The original answers to "late?", "collapse?, and "what's next?" questions all require recalling that the term originated in Marxist circles.
The "late" meant something like the type of capitalism that emerged out of ww2, characterized primarily by post-colonial global trade networks. That's quite a bit in the past for us, but "late" by the standards of an ideological tradition that started in the 1800s. Even still, of all your questions, this is the one that has changed meanings perhaps the least in the last 80 years or so. That's because a lot of the things that characterized "late stage capitalism" in the mid 20th century are still with us, and perhaps intensified. If it helps, think of "late stage" as "post-colonial + globalization + financialization". In contrast to the much more mixed political economies of Europe in the 1800s. Or, for an even more modern usage, you might read it as "jet-setting billionaires and the MBAs that manage their factories and open offices". That's the vibe it's supposed to give off, I think.
The "collapse?" and "what's next?" questions sort of have standard Marxist answers (or, at least, standard delineated lines of debate within mid-century Marxism, from what I understand). Careful dispassionate reading the Communist Manifesto... like, the way you would read Plato or Hegel or whatever... can give you a general sense for why "collapse" plays an important role in Marxist theories and what Marxists generally suspect is "next". (Namely, alienation of workers and a resulting violent revolution of the working class against folks who own/control capital.)
nb, I'm not really sure that most people using the term now have much -- if any -- background in Marxist economics/philosophy. I think for the average user, these terms function roughly the same way as "critical race theory" does on the social right. If that makes sense.
So, the "late" retains real descriptive meaning relative to 1800s/early 1900s capitalism, but the "collapse" and "what's next?" have sort of drifted from their original answers and probably play a more rhetorical than literal role these days. Like CRT. No one knows what they mean. They are shibboleths for "change is needed and inevitable", with no specifics for what or how.
The vibe is one where you have :searching for something accessible: a hunger games approach where society is driven towards exploitation rather than the sustenance and growth of the majority.
In general however, its dangerous to think "its always been this way". I would argue societally we've been in a continuous struggle between the two and there are many moments in the recent past where the US was building a more egalitarian society than found elsewhere, despite the rampant incessant racism that existed.
Public schools and libraries, the rise of unions and creation of the wknd, stopping child labor, centralized mailing systems, well managed interstates, growth of home ownership, social welfare, and for a moment really great emergency care at hospitals, had moments of real existence and came together in combinations rarely seen outside of the USA.
Assuming things have always been kind of shit and are likely to just get shittier takes us all off the hook far too easily imo.
> Assuming things have always been kind of shit and are likely to just get shittier takes us all off the hook far too easily imo.
I've seen this same mindset that you're pointing out.
However, I don't think that it is usually used to "let people off the hook" - most of the time that I've heard it used (a bunch of times in real life, not just on the internet), the subtext is "...and so we should replace the current government with another [highly authoritarian, non-constitutionally-limited] one that can fix these issues, either through voting for an extreme candidate/party, or straight-up violent revolution".
That might be just my experience, though - I went to a university with a significant anarcho-communist group in the student body.
> "...and so we should replace the current government with another [highly authoritarian, non-constitutionally-limited] one that can fix these issues, either through voting for an extreme candidate/party, or straight-up violent revolution".
The interesting thing to me is that this kind of attitude has become dominant across the spectrum of political ideology, in just the space of a few years. A large number of people, or at least the most vocal ones, now seem to support an authoritarian extra-constitutional goverment, they just differ on who they think should be crushed first.
I suppose myopically I'm not sure thats how I see our 2 party system.
I do see two dying parties unwilling to rejuvenate leadership in the fear that it will lead to additional (and I do mean additional) socialist tenants being infused into our version democracy.
However I'm not sure I see a lot of people on the left looking to dismantle voting rights, the US postal service, the EPA or department of the interior, the supreme court, etc. The last time the supreme court was dragged into an election for example was bush v gore.
Crashing birth rates, crashing home ownership, stagnant wages, billions of dollars in riot damage, skyrocketing sexlessness among young men, highest inflation in a century...
