‘Late Stage Capitalism’ – Leftist Cope or Marxist Truth?

‘Late Stage Capitalism’ is a term I’m sure needs little introduction. We’ve heard the slogan countless times before- that capitalism is ‘decaying,’ ‘dying,’ or otherwise ‘degenerating,’ and that a socialist (or something akin to socialist) revolution is just around the corner. Some are even so bold as to claim that capitalism’s back is already being broken, and that some sort of revolution is just around the corner. Today, leftists of all stripes are claiming the ‘lawless’ tactics of Donald Trump are fermenting a popular counter-swing, that current costs of living have forced global capitalism into a state where it must urgently reform or perish, or that Trump’s ‘showmanship’ is evidence that the United States is on the verge of collapse¹. Yet these claims, whether they’re broad mantras about the state of the world or prophecies about specific events, all orbit around a common concept: ‘Late Stage Capitalism.’

Despite its appropriation by politically-illiterates, the term ‘Late Stage Capitalism’ has its roots in Marxist theory. Marx’s Capital investigates the economic relations and characteristics of capitalism in order to understand its development and the intensifying contradictions that will lead to its downfall. In The German Ideology, he and Engels explore the question in a broader, political-economic manner, seeking to determine when a proletarian revolution becomes inevitable and outline some of the inherent characteristics of the socialist state. The term ‘Late Stage Capitalism’ itself was coined by economist Werner Sombart to characterise the depressive economies and chaotic politics of the post-World War I epoch². Later Marxists such as Amadeo Bordiga continued to follow a similar model, and the idea that capitalism evolves and decays in stages is generally considered a sound, uncontroversial, Marxist view³.

We also saw, though through different phrasing, the theory of Late Stage Capitalism applied during the October Revolution. Both Nikolai Bukharin’s Imperialism and World Economy and Lenin’s Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism claimed that capitalism was on the verge of global collapse, as evidenced by the heightening tensions between workers and capitalists across Europe⁴. Unfortunately, this prediction was overly optimistic, but it serves as further proof that ‘Late Stage Capitalism’ is a well-established Marxist theory that genuine proletarian revolutionaries found use for. We therefore must ask ourselves the following: why has ‘Late Stage Capitalism’ become a slogan of leftists and Marxists, even as its promises have failed time and time again? Further, what does genuine ‘Late Stage Capitalism’ look like?

“Let the dead bury their dead and mourn them. On the other hand, it is enviable to be the first to enter the new life alive; that is to be our lot.”
– Marx, letter to Ruge, 1843⁵

Self-centredness is a phenomenon I’m sure we’ve all encountered. We’ve all met people who, at least for a time, believe themselves to be the centre of the universe, the focal point which all people, events, and things seemingly orbit. Obviously, this is a false view; the universe does not centre around anyone. Yet in the eyes of the self-centred, it makes perfect sense. All that we perceive, all that we can sense, is necessarily connected to ourselves. There is no way for us to perceive the world independently of ourselves, of our bodies and minds. This holds true for all living beings, self-centred or otherwise; it is impossible to separate the objective reality in which we live from the manner in which we perceive it. Hence, the need for consensus-building and science, which, through consolidating multitudes of differing perspectives, is able to establish what is likely true from ‘flukes,’ or otherwise insufficient evidence. Through communication, we can see what objectively exists- and what is a product of our own faulty perceptions or biases, thereby destroying egocentric fallacies before they can warp our worldviews.

This communication is necessarily limited to our current epoch. We cannot travel in time to consult someone from two-hundred years ago, nor to speak with someone from two-hundred years in the future. Moreover, as time goes on and history progresses, we begin to lose track of events that were once vitally important as new crises and flashpoints emerge in our present. We are, put shortly, epoch-centred, invariantly stuck in the present with little recourse. Yes, we can speak with those from a generation before or after us to gain glimpses of the past or future, but even these perspectives are limited by the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia or the fantastic dreams of youth. Thus, even those ‘from another time’ are shackled to the present, unable to earnestly escape the epoch and gaze into what lay before or after.

I believe epoch-centredness plays a crucial role in the fallacious use of ‘Late Stage Capitalism.’ By virtue of being trapped in the present, our perspective of capitalism is necessarily skewed. Obviously, it is impossible to have complete knowledge of capitalism, contemporary or otherwise. Nobody can track every single transaction, every single worker, every single commodity, to see capitalism in its full, naked, detail. Moreover, many of those speaking on ‘Late Stage Capitalism’ lack the historical knowledge to competently compare past events with the present, as well as the theoretical knowledge to build predictions of the future. There is also the ‘lived experience’ component, which, though often secondary to the real, material facts, can help underscore which events were of great historical importance, and which, though powerful in imagery or foreshadowing, were comparatively unimportant in their time⁶. 

These issues can be rectified. We do not need to know about literally every transaction, worker, or commodity to understand how capitalism works. Through well-rounded political education, our ignorance of the past and of scientific socialism can be corrected. Personal accounts of the workers’ struggle can be found in memoirs, biographies, and anecdotes, and through them, a picture of events’ significance can be uncovered. Most leftists, and even some Marxists, don’t do this, however. Whether due to a lack of time, enthusiasm, or resources, they do not make an effort to become politically educated. Thus, they see the crises surrounding them today and falsely believe those of the past to be minuscule or irrelevant in comparison. Through their lived experience and lack of education, they magnify the significance of ongoing crises and minimise those of the past. Thus, leftists and uneducated Marxists conclude we are in ‘Late Stage Capitalism’ because it is experiencing crises, and overestimate the significance of these crises.

But what about the educated Marxists? How can their mistakes be understood? In this case, I am specifically talking about Marx’s own belief that his generation would be “the first generation to enter the new life [socialism],” as well as Bukharin and Lenin’s optimism during the October Revolution. The latter’s case is simple enough to explain: they had good reason to believe that world revolution was imminent. The first Great Imperial Slaughter had butchered millions of conscripted proletarians for no notable gain. It had ravaged entire countries, mauled generations of men, and plunged the economies of capitalism’s most developed states into crisis. Discontent was growing across Europe, being palpable in 1916, when Lenin wrote Imperialism, and had escalated into a proletarian revolution by 1917, when Bukharin finished editing his work. Revolution was underway in Russia, arguably the least developed bourgeois state in Europe, and it seemed inevitable that it would spread to Germany, Poland, and the rest of Eastern Europe. Revolutionary workers were also forming soviets in the United Kingdom, Italy, and Spain, and it was conceivable that, if a socialist revolution swept through Europe, it would spread to the rest of the world⁷. Of course, the optimism surrounding these events was, in hindsight, misplaced, though it is easy to see why Lenin and Bukharin held such favourable views of the situation.

Marx’s mistake is much harder to parse. In his time, the only proletarian revolution was the 1871 Paris Commune, a famously roughshod uprising that Marx himself acknowledged was inadequate for defeating its bourgeois enemies⁸⁹. Beyond this single uprising, there was growing working class consciousness, but little chance of a genuine, successful, proletarian revolution. Indeed, Marx wrote extensively on the bourgeois revolutions sweeping the world and how capitalism was taking its first steps in most of it. In his epoch, it was feudalism which had to be overturned, and this revolution was being undertaken by the then historically-progressive bourgeoisie all across the world. In Germany, France, and Switzerland, Marx and Engels recommended reforms to deepen and accelerate the bourgeois revolution, which would in turn hasten the development of the proletariat and its revolution¹⁰. Once bourgeois rule was solidified in these countries, they then transitioned to the position of communists today, demanding the severance of all alliances with the bourgeoisie, and the total independence of the workers’ movement¹¹. Elsewhere, capitalism had only begun to take root, and thus a bourgeois revolution was required before a proletarian revolution could even be conceived of. Marx stressed this particular point when analysing states beyond the borders of Europe, such as Indonesia, India, and China¹². Such circumstances are then perhaps the worst conceivable for a proletarian revolution, and an erudite mind such Marx’s should have recognised this, no?

It seems to me, then, that Marx’s belief in a proletarian revolution during his life was more personal than theoretical. His theories continue to hold true, but he may have personally held desires which contradicted his scientific approach. Perhaps his letter to Ruge was deceptive; Ruge had written to him seeking comfort amidst his- sadly correct -appraisal that a proletarian revolution would not occur anytime soon. It is possible that Marx claimed a workers’ revolution was rapidly-approaching as a means of lifting the spirits of Ruge and other revolutionaries facing similar realisations. Perhaps he wrote to reassure himself, making these claims not as a scientific observation, but as “the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions,” writing to give himself “illusory happiness” whilst living in “a condition that requires illusions.¹³¹⁴” This is further evidenced by the forms of communication Marx used to make such statements. His remarks regarding the ‘imminent’ workers’ revolution took the form of letters and personal correspondence, not books, articles, or otherwise scholarly studies. Just as we do not deeply consider and sincerely believe every last word we say in day-to-day conversation, so too can such mistakes be understood as non-serious by looking at the context of their formation. In my view, it is likely that these words were meant as propaganda or reassurance rather than as rigorous scientific analysis.

We therefore find the incorrect claims of ‘Late Stage Capitalism’ spouted by the educated Marxists to be a mix of warranted optimism and personal affirmations. In the former case, it was a well-founded, though ultimately incorrect, reading of the situation. In the latter, we find positive words that stand in direct contradiction with the scientific worldview otherwise projected by Marx. There is thus no ‘one size fits all’ cause for Marxists’ incorrect application of the Theory of Late Stage Capitalism, as the reasoning for such mistakes varies by case.

“Time flows into a man or State, makes its home there and then flows away; the man and the State remain, but their time has passed. Where has their time gone? The man still thinks, breathes and cries, but his time, the time that belonged to him and to him alone, has disappeared.”
– Vasily Grossman, Life and Fate¹⁵

Whilst past claims of ‘Late Stage Capitalism’ have been proven false, the fact remains that capitalism does progress in stages, and therefore, will reach a ‘late’ or ‘terminal’ stage. Our task as Marxists is to then understand what Late Stage Capitalism looks like, as understanding the development of capitalism is vital to the development of the proletarian movement. The activities of a workers’ movement under a historically-progressive capitalism necessarily differ from the activities of a workers’ movement under a reactionary capitalism. From Marx’s, Engels’, and Luxemburg’s favour toward bourgeois states against the ‘backwards’ (read: feudal, or in the case of Luxemburg, semi-feudal) interests of the Russian Empire, to Lenin’s insistence that the anti-imperialist workers must not make the mistake of “supporting reactionary classes,” this much is obvious¹⁶. It is therefore imperative to understand capitalism’s current stage so the workers’ movement may act appropriately.

What, then, characterises Late Stage Capitalism? Capitalism is in its terminal stage when it becomes a “reactionary obstacle and conformist,” or put more simply, when capitalism fails to spark new development¹⁷. As a mode of production becomes outdated, it fails to innovate in any meaningful way, thus stifling development in production, culture, and social relations. However, innovation and growth cannot be stopped indefinitely thus, in the short term, the outdated mode of production must force these developments to conform to its increasingly-archaic premises as revolution becomes ever more inevitable. At this stage, the present mode of production is a hindrance in all spheres of life, rendering its destruction necessary for the advancement of humankind.

This cycle in modes of production is clearly underway today. The revolutionary era of capitalism differs from region to region, but by now it has spread over the whole world. The liberal-democratic revolutions of France, the United States, and Japan have long since passed, and the national-democratic revolutions of China, India, and Turkey, though more recent, have also passed. Bourgeois rule has stabilised worldwide, and the contradictions of capitalism are readily obvious to all. Whether one holds liberal, leftist, or Marxist positions, capitalism’s economic crises, imperialistic character, and unsustainable, stagnating development are widely recognised.

The next question is whether capitalism’s stabilisation has given way to stagnation and reaction. Does capitalism inhibit the development of production, culture, and social relations? Is capitalism hindering, rather than facilitating, the advancement of humankind? The answer, in my view, varies from state to state.

In the most developed capitalist states, the mode of production is becoming increasingly reactionary. A simple glance at the ‘first world’s’ recent innovations in production makes this clear¹⁸. Where capitalism once facilitated the development of railroads, electricity, industrialisation, and the internet, we find that ‘first world’ capitalism’s most significant advancements in the last ten years have boiled down to slight optimisations of pre-existing technology. Artificial intelligence, world capitalism’s present obsession, acts as little more than a glorified chatbot. Though more advanced than CleverBot and its ilk, it still performs essentially the same unremarkable task. AI’s generation of images, music, and video, though a bit more advanced and noteworthy, pale in comparison to the advancements seen even a few decades ago. Where capitalism once pioneered the internet, cloning, and the Human Genome Project, it now innovates slightly faster smartphones and new software for summarising text and generating pictures. Even bourgeois intellectuals acknowledge this stagnancy. In the realm of computers, MIT scientists have long thrown in the towel on developing new breakthroughs, instead focusing on optimising existing programs and systems¹⁹. In aviation, capitalism is openly understood to act as a reactionary force, the costliness of faster aircraft overtly stifling innovation²⁰. Robotics, once seen as a potentially revolutionary technology, has largely been abandoned by ‘first world’ businesses due to capitalism’s shortcomings, making innovation expensive and strenuous²¹. In each case, it seems that the technologies that once fuelled ‘first world’ capitalism’s development have now either stagnated or been overtly stifled by capitalism’s contradictions.

The ‘first world’ also confronts us as a culturally reactionary and cannibalistic force. The last twenty years have been dominated by nostalgia culture, with entertainment giants across the board regurgitating remakes and remasters of the same films, games and shows we enjoyed as children. Imagery of the 1980s and 1990s is forced down consumers’ throats as world capitalism regales the ‘glory days’ of the US imperial bloc’s dominance, a phenomenon which now seems to be extending to the ‘Y2K’ era. Where nostalgic references were once minor novelties or fun throwbacks, entertainment magnates have now transformed their ouroboros-like re-consumption of intellectual property into their modus operandi. Visions of the future, far from the hopeful, progressive aspirations once put forth by the sci-fi of old, now confront us through the grim worlds of cyberpunk, techno-feudalism, and space fascism. Even hopeful images of the future are essentially capitalistic, such as the agrarian, small producer-dominated worlds of solarpunk and modern retro futurism, a nostalgic and cannibalistic imitation of past art. Artificial intelligence (AI), promised to be an economic and cultural powerhouse, draws all its ‘inspiration’ from already-existing artwork, and can only cannibalise, not create, ‘art.’ The highest pinnacles of today’s culture are lamentations on the destructive, decaying world which surrounds us- yet are syphoned through petite-bourgeois perspectives which defang them of any poignance. Post-modernists whinge about the principles of ‘power’ whilst failing to recognise the centrality of class in state, cultural, and identitarian ‘power.’ They wax poetic about their ‘invention’ of intersectionality, failing to notice that many of their arguments were put forth by Marxists decades, if not centuries, ago- and were often much better-informed. Hence, the culture of the most developed capitalist states is certainly reactionary. Half of it yearns for an imaginary era of prosperity, either in the past victories of US imperialism or in a future of ‘humanistic’ capitalism, whilst the other half laps up the slag of capitalism, criticising its cultural-political runoff without engaging with the mode of production itself.

The social relations of the ‘first world’ appear as an erratic mess of progression and regression, though, when seen altogether, expose the contradictions of capitalism. Advancements in technology have introduced new ways to connect people across the world; it has never been easier to travel, communicate, and bond with disparate people and places. Globalisation has advanced imperialism’s interconnection of the world, making both exploitation and human connection much more straightforward. Social media facilitates the simple, instantaneous communication of thoughts, feelings, and ideas all over the globe. Thus, on the one hand, this interconnection has worked tirelessly to undermine alienation between peoples of different states and imperial blocs, whilst also intensifying capitalism’s exploitative nature and the propaganda of its helmsmen. In both cases, capitalism produces its own gravediggers by fostering the connections needed for proletarian internationalism, by making it easier to super-exploit ‘foreigners,’ and immigrants, and by reinforcing the jingoistic propaganda of the state. In the former case, it brings about its destruction in a constructive sense, building bonds between diverse peoples, whilst in the latter it does so in a destructive sense, undermining its own stability and security for the sake of cheap profits.

This trend is pushed further by the erosion of social democracy, which has once again laid bare the cruel contradictions of capitalism. The gutting of social safety nets has allowed bourgeois states to accumulate more funds in the hands of their militaries, private partners, and foreign imperial projects, at the expense of the workers at home. As the rate of profit falls, thus requiring both military ventures and financial subsidies, more and more money is extracted from the workers and distributed to capitalists. Seemingly every bourgeois state is now on the war path, arming itself for a Third Great Imperial Slaughter as the rate of profit falls in the ‘first world,’ and as the national bourgeoisies of the ‘second’ and ‘third world’ prepare to defend themselves from the former. Yet at the same time, the national bourgeoisies of the ‘first world,’ seemingly threatened by the imminent collapse of the AI bubble, and thereby, their last semblance of economic stability, have turned toward cannibalising each other. The United States sabre-rattled at the EU over Greenland, India and Pakistan, both of whom serve as vital forward operating bases against China and the Middle East, respectively, have seen soaring tensions over the last year, and the once-enthusiastic support of ‘western’ governments for the war efforts of Ukraine and Israel are baulking at the costs of long, gruelling wars²². Thus, whether we look at the level of individual states, where the dismemberment of social democracy has laid waste to social safety nets and social cohesion, or at the broader degeneration of the US imperial bloc, we find that capitalism’s inherent contradictions are actively forcing the ‘first world’ into regressive, destructive politics.

Looking further, we find that the most developed bourgeois states are stagnating. Growth is occurring, but it is increasingly marginal and decreasingly innovative. Cultural development has effectively ceased, and in its place we find lacklustre imitations of old media, old glories, and old art forms. The highest peaks of modern culture consist of petite-bourgeois criticisms of capitalism, condemning its outgrowths without assessing the mode of production itself. Socially, the most developed bourgeois states are rotting. Through the dismantling of social democracy, a system which mollified capitalism’s contradictions, the rate of profit was temporarily saved at the cost of internal instability, proletarian agitation, and the dissolution of social cohesion. As the rate of profit continues its inevitable decline, the most developed bourgeois states are seeking to stave off crisis through imperialist wars, even at the cost of destroying their longstanding imperial blocs. We thus find a capitalism which is increasingly outdated and increasingly reactionary. This is a capitalism whose productive forces could feed ten billion people, yet chooses not to²³. This is a capitalism whose unrestrained pursuit of profits has gutted internal social stability, leading to crises in unemployment, housing, and the environment. This is a capitalism which is best-equipped to utilise modern technologies to genuinely serve the human species, yet instead uses them to sell chauvinistic propaganda and porn. In short, the capitalism of the ‘first world’ appears to be shifting from its stagnant-yet-stable phase to its terminal, reactionary stage.

“Time is a transparent medium. People and cities arise out of it, move through it and disappear back into it. It is time that brings them and time that takes them away.”
– Vasily Grossman, Life and Fate²⁴

Whilst the capitalism of the ‘first world’ has adopted a reactionary character, this is not a sign that capitalism as a globalised mode of production is similarly reactionary. Whilst the only historically-progressive development the ‘first world’ is capable of is proletarian revolution, this is not true for the ‘second’ and ‘third world.’ Though such revolutions would, of course, be preferred, the capitalism of these states is not developed enough to make such revolutions an urgent imperative. In these states, capitalism retains a historically-progressive character, allowing them to develop economically, culturally, and socially. This is not because these states hold some hidden secret which makes them better capitalists, but because their bourgeois revolutions occurred later than those of the most developed states. It is because the capitalism of these states is underdeveloped and sluggish that these states still have room to grow from capitalism. Thus, until they reach the same economic-cultural-social decline ailing the ‘first world,’ capitalism will continue to be historically-progressive and a proletarian revolution, whilst not impossible, will be substantially less likely than in more developed states.

To best illustrate the ongoing progress being brought about by capitalism in the less developed states, the example of China is perhaps most pertinent.

The finalisation of China’s bourgeois revolution in the 1980s has led to a flourishing economic landscape. In a matter of decades, China transitioned from a backwards, semi-feudal state to the workshop of the world. This conscious focus on cheap production for foreign consumers, in turn, drove more finance capital into China, allowing it to expand its export-centred operations and develop other local productive forces. This titanic economic growth is what propelled China to become the imperial hegemon it is today. It is because so much finance capital flooded the country that it has been able to shift production to increasingly complex commodities, such as semiconductors, electric cars, and renewable energy sources. Moreover, this has allowed China to develop its own banks and its own export of finance capital, enabling it to hold sway over states such as Laos, North Korea, and, until recently, Venezuela, whilst also growing its influence across Asia, Africa, Oceania, and South America²⁵. Chinese economic development has also fuelled innovation, with the Chinese state finding particular interest in renewable energy and robotics. Whilst it’s unclear whether these innovations will match the calibre of railroads, electricity, or the internet, Beijing’s progress in these fields demonstrates the economic power and complexity present in modern China.

The matter of Chinese cultural development is, admittedly, more difficult to ascertain. On the one hand, Chinese cultural output has exploded in recent years. Chinese films such as Ne Zha, video games such as Black Myth Wukong, and literature such as The Three-Body Problem have attained local and international acclaim. Social media platforms such as TikTok, WeChat, and RedNote are doubtlessly influential in global communication and the spread of cultural ideas. On the other hand, many of these developments are not particularly novel. Ne Zha and Black Myth Wukong are both essentially retellings of established Chinese myths and literature- the myth of Ne Zha and A Journey to the West. One of China’s largest cultural outputs is historical dramas and romance stories, and whilst the sheer volume of such shows indicates Beijing’s ability to fund and develop such shows, they aren’t particularly novel or innovative. They are essentially the Chinese versions of ‘period pieces’ like Bridgerton or Hamilton. Moreover, China has heavily funded artificial intelligence projects, and whilst this has been an economically fruitful venture for Beijing, its ‘artistic’ output is predicated on the same, cannibalistic, reconsumption of existing work as ‘western’ AI systems. Thus, whilst Chinese cultural output is both booming and impressive, the vast majority of it isn’t particularly innovative. Whether this is because Chinese cultural development is still progressing, thus having not yet reached its apex, or whether it’s because it has reached its pinnacle, and, like the ‘first world,’ is restrained by the confines of capitalism, only time shall tell.

Socially, the Chinese bourgeois dictatorship is firmly established and unchallenged. The economic successes of the state have invalidated the denunciations of China’s remaining Maoists, thereby rendering the unitary, technocratic rule of the Communist Party of China (CPC) absolute. Through both the fading liberalism of the US bloc and local success, liberal resistance has been rendered moot, relegated to the cries of emigrants and the rubber stamps of the eight legalised ‘democratic parties.’ The Chinese social safety net, whilst underdeveloped, remains robust enough to lull the working class into cooperation. Moreover, between Beijing’s total control over trade unions and political activity, as well as the lack of capable organisers and crises to rally around, the proletarian movement in China is effectively nonexistent. Outside of localised struggles against corruption, mismanagement, or abuse, the Chinese proletariat has been subdued by the bourgeoisie. Such social cohesion, both between factions of the bourgeoisie and between workers and capitalists, is only possible under a historically-progressive capitalism. It is only possible when capitalism is operating perfectly, when crises have been sufficiently postponed, and when the bourgeois state has paid dividends to the working and capitalist classes.

Of course, this will not last forever. It is inevitable that economic development will stagnate, then stall, leading to the marginal gains we’re currently seeing in the US bloc, and an eventual cessation of innovation. It is unavoidable that cultural development will stagnate and regress, leading to reactionary ideals taking root in the minds of the masses. Crises will arise, the unity of the bourgeoisie will break, and the proletariat will wage open, uncompromising struggle against the capitalist state- and it will win. Though capitalism today remains historically progressive in China and many other bourgeois states, this progress will not last forever. Sooner or later, the falling rate of profit and the impossibility of infinite growth using finite resources will catch up to such states, and they, like the US bloc, will stagnate, regress, and succumb to the ascendant proletariat.

“I am afraid because I can so clearly foresee my own life rotting away of itself, like a leaf that rots without falling, while I pursue my round of existence from day to day.”
– Osamu Dazai, The Setting Sun²⁶

We now understand what ‘Late Stage Capitalism’ is, and what it looks like. ‘Late Stage Capitalism’ is the final, terminal stage of capitalism. It is an epoch characterised by the unbearable intensification of capitalism’s contradictions, which in turn spur crises, stifle development, and force what little advancement remains to conform to an outdated mode of production. The incorrect application of ‘Late Stage Capitalism’ stems from a variety of fallacies: epoch-centredness, the inability to soberly compare present crises to those of the past, misplaced optimism, and attempts to reassure troubled, demoralised comrades. 

From the perspective of Marxism, it appears that development in the most advanced bourgeois states has indeed stalled, often turning reactionary. We find in the ‘first world’ economic stagnation, reactionary cultural decline, and increasingly frayed social relations. Whilst, of course, it is possible that this analysis is wrong, and that I myself have succumbed to epoch-centredness, I believe this conclusion is supported by the information I have on hand. Ultimately, only the passage of time will validate or condemn me.

This said, it is certain that the reactionary trends of ‘first world’ capitalism are not yet globalised. In the less developed states, we find capitalism still acting as a historically-progressive force, fuelling advances in economics, culture, and society. These states still have room to grow, to cultivate their productive forces, and intensify the foundational flaws of capitalism. They are progressing, yes, though with time, this historically-progressive epoch will falter. Just as certainly as the sun rises and sets, we can be sure that capitalism will stagnate and regress, leading to the short-term reactionary turns seen in the ‘first world,’ and making proletarian revolution inevitable in the long term. 

We have only to wait for the coming dawn.

1. Lithwick, Dahlia. “The Tide Is Finally Turning.” Slate, April 29, 2025. https://removepaywalls.com/https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/04/100-days-trump-tide-finally-turning.html. 
   Reckendorff, Anders. “Can We Deal with Late(or End)-Stage Capitalism. And Is It Even a Problem?” Medium, February 26, 2026. https://medium.com/@anders.reckendorff/can-we-deal-with-late-or-end-stage-capitalism-and-is-it-even-a-problem-8e979878f4e7. 
   Wolff, Richard. “Richard Wolff on Capitalism, Trump’s Tariffs, and a Dying Empire.” Interview by Nathan Robinson. Current Affairs, June 27, 2025. https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/richard-wolff. ↩︎
2. Aviles Espinoza, David Elias. “Unpacking Late Capitalism.” The University of Sydney, December 20, 2022. https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2022/12/20/unpacking-late-capitalism.html.  ↩︎
3.  Bordiga, Amadeo. The Fundamentals for a Marxist Orientation. 1946; Prometo, 2003. https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1946/orientation.htm.  ↩︎
4. Bukharin, Nikolai. Imperialism and World Economy. Edited by Mathias Bismo. 1917; Monthly Review Press, 1929. https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1917/imperial/14.htm. 
   Lenin, Vladimir. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Edited by Tim Delaney and Kevin Goins. 1917; Progress Publishers, 1963. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch08.htm.  ↩︎
5.  Marx, Karl. Marx to Ruge. Marxist Internet Archive, 1843. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_05.htm.  ↩︎
6.  An excellent example of this phenomena is the 1861 ‘Edict of Emancipation,’ which legally emancipated Russian peasants from serfdom. Whilst the edict was a grand spectacle, it itself did not cause much change for the majority of Russian society. Instead, the peasants found themselves emancipated by a quieter revolution in Russia’s productive relations, which gradually transformed peasants into workers and capitalists, thereby freeing them from serfdom. Whilst this specific example is well-recorded by Lenin and other writers, it is doubtlessly true that other ‘historic events’ were not as influential as modern minds perceive them to be, their mythology solidified by the fog of history. ↩︎
7. Broder, David. “Workers’ Councils: The Red Mole of Revolution.” Libcom.Org, March 23, 2010. https://libcom.org/library/workers-councils-red-mole-revolution. 
   Salter, Gabriel. “When Soviets Were Formed in Britain .” Prometheus Magazine, September 24, 2025. https://prometheus-mag.com/2025/09/24/when-soviets-were-formed-in-britain/. 
   Marco, José María. “Roberto Villa García: «La Izquierda Se Unió a Los Nacionalistas Frente a La Derecha Española».” La Razón, June 25, 2021. https://www.larazon.es/cultura/20210625/6n5iqkmhzfbxbn2qlnjkc665ye.html.  ↩︎
8.  Marx, Karl. Marx to Dr Kugelmann Concerning the Paris Commune. Edited by Sally Ryan. Translated by Zodiac. 1871; Marxist Internet Archive, 2000. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/letters/71_04_12.htm. 
   Marx, Karl. The Civil War in France. Edited by Brian Baggins, Matthew Carmody, and Zodiac. Marxist Internet Archive, 1871. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch04.htm.  ↩︎
9.  Most notably, Marx was critical of the tactics employed by the Paris Commune. He out laid such critiques most clearly in his Letter to Dr. Kugelmen Concerning the Paris Commune, wherein he condemned the commune’s self-sabotaging unwillingness to march on Versailles, thereby allowing counter-revolutionary forces to regroup and crush the commune, as well as the central committee’s willingness to hand over power with relatively little pushback, thus stymieing the commune’s resistance. These criticisms were hailed by Lenin, who claimed they ought to be ‘hung on the wall of every office of every class conscious worker.’ Moreover, it is clear from his work The State and Revolution that Lenin drew many of his conclusions regarding the construction of proletarian dictatorship from this correspondence.
   
   Sources used in this footnote:
   Marx, Karl. Marx to Dr Kugelmann Concerning the Paris Commune. Edited by Sally Ryan. Translated by Zodiac. 1871; Marxist Internet Archive, 2000. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/letters/71_04_12.htm. 
   Trachtenberg, Alexander. ‘Marx, Engels and Lenin on the Paris Commune’ . Vol. 5. 1926; Workers Monthly, 2025. https://revolutionsnewsstand.com/2025/03/17/d-lenin-on-the-paris-commune-by-alexander-trachtenberg-from-workers-monthly-vol-5-no-5-march-1926/.  ↩︎
10.  Marx, Karl, and Friederich Engels. Demands of the Communist Party in Germany. Translated by Einde O’Callaghan. 1848; Marxist Internet Archive, 2014. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm.
    Marx, Karl, and Friederich Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party. Translated by Samuel Moore. 1848; Progress Publishers, 1969. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch04.htm.    ↩︎
11.  Marx, Karl. “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League.” Edited by Alek Blaine. Meeting of the Communist League, London, United Kingdom, February 10, 1850. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm.  ↩︎
12. Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Edited by Friederich Engels. Translated by Ernst Untermann, Samuel Moore, and Edward Aveling. Vol. 1. 1867; Progress Publishers, 1999. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch33.htm. 
    Marx, Karl, and Friederich Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party. Translated by Samuel Moore. 1848; Progress Publishers, 1969. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm. 
    Marx, Karl. The British Rule in India. Edited by Andy Blunden. 1853; The New-York Daily Tribune, 2005. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/06/25.htm.  ↩︎
13.  Marx, Karl. Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Edited by Andy Blunden and Brian Baggins. Translated by Annette Jolin and Joseph O’Malley. 1843; Cambridge University Press, 1970. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm.  ↩︎
14. Perhaps such remarks then act as a testament to Marx’s Theory of Partialisation- the theory that the alienation imposed by bourgeois society ‘splits’ or ‘partialises’ humans across different categories and conditions. This theory is explored through a variety of lenses, from the split between public secularism and private religiosity which he criticises in On the Jewish Question, to the split between the alienated worker and the real human described in the 1844 Manuscripts, to his examination of the alienation between humans and their needs featured in both the aforementioned 1844 Manuscripts and Comments on James Mill. In the same manner that humans are partialised across the colliding spheres of labour, public life, private life, and their needs, perhaps Marx’s scientific understandings clashed with his private personal dreams, leading to this contradiction in thought.
    
    Sources used in this footnote:
    
    Marx, Karl. Comments on James Mill, Éléments D’économie Politique. Translated by Clemens Dutt. Erste Abteilung, 1932. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/james-mill/. 
    
    Marx, Karl. Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Edited by Andy Blunden and Matthew Carmody. Translated by Martin Milligan. 1932; Progress Publishers, 1959. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm. 
    
    Marx, Karl. On the Jewish Question. Edited by Andy Blunden, Matthew Grant, and Matthew Carmody. 1844; Marxist Internet Archive, 2009. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/.  ↩︎
15.  Grossman, Vasily. Life and Fate. Translated by Robert Chandler. 1985; Everyman’s Library, 2022. Page 37. ↩︎
16. ngels, Friederich. The Magyar Struggle. 1849; Penguin Books, 1973. https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm. 
    
    Lenin, Vladimir. A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism. Edited by M.S. Levin, Joe Fineberg, and R Cymbala. 1916; Progress Publishers, 1964. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/5.htm. 
    Luxemburg, Rosa. The Polish Question at the International Congress in London. Edited by Ted Crawford, Brian Baggins, and Matthew Grant. Translated by Jurgen Hentze. 1896; Monthly Review Press, 1976. https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1896/07/polish-question.htm.
    Marx, Karl, and Friederich Engels. Demands of the Communist Party in Germany. Translated by Einde O’Callaghan. 1848; Marxist Internet Archive, 2014. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm.
    
    Marx, Karl, and Friederich Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party. Translated by Samuel Moore. 1848; Progress Publishers, 1969. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch04.htm. ↩︎
17.  Bordiga, Amadeo. The Fundamentals for a Marxist Orientation. 1946; Prometo, 2003. https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1946/orientation.htm.  ↩︎
18.  The use of the term ‘first world’ in this article warrants some explanation. When I speak of the ‘first world,’ I am speaking of the most developed capitalist states. Whilst the line may not appear clear, one can think of such states as the United States, those of Western and Central Europe, Japan, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, and similar such states, as the ‘first world.’ I do not mean such terms in any sort of core-theorist or third-worldist sense. Rather, I am using it as the most adequate term to describe the most developed bourgeois states. The same holds true for my later uses of ‘second world’ and ‘third world.’ ↩︎
19.  Woods, Audrey. “The Death of Moore’s Law: What It Means and What Might Fill the Gap Going Forward.” CSAIL Alliances, 2021. https://cap.csail.mit.edu/death-moores-law-what-it-means-and-what-might-fill-gap-going-forward.  ↩︎
20.  Jennings, John. “Why Aren’t Planes Getting Any Faster?” John M Jennings, June 16, 2023. https://johnmjennings.com/why-arent-planes-getting-any-faster/.  ↩︎
21.  Ranjan, Aditya. “Why Do So Many Robotics Companies Fail?” Forbes, November 9, 2023. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2023/11/09/why-do-so-many-robotics-companies-fail/.  ↩︎
22. Baume, Maïa De la. “Euronews.Com.” Euronews, September 10, 2025. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/09/10/von-der-leyen-announces-suspension-of-eu-payments-and-trade-partnership-with-israel. 
    
    McNeil, Sam. “The War in Gaza Is Shaking the Historic Bond between Israel and Europe.” AP News, October 1, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/gaza-israel-europe-eu-war-protests-c67fe3880f730874a796b25d502b9e74. 
    Vigers, Benedict. “Ukrainian Support for War Effort Collapses.” Gallup, August 7, 2025. https://news.gallup.com/poll/693203/ukrainian-support-war-effort-collapses.aspx.  ↩︎
23.  United Nations Environment Programme. “How to Feed 10 Billion People.” United Nations Environment Programme, July 13, 2020. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-feed-10-billion-people.  ↩︎
24.  Grossman, Vasily. Life and Fate. Translated by Robert Chandler. 1985; Everyman’s Library, 2022. Page 37. ↩︎
25.  In regard to this point, my previous article American Policy in Latin America: The Road to El Dorado? explains how specifically Chinese imperialism competes with American imperialism in Latin America. Similarly, my article Australia and Papua New Guinea: The Next Stage of Inter-Imperialist Struggle touches on Chinese imperialism in Oceania.
    
    Sources for both articles:
    
    Garcia, Antonio. “American Policy in Latin America: The Road to El Dorado?” Partisan!, December 15, 2025. https://partisanmagazine.org/2025/12/15/american-policy-in-latin-america-the-road-to-el-dorado/. 
    
    Garcia, Antonio. “Australia and Papua New Guinea: The Next Stage of Inter-Imperialist Struggle.” Partisan!, December 1, 2025. https://partisanmagazine.org/2025/12/01/australia-and-papua-new-guinea-the-next-stage-of-inter-imperialist-struggle/. ↩︎
26.  Dazai, Osamu. The Setting Sun. 1956; New Directions Publishing, 2014. Page 81. ↩︎