]

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Indian_economic_crisis

There isn't any mention of socialism, or anything related to it in your link.

It sounds like a classic balance of payments issue (importing too much compared to exports/tourism/other revenues) being hit with an exploding in price critical import (oil). Sri Lanka had the same issues just a few years back, was it "socialism" too?

India until 1991 was very socialist. After 1991 they implemented reforms to reduce state controls. This [0] explains a bit better

[0] https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/india-and-the-tragedy-of-soci...

What a shittily written article, staining the Adam Smith name.

Nationalising a bunch of critical industries isn't "socialism" and the article utterly fails to explain how it is or why it's related. Historical UK, and modern France, Russia, UAE, Saudi Arabia also had multiple crucial industries which were fully nationally owned. Were they socialist too?

Private companies needed to obtain license [0] from the govt to start or to expand.

Some companies were even prosecuted for producing more than what was allowed. This was at least Nehru's (first Prime Minister) version of Democratic Socialism.

[0]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj

That's still not what socialism means. Absurdly tight government control over the economy, and the existence of a private market economy, doesn't mean that workers owned the means of production.

It was along the lines of public owns the means of production.