Permanently Deleted
“The end of history” is just “thousand-year Reich” but for America.
Against his elders, the young analyst maintained that the Soviets were actually ideological enemies of the United States who desired to remake the world in their communist image. Where Kissinger understood geopolitics as a great game of power and interests, Fukuyama centered ideas. He thus spent the early years of his career analyzing Soviet efforts to create “ideological states” in places like Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique, and Nicaragua. According to Fukuyama, ideology—not just power—needed to be taken seriously in international relations.
:ussr-cry:
Fukuyama envied communists, because communism provided its adherents with a profound sense of community, engendering feelings of global solidarity that encouraged leftist governments to aid and make sacrifices for one another, even when doing so wasn’t in their avowed national interest.
Where communist nations like Cuba and the Soviet Union offered “fraternal assistance…as a matter of principle,” cooperation between liberal governments would always “have to be arranged on an ad hoc basis, probably among states…directly affected by a common threat.” Ironically, the only time liberalism could inspire similar associations and feelings was when it was engaged in an epic battle with an existential enemy. Without such an enemy, liberalism was a bit bloodless.
Specifically, Fukuyama urges neoliberals to accept that markets “function only when they are strictly regulated by states”; that social welfare is necessary; and that “economic efficiency” is not the be-all and end-all of human life. If minds change, he avows, society will too.
Lol he wants west to go Keynesian
Today, Fukuyama retains his commitment to the thesis he presented in “The End of History?” As he explained in The Atlantic last October, neither China, nor Russia, nor Iran, nor any other authoritarian state poses a real challenge to liberalism. Autocratic governments, he notes, make bad decisions—they invade Ukraine or enact a zero-Covid policy—and most people don’t want to live under them. It’s not a surprise that there are far more migrants to Europe or the United States than to Russia or China. “No authoritarian government,” Fukuyama correctly affirms, “presents a society that is, in the long term, more attractive than liberal democracy.” History remains at its end.
Yea because of imperialism, people from Global South migrate to Global North for better income, not because they love liberalism. Russia was destroyed post-1991. Global South workers often went to USSR for work or study, even now there are people going to post-Soviet states with cheap but robust educational systems.
Even clearly anti-liberal rivals to the United States, such as China and Russia, don’t proffer alternative, universally applicable ideological systems to the world.
China under Xi has been very promising though.
Fukuyama urges neoliberals to accept that … social welfare is necessary; and that “economic efficiency” is not the be-all and end-all of human life.
Autocratic governments, he notes, make bad decisions—they … enact a zero-Covid policy
Hmmm
Letting people die en masse and become disabled is for human wellbeing, you know?
Yea because of imperialism, people from Global South migrate to Global North for better income, not because they love liberalism
Its kinda both. Working at a uni, I’ve met a lot of bourgeois from the third world (and former second world). Its clearly motivated for material reasons, but a lot of them voice support of liberal capitalism just as sincere as any first world ideologue.
Even clearly anti-liberal rivals to the United States, such as China and Russia, don’t proffer alternative, universally applicable ideological systems to the world.
China under Xi has been very promising though.
I don’t think FF is completely wrong. China does offer an alternative development path, really the only alternative, but a “development path” is not an ideology. Moreover, China also explicitly states it is not exporting ideology and wants friendly relations with every country and encouraging development through “win-win cooperation”. Overall, this is a progressive force, but (as Fukuyama states), it doesn’t represent an ideological challenge like Soviet communism did. I agree that its fortunate that Xi is definitely putting “politics in command” far more than any leader since Mao. Hopefully, that means eventually building a left-wing internationalist ideological vision to the same degree as the USSR. The seeds are all there. I think we’re seeing the very beginning of that to form, ironically in part due to the US being completely unable to accommodate or tolerate China’s rise.
Where communist nations like Cuba and the Soviet Union offered “fraternal assistance…as a matter of principle,” cooperation between liberal governments would always “have to be arranged on an ad hoc basis, probably among states…directly affected by a common threat.” Ironically, the only time liberalism could inspire similar associations and feelings was when it was engaged in an epic battle with an existential enemy. Without such an enemy, liberalism was a bit bloodless.
Damn Fukuyama is both a liberal nerd and dumb as Hell not realizing that liberalism is just capitalism with a smiley face mask.
You can tell which side is an actual threat by how much time they spend sneering. The left gets a passive mention with the harmless Judas goat Bernie Sanders while the right comes in for a bashing for bombing the federal building in Oklahoma City. Say, wasn’t that building from where the mass murder at Waco was commanded? And in an odd coincidence, it was bombed two years to the day after the incident. Well, a coincidence I suppose, better not point that out.
authoritarian
can you define this for us Danny?
