Editing Late capitalism (section)

===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> }}