[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


I blame Francis Fukuyama and his 1992. "end of history" thesis for the current simplistic view of history in the Anglosphere. Why is it so hard for some people to understand that nothing lasts forever, no empire and no ideology?
>>
>>12363220

It probably came before that with people seeing the Cold War was the ultimate question if modernity and the future would be dominated by Liberalism or Communism and that once it was answered everything away from that would be a regression.

Post-modernism calls BS on that by claiming that there is no such thing as The End of History.
>>
>>12363220
All of the ideological opposites to liberalism failed and liberalism has been going strong for 300 years or so now. I expect liberalism to be the status quo until technology allows for socialism to work which could be centuries from now
>>
Fukuyama brought the term back to the forefront with his essay The End of History? that was published months before the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. In this essay, which he later expanded upon in his book The End of History and the Last Man in 1992, Fukuyama builds on the knowledge of Hegel, Marx and Kojève. The essay centers around the idea that now that its two most important competitors, fascism and communism, have been defeated, there should no longer be any serious competition for liberal democracy and the market economy.

In his theory, Fukuyama distinguishes between the material or real world and the world of ideas or consciousness. He believes that in the realm of ideas liberalism has proven to be triumphant, meaning that even though a successful liberal democracy and market economy have not yet been established everywhere, there are no longer any ideological competitors for these systems. This would mean that any fundamental contradiction in human life can be worked out within the context of modern liberalism and would not need an alternative political-economic structure to be resolved. Now that the end of history is reached, Fukuyama believes that international relations would be primarily concerned with economic matters and no longer with politics or strategy, thus reducing the chances of a large scale international violent conflict.

Fukuyama concludes that the end of history will be a sad time, because the potential of ideological struggles that people were prepared to risk their lives for has now been replaced with the prospect of "economic calculation, the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands." This does not mean that Fukuyama believes that a modern liberal democracy is the perfect political system, but rather that he does not think another political structure can provide citizens with the levels of wealth and personal liberties that a liberal democracy can.
>>
>>12363266
I wonder what Fukuyama thinks of Xi?
>>
According to Fukuyama, since the French Revolution, liberal democracy has repeatedly proven to be a fundamentally better system (ethically, politically, economically) than any of the alternatives.

The most basic (and prevalent) error in discussing Fukuyama's work is to confuse "history" with "events".Fukuyama claims not that events will stop occurring in the future, but rather that all that will happen in the future (even if totalitarianism returns) is that democracy will become more and more prevalent in the long term, although it may suffer "temporary" setbacks (which may, of course, last for centuries).
>>
>>12363272
Fukuyama thought that liberalism is an inevitability as general wealth increases for the masses. Which had some merit in China too, with Hong Kong being very liberal and things like the Tiananmen massacre happening on the wealthy coast. It's too early to tell if China's harmony system will work once the average chinese enjoys a western lifestyle
>>
>>12363342

Will never happen because only the coast could ever be like that. Interior China is Sudan-tier.
>>
>>12363345
if this trend continues we could see a strong maoist reaction to it and a liberalized coast when the gov tries to redistribute that wealth into the inner regions
>>
>>12363266
>He believes that in the realm of ideas liberalism has proven to be triumphant, meaning that even though a successful liberal democracy and market economy have not yet been established everywhere, there are no longer any ideological competitors for these systems
No ideological competitors right now. Again, nothing lasts forever.
>>
>>12363443
What he means is that human history is always pulling in the direction of freedom and equality. No matter how much dictators, oligarchs, aristocrats or any other enemies of liberty try to fight it they are going against the flow of history.
What we see today in the West isn’t liberal democracy but rather a regime of professional managers/bankers desperately trying to hang on to power, they are resisting the current of history by clinging to a world where they have become obsolete.
Even the technocratic elites that rule the West today will be swept away by the currents of time.
It’s actually an extremely whitepilling conception of history.
>>
Whiggish retards, when will they learn.
>>
i dont mind whatifalthist. his videos are appropiate for the kind of people that watch them.
also any nigger who posts about philosophy on 4chan is a cretin
>>
>>12363576
Well I dislike his s o y face, nasal voice, glasses, love for islam on the border of cuckery.
>>
>>12363342
Ask me how I know you've never interacted with Chinese people
>>
>>12363944
why do you hate him for loving islam? what he say about it?
>>
>>12363263
the main restriction preventing socialism is power structures that would fall under socialism. There's a reason the govt doesn't really fight for unions or co-ops. They're THE most direct way of subverting the capitalist structure, injecting democracy into the working world and marginally reducing the power of the owning class. Corporations fear them like the plague. Socialism cannot be run from the top down, the U.S.S.R. went corrupt and authoritarian, subverting the entire point of "power to the workers." If you want it to work it needs to be from the bottom up, worker and community operated democratic organizations can cooprerate over regions to form a truly socialist society. It is simply incredibly difficult to pull of when you have a bunch of people with lots of power as a result of current systems who'd be threatened by that and will do their damndest to prevent it.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.