Editing Late capitalism (section)

==Intellectual history of the concept==
===Sombart's legacy===
The term "late capitalism" was first used by the German social scientist [[Werner Sombart]] in a 1928 publication<ref>Specifically, Werner Sombart, "Die Wandlungen des Kapitalismus" [="The transformations of capitalism", a lecture given at the conference of the Vereins für Sozialpolitik in Zürich, on 13 September 1928]. In: ''Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv'', Vol. 28, 1928, pp. 243-256. Transcripts of the conference were published in 1929: Franz Boese (ed.), ''Wandlungen des Kapitalismus. Auslandanleihen. Kredit und Konjunktur auf Grund der stenographischen Niederschrift''. München, Duncker & Humblot 1929. See also [[Talcott Parsons]], "'Capitalism' In Recent German Literature: Sombart and Weber." ''Journal of Political Economy'', Vol. 36, No. 6, December 1928, pp. 641-661.</ref> after he had completed his three-volume magnum opus ''Der Moderne Kapitalismus'' ["Modern Capitalism"], which was published from 1902 through 1927 (only the first volume of Sombart's ''Modern capitalism'' has been translated into English so far.<ref>Werner Sombart, ''Modern Capitalism - Volume 1: The Pre-Capitalist Economy: A systematic historical depiction of Pan-European economic life from its origins to the present day'', parts I and II. Wellington, New Zealand: K. A. Nitz Publishing, 2019 and 2023.</ref> Sombart divided capitalism into different historical stages of development:
* Pre-capitalist or proto-capitalist society (''vorkapitalistische Wirtschaft'') from the early [[Middle Ages]] up to 1500 AD, the subject of the first volume of ''Modern capitalism''.
* Early capitalism (''Frühkapitalismus'') in 1500–1800, dealt with in the second volume.
* The heyday of capitalism, or advanced capitalism (''Hochkapitalismus'') from 1800 to [[World War I]], the subject of the third volume.<ref>In this volume, Sombart does not explicitly mention or analyze "late capitalism", although he identifies some new trends, such as the increased role of the state in the economy.</ref>
* Late capitalism (''Spätkapitalismus'') since then, discussed or referred to in a few lectures and articles.<ref>Werner Sombart, "Die Wandlungen des Kapitalismus".In: ''Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv'', Vol. 28, 1928, pp. 243-256; Werner Sombart, "Economic Theory and Economic History". ''The Economic History Review'', Vol. 2, No. 1, January 1929, pp. 1-19; Werner Sombart, "Kapitalismus". In: Alfred Vierkandt (ed.), ''Handwörterbuch der Soziologie'' [1931], 2nd edition. Stuttgart: Enke Verlag, 1931 , pp. 258-277; Werner Sombart, ''Die Zukunft des Kapitalismus''[=The future of capitalism, a lecture dated 29 February 1932, edited by [[Elmar Altvater]]]. Berlin: Mimesis Verlag, 2017; Werner Sombart, "Capitalism", in: ''Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Volume 3''. New York: Macmillan, 1930, pp. 195-208.</ref>

Concluding his 1928 Zürich lecture on the transformations of capitalism, Sombart stated:

{{Quote|"Today we are in a new era. It is obvious that [the beginning of] the new epoch is  defined by the [first] World War. What this period is called is to an extent arbitrary, although of course some names will be more appropriate than others in particular situations. I have suggested the term 'late capitalism', because I know of no other expression which characterizes this era better. I hope that this term will be favourably received; I am aware, of course, of how much aversion there is, particularly among [academic] colleagues, to accepting unfamiliar  new terminology – as Max Weber once put it: 'as if it were a question of using someone else's  toothbrush.' There is always a possibility that other expressions will prevail. But what is most important is not the name, but the phenomenon itself, the thesis that this is a new era of economic life, as well as the issue of the characteristics of this era. If agreement can be reached about that, I would consider my task fullfilled.<ref> Werner Sombart, "Die Wandlungen des Kapitalismus" [Vortrag, gehalten auf der Tagung des Vereins für Sozialpolitik zu Zürich am 13e September 1928]. In: ''Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv'', Vol. 28, pp. 243-256, at pp. 255-256. At almost exactly the same time, [[Joseph A. Schumpeter]] wrote: "Capitalism is... in so obvious a process of transformation into something else, that it is not the fact, but only the  interpretation of the fact, about which it is possible to disagree.(…) Capitalism, whilst economically stable, and even gaining in stability, creates, by rationalising the human mind, a mentality and a style of life incompatible with its own fundamental conditions, motives and social institutions and will be changed, although not by economic necessity and probably even at some sacrifice of economic welfare, into an order of things which it will be merely a matter of taste to call Socialism or not." Joseph Schumpeter, "The instability of capitalism". ''The Economic Journal'', Vol. 38, Issue 151, September 1928, pp. 361—386.</ref> }}

Beyond a few articles and lectures, however, Sombart never published any comprehensive treatise on late capitalism. His studies were disrupted by the new Nazi government when he was 70 years old (he died in 1941, when he was 78). Like many other German intellectuals, he hoped that [[Hitler]]'s leadership would revive Germany from more than a decade of economic woes, social decay and misery; he regarded [[national socialism]] as a type of [[socialism]], and he supported the [[Nazi party|Nazi Party]] (while retaining much of his intellectual independence, as a [[septuagenarian]]). Because of this fact and because of his sociological portrayals of [[Jews]] and [[Judaism]] in some of his writings,<ref> See for example: Werner Sombart, [https://classiques.uqam.ca/classiques/sombart_werner/Jews_and_modern_capitalism/sombart_jews_capitalism.pdf ''The Jews and modern capitalism'']. Kitchener: Batoche Books, 2001.</ref> he was often regarded as a "Nazi intellectual" and as [[anti-semitic|antisemitic]].<ref>According to the antisemitic ideologue [[Theodor Fritsch]], Sombart was far too friendly to Jewry in his analysis, but Fritsch (like many other antisemitists) was not averse to plagiarizing Sombart's ideas to bolster his own case. See: Jerry Z. Muller, ''The Mind and the Market: Capitalism in Modern European Thought''. New York: Alfred A. Knopf 2002, p. 255; [[Theodor Fritsch]] [under the pseudonym of F. Roderich-Stoltheim], ''The riddle of the Jews' success''. Leipzig: Hammer Verlag, 1927, chapter 6.[https://archive.org/details/TheRiddleOfTheJewsSuccess/page/n1/mode/2up]</ref> It meant that after World War II, his writings and ideas largely vanished from university curricula.<ref>Reiner Grundmann and Nico Stehr, "Why Is Werner Sombart Not Part of the Core of Classical Sociology?: From Fame to (Near) Oblivion." ''Journal of Classical Sociology'', Volume 1, Issue 2, 2001.</ref> Only since the late 1980s<ref>Bernhard vom Brocke (ed.), ''Sombart's "Moderner Kapitalismus": Materialien zur Kritik und Rezeption''. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1987.</ref> and 1990s<ref>Jürgen Backhaus (ed.), ''Werner Sombart (1863-1941), Social scientist. Vol. 1: His life and Work, Vol. 2: His Theoretical Approach Reconsidered, Vol. 3: Then and Now''. Weimar bei Marburg: Metropolis Verlag, 1996; Jürgen Backhaus (ed.), ''Werner Sombart (1863 - 1941) - Klassiker der Sozialwissenschaften Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme''. Marburg: Metropolis Verlag, 2000; Nico Stehr & Reiner Grundmann (eds.), ''Werner Sombart: Economic Life in the Modern Age''. New Brunswick: Transaction, 2001; Christopher Adair-Toteff, ''Werner Sombart und der „Geist“ des modernen Kapitalismus. Wiederentdeckung eines Klassikers.'' Cham: Springer Gabler, 2025.</ref> did significant scholarly interest in Sombart's intellectual legacy begin to revive, with new appraisals and studies of particular aspects of his oeuvre.

===Interwar years and World War II===
Ever since the famous theoretical controversy between orthodox Marxists and revisionists in the 1890s, socialists have been discussing the decline, breakdown and collapse of bourgeois society.<ref>F.R. Hansen, ''The breakdown of capitalism. A history of the idea in Western Marxism, 1883–1983''. London: Routledge, 1985.</ref> There were many attempts at theoretical and mathematical proofs of the downfall of capitalism, but also attempts to create a perspective on the nature of the epoch and the future of society, to guide political action. 

In the [[Aftermath of World War I|post–World War I reconstruction era]], many of the wartime regulations in Europe continued, and the state played the leading role in repairing, rebuilding and reorganizing society.<ref>[[Ivan T. Berend]], ''An economic history of twentieth-century Europe''. Cambridge University Press, 2016, chapter 2.</ref> According to historian [[Edward H. Carr]], "In Europe after 1919, the planned economy... became the practice, if not the theory, of almost every state."<ref>[[Edward H. Carr]], ''The Twenty Years' Crisis''. New York: Harper & Row, 1964, p. 51 (cited in [[Ivan T. Berend]], ''An economic history of twentieth-century Europe''. Cambridge University Press, 2016, p.58.</ref>

Addressing the Kiel congress of the German Social-Democratic Party in 1927, [[Rudolf Hilferding]] claimed that:

{{Quote|"In reality, organized capitalism means that the capitalist principle of [[laissez-faire]] is replaced by the socialist principle of planned production. This planned, deliberately managed form of economy is much more susceptible to the conscious influence of society, which means to the influence of the... compulsory organization of the whole of society, the state."<ref>Cited in Berend, op. cit., p. 57.</ref> }}

The term "late capitalism" began to be used by socialists in continental Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, in the context of the [[Great Depression]].<ref>See, for example, [[Natalie Moszkowska]]'s ''[https://openlibrary.org/books/OL6479733M/Zur_Dynamik_des_Spa%CC%88tkapitalismus Zur Dynamik des Spätkapitalismus]''. Zurich: Verlag Der Aufbruch, 1943.</ref> At the time, this was not an especially radical turn of phrase, because many people of different political persuasions really believed that the existing social order was doomed, or was at least ripe for renewal and transformation. The European economy became highly regulated, and that reached a peak during the years of [[war economy]] in 1939–45.

During [[World War II]], even leading American economists believed that the economic problems might eventually become insurmountable. In their book ''Capitalism since World War II'', Philip Armstrong, [[Andrew Glyn]] and John Harrison commented that:

{{Quote|"[[Paul Samuelson]], who later wrote the bestselling [[Economics (textbook)|economics textbook]] published in the postwar years, raised in 1943 the probability of a 'nightmarish combination of the worst features of inflation and deflation', fearing that 'there would be ushered in the greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever faced' (Samuelson, 1943, p. 51). He was speaking, it should be remembered, about the United States, which was relatively unscathed by hostilities. […] [[Joseph Schumpeter]], an eminent economist, summed up the mood of alarm of the early forties: 'The all but general opinion seems to be that capitalist methods will be unequal to the task of reconstruction.' He regarded it as 'not open to doubt that the decay of capitalist society is very far advanced' (Schumpeter, 1943, p, 120)."<ref>Philip Armstrong, [[Andrew Glyn]] and John Harrison, ''Capitalism since World War II: the making and breakup of the great boom''. London: Fontana paperbacks, 1984, p. 23. Republished in a new edition, with a rewrite of Part III, as: Philip Armstrong, Andrew Glyn and John Harrison, ''Capitalism since 1945''. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991, pp. 4-5. The references are to [[Paul Samuelson]], "Full employment after the war" and [[Joseph Schumpeter]], "Capitalism in the post-war world", both included in S. Harris (ed.), ''Post-war economic problems''. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1943.</ref> }}

In his book ''Capitalism, socialism and democracy'' (1943), Schumpeter also stated:

{{Quote|"Can capitalism survive? No. I do not think it can. But this opinion of mine, like that of every other economist who has pronounced upon the subject, is in itself completely uninteresting. What counts in any attempt at social prognosis is not the Yes or No that sums up the facts and arguments which lead up to it but those facts and arguments themselves. (…) The thesis I shall endeavor to establish is that... [the very success of capitalism] undermines the social institutions which protect it, and “inevitably” creates conditions in which it will not be able to live and which strongly point to socialism as the heir apparent."<ref>Joseph A. Schumpeter, ''Capitalism, socialism and democracy'', 5th edition. London: Routledge, 1976, p. 61. This was an elaboration of the thesis presented in [[Joseph Schumpeter]], "The instability of capitalism". ''The Economic Journal'', Vol. 38, Issue 151, September 1928, pp. 361—386.</ref> }}

===Post–World War II era===
In Russia, the [[Marxist-Leninist]] doctrine of the "general crisis of capitalism" in the imperialist epoch and the theory of [[state monopoly capitalism]] defined the official government perspective for the postwar era.<ref>Gerd Hardach et al., ''A short history of socialist economic thought''. New York: St Martins Press, 1978, chapter 4.</ref> The historian [[Paolo Spriano]] describes how this caused the dismissal of one of Russia's top economists, after he dared to suggest that there would not be a deep capitalist crisis after the end of World War II:

{{Quote|"[[Eugen Varga]]… argued that capitalism would be able to ward off, or at least to postpone, a general crisis. By May 1947 he was being subject to harsh criticism for this. He was soon relieved of many of his duties, and the [[Institute of World Economy and International Relations|Institute of World Economy and Politics]], of which he had been the director, was closed down. The official line was that the capitalist system was poised on the brink of a catastrophic crisis. Indeed, the virulence and imperialist aggressivity of capitalism were said to result precisely from desperate attempts to avert this crisis by provoking tension, conflict, and war. Propagandistic use of this thesis became common in subsequent years".<ref>[[Paolo Spriano]], ''Stalin and the European Communists''. London: Verso, 1985, p. 281. [[Eugen Varga]] was rehabilitated only after [[Stalin]]'s death.</ref>}}

In the West, there had been similar expectations (across the whole political spectrum) that a severe systemic crisis would very likely occur after the war. When that did not happen, it was a surprise and a relief. However, what exactly could explain this turn of events is open to debate.<ref>Philip Armstrong, [[Andrew Glyn]] and John Harrison, ''Capitalism since World War II: the making and breakup of the great boom''. London: Fontana paperbacks, 1984, Part 1: post-war reconstruction, 1945-1950.</ref> Different theories about the success of the postwar reconstruction effort have been proposed.<ref>For example, Charlie Giattino states that during the US post-war baby boom 1946-1964, the fertility rate averaged nearly 4 children per woman, twice as many as in the 1930s (according to US Census data). An estimated 70 million new people were born in the US between 1946 and 1964. In 1964, this baby boom generation represented almost 40% of the total US population (Charlie Giattino, "The 'baby boom' saw a sharp rise in the fertility rate in the United States". ''Our world in data'', 10 October 2024). [https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/the-baby-boom-saw-a-sharp-rise-in-the-fertility-rate-in-the-united-states]{{Creative Commons text attribution notice|cc=by4|from this source=yes}}</ref>

The concept of "late capitalism" was used in the 1960s in Germany and Austria, by [[Western Marxism|Western Marxists]] writing in the tradition of the [[Frankfurt School]] and [[Austromarxism]]. In 1965, Fritz Vilmar published ''Rüstung und Abrüstung im Spätkapitalismus'' ["Armament and Disarmament in Late Capitalism"].<ref>Fritz Vilmar, ''Rüstung und Abrüstung im Spätkapitalismus'' (1965, reprint Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag, 1973).</ref> Leo Michielsen and [[Andre Gorz]] popularized the term "[[neo-capitalism]]" in France and Belgium, with new analyses of postwar capitalism.<ref>Leo Michielsen, ''Neo-kapitalisme''. Brussel: Jacquemotte Stichting, 1969. André Gorz, ''Stratégie ouvriére et néocapitalisme'', Paris: Le Seuil, 1964.</ref> [[Jacques Derrida]] preferred ''neo-capitalism'' to ''post-'' or ''late-capitalism''.<ref>Catherine Malabou/Jacques Derrida, ''Counterpath'' (2004) p. 114–115</ref> In 1968, [[Rudi Dutschke]], a leading spokesman of the German student revolt, published a pamphlet entitled "The contradictions of late capitalism, the anti-authoritarian students and their relationship to the third world."<ref>Rudi Dutschke, ''Die Widersprüche des Spätkapitalismus, die antiautoritären Studenten und ihr Verhältnis zur Dritten Welt'', in: U. Bergmann, R. Dutschke, W. Lefevre, B. Rabehl, ''Rebellion der Studenten oder Die neue Opposition''. Reinbek bei Hamburg : Rowohlt Verlag, 1968.[https://www.klimareporter.de/images/dokumente/2024/11/dutschke-widersprueche-spaetkapitalismus_-_Kopie.pdf]</ref> [[Theodor Adorno]] preferred "late capitalism" over "industrial society," which was the theme of the 16th Congress of German Sociologists in 1968.<ref>Theodor W. Adorno (ed.) ''Spätkapitalismus oder Industriegesellschaft. Verhandlungen des 16. Deutschen Soziologentages.'' Stuttgart, 1969.</ref> In 1971, [[Leo Kofler]] published a book called ''Technologische Rationalität im Spätkapitalismus'' ("Technological Rationality in Late Capitalism").<ref>[[Leo Kofler]], ''Technologische Rationalität im Spätkapitalismus''. Frankfurt: Makol Verlag, 1971.</ref> [[Claus Offe]] published his essay "Spätkapitalismus – Versuch einer Begriffsbestimmung" ("Late Capitalism—an Attempt at a Conceptual Definition") in 1972.<ref>[[Claus Offe]], ''Strukturprobleme ds kapitalistischen Staates''. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1972, pp. 7–25.</ref> In 1972, [[Alfred Sohn-Rethel]] published ''Die ökonomische Doppelnatur des Spätkapitalismus''.<ref>[[Alfred Sohn-Rethel]], ''Die ökonomische Doppelnatur des Spätkapitalismus''. Luchterhand: Darmstad/Nieuwied, 1972.</ref> In 1973, [[Jürgen Habermas]] published his ''Legitimationsprobleme im Spätkapitalismus'' (Legitimacy problems in late capitalism).<ref>Jürgen Habermas, ''Legitimationsprobleme im Spätkapitalismus'' Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1973.</ref> In 1975, [[Ernest Mandel]] published his 1972 PhD thesis ''Late Capitalism'' in English at [[New Left Books]]. [[Herbert Marcuse]] also accepted the term.<ref>[[Herbert Marcuse]], "Protosocialism and Late Capitalism: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis Based on Bahro's Analysis". ''International Journal of Politics'', Vol. 10 No. 2/3, Summer-Fall 1980,  25–48.</ref> In 1979, Volker Ronge published ''Bankpolitik im Spätkapitalismus: politische Selbstverwaltung des Kapitals?'', a study of banking in late capitalism.<ref>Volker Ronge, ''Bankpolitik im Spätkapitalismus: politische Selbstverwaltung des Kapitals?'' Frankfurt am Main : Suhrkamp, 1979.</ref> In 1981, Winfried Wolf and Michel Capron extended Mandel's analysis of the long recession in ''Spätkapitalismus in den achtziger Jahren''.<ref>Winfried Wolf and Michel Capron, ''Spätkapitalismus in den achtziger Jahren. Bilanz der Weltwirtschaftsrezession 1980/81; die Strukturkrise der Autoindustrie und der Stahlbranche''. Frankfurt/Main : ISP, 1981.</ref>