>Also the term 'Late Capitalist' sound like you not only believe that history moves in stages, but also that you know when one stage will end.
I believe history does move in stages, each stage being set mainly by the relationship of various groups to their means of sustenance, i.e the means of production. In the times of slavery, would consider the relationship of the slave to his means of sustenance and the master with his relationship. It is the same analysis we do in feudal periods with the serf and lord. And again it is the analysis we do today - what is the relationship of the proletariat to sustenance? The answer is wage labour on private property. What is the relationship of the bourgeoisie to sustenance? They are sustained by bourgeois inter-relations and trades of capital.
I don't want to repeat all the arguments that point out how bad all this stuff is. Many scholars have pointed out all the reason why this idea is wrong or incomplete.
Marx ideas were based on his limited knowledge of history that was available at his time and was in no way generalist. Marxist historians have since tried to rewrite much history to comply with these ideas, but happy they have mostly failed and historians have moved on.
I believe history does move in stages, each stage being set mainly by the relationship of various groups to their means of sustenance, i.e the means of production. In the times of slavery, would consider the relationship of the slave to his means of sustenance and the master with his relationship. It is the same analysis we do in feudal periods with the serf and lord. And again it is the analysis we do today - what is the relationship of the proletariat to sustenance? The answer is wage labour on private property. What is the relationship of the bourgeoisie to sustenance? They are sustained by bourgeois inter-relations and trades of capital.