Was he right?

I was trying to say that even Fukuyama doesn't buy his own bullshit, but, whatever. 90% of western society already buys the conclusion he pointed to.

He may be an idiot who spouts bullshit, but nonetheless 99% of people still believe implicitly what he claimed.

Its true that he himself is no longer a Fukuyamaist, he acknowledges the limits of his thesis, but even then I've yet to see him give a concrete alternative to liberal capitalism. It seems to me, that noone really believes his thesis, but we have yet to imagine anything truly new. Maybe this is what Gramsci would have called the interregnum between liberalism and the next stage.

>Recommend some books that argue otherwise
The Koran

99% of people don't even think about "the end of history", mate

>people get smarter as they get older
explain alzheimers then

If there is anything totally incorporated into liberal democratic capitalism, it is islam. If there is anything that is truly benign, its this postcolonial ethnocentric critique of capitalism. Capitalism doesn't mean we all eat hamburgers. Liberal capitalism means everyone engages in their own ethnic kitsch, and where they all engage together is in the domain of market.

99% of people implicitly believe democracy is the only legitimate means of social change etc...
99% are stuck between democrat/republican, hillary/trump

Trump isn’t a Republican though.

What has he done politically that is outside the standard american right wing?

Okay so I don't get it, when Fukuyama was saying that liberal democracy was the end of history wasn't he including the "neoliberal" system of global capitalism in his definition? Wouldn't that make him still correct?

I still think Zizek's argument that we would rather imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism is true. We can't and haven't been able to come up with a viable alternative. And since a lot of leaders posturing as nationalists (Trump, Modi, Putin) still follow the same neoliberal system... wasn't Fukuyama right after all?

Tarrifs, for one. I mean he's still by and large supporting traditional Republican supply side economics, tax reform is an obvious example of that, but his policies are more paleoconservative than standard American right wing.

No he wasn't since his model didn't include Authoritarian dictatorships thriving such as they are in China and Russia. He thought the European-US model of Democratic Liberalism would quickly spread throughout the world which has not happened, infact things are significantly worse since then

yeah, but the same logic was at work in the old stalinist regime. there were threats to the system, and if the system could 'liquidate'/gulag/purge the threats, then at least on paper the system works well.
There are contradictions within (neo)liberal democratic capitalism, and if these contradictions can be ignored for the time being, by 'enlightened' intellectuals like Steven Pinker and the like "everything is fine, nothing is wrong, move along", then at least on the surface the system seems to be working fine.

Attached: wY9bQBK.jpg (600x450, 31K)

even so-called nationalists like trump are fully engaged in global capitalism. Conservative intellectuals like Peterson, for all their detachment and resentment of the mainstream liberal position,
cannot really propose an alternative to global liberal capitalism, the economic and political engine behind the culture wars of political correctness, what he calls 'postmodernism' etc...

Attached: 1517161208953.png (1383x1868, 555K)

Have an updoot fellow redditor, if we just do this one thing we can save liberalism! by the way anarchy is unrealistic because who will build the holocaust road nuke pollution?

Things are even worse now in Russia than they were under USSR. No wonder 'nationalist conservatives' like Putin rehabilitate old Soviet leaders like Stalin.

washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/06/26/for-russians-stalin-is-the-most-outstanding-figure-in-world-history-putin-is-next/?utm_term=.d01f5a0b4012

Bump

China is, not nor will it become a liberal democracy.
India is not, nor will it become a liberal democracy.
Russia is not, nor will it become a liberal democracy.
The United States is not, nor will become a liberal democracy.
These are the largest and most important polities in the world today, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
So much for the end of history.
So much for the end of history.

Fukuyama's entire body of work post 2003ish was indirectly about proving that book wrong.

/thread

>washingtonpost
lol

take your pills

washingtonpost is the most woke of all the mainstream papers, it covered "isreal's dreamers" (basically they're trying to deport all the black guys even if they lived there since a baby) during netenyahus visit, and they covered that black serial killer who was shooting baby boomer whites on a hiking trail, both of which the nytimes chose not to cover

>Russia
>Thriving
LoL.

China is more interesting, it's basically textbook fascism and seems to be working ok. Besides China, the other outliers would be Saudi Arabia (absolute monarchy kept afloat by oil money and the US), Iran, (interesting fusion of Islam and democracy, seems to work ok, but doubtful it could work in a sunni Islam context), and North Korea (lol).

Doesn't really disprove Fukuyama's point does it? Should also note that he addresses the challenge of Islam and concludes that Islamic societies are only really attractive to people who grew up in Islam societies.

How are nationalism and capitalism not compatible?

of course they're compatible, you need the nation state to manage the currency, taxes, and labor regulations, etc. read any entry level anarchist they all cover this shit

so much
for the END
of HiStOrYyYyYyYyYyYyYyY

Attached: smearsofjupiter.jpg (324x475, 53K)

>Doesn't really disprove Fukuyama's point does it?
It does since these represent major rising powers today and their influence continues to be widening.

>Should also note that he addresses the challenge of Islam and concludes that Islamic societies are only really attractive to people who grew up in Islam societies.
The non-significant amount of White European recruits to ISIS show this to be otherwise. Islam is a warcult in either case and its continued spread in Europe will reflect that as this strange century moves on

>DeLanda
My man

Nationalism and globalization are incompatible. This is the disctinction the likes of Steve Bannon make

This was my point, when even the American centre-left/centre-right Washington post has to admit the popularity of stalin, putin etc...

Fukuyama never said we couldn't go back to earlier types of society. What he said was that we couldn't get any further of liberal democracy and he wasn't particularly triumphant about that. His ideas are rather bleak to be honest and what is happening right now is only proving he got the big picture right even if his arguments were silly at times.

Surprised no one has posted the philosopher of history who's predictions actually come true. "We" are reaching the end, if by we you mean Western Civilization.

Attached: DeclineofTheWest.jpg (328x499, 40K)

If only regression is possible, which era from history should the west revert to? US capitalism is already moving into a neo-feudalist direction, in which billionaires own feudal lord-levels of wealth and influence politics.

u gotta admit the "muh human nature" ppl are starting to look like they have a point

>neo-feudalist
>feudal lord-levels of weath
>influence politics

I really do get a kick out of the fact that the individual who proved that the person who raises the most money does not necessarily win was himself a billionaire. He proved it more conclusively in the Republican primaries, but it held true in the national election as well.

U.S. capitalism is not moving towards feudalism, because we don't depend on billionaires to govern us and provide for us. They just kind of exist, and billionaire equivalents have existed in the U.S. since the late 1800's. Nobody thought Rockefeller was their feudal lord.

We are moving towards an overpowering executive branch. This has been a steady progression since the beginning of america, but it really kicked into high gear in the 1930-40's with FDR. With Obama and Trump it's beginning to really accelerate, since people got tired of waiting for Congress to deal with its partisan gridlock. I don't know if we'll ever get rid of term limits, but our Presidents are basically going to gain emperor-level powers during their periods of rule by the end of the century.

Capitalism results in globalism, well, at least global capitalism as it exists currently in all countries, does (even North Korea is impacted by globalism, politically and economically of course, but culturally too). Globalism isn't compatible with nationalism.

*Sniff

So in other words, the inevitable return of old traditions, paternal authority and ethnically homogeneous communities

>his policies are more paleoconservative
you mean dumb right

>implying global capitalism and cultural nationalism aren't compatible

>I really do get a kick out of the fact that the individual who proved that the person who raises the most money does not necessarily win was himself a billionaire. He proved it more conclusively in the Republican primaries, but it held true in the national election as well.

this is what's so painfully bizarre about the election aftermath, all the liberals are claiming the election is rigged, and that american democracy is failing, but really this is the first time in our lifetimes that a non-establishment candidate won the presidency thus showing our democracy is in fact still vigorous, weird times

>t. hasn't read the koran or hadith or manuals of hanbali law
Kuffar-tier delusion

>recommend some books that argue otherwise

Literally any socialist or communist literature

>Have we reached the end? Is liberal democratic capitalism truly the final stage of history?

Hopefully

Not that I'm a big fan of him, but wouldn't Bernie Sanders have been the only truly anti-establishment choice? In what meaningful sense, aside from his vulgarisms, is trump anti-establishment?

>all the liberals are claiming the election is rigged
Who are you talking to?
>non-establishment candidate
?????????

>is trump anti-establishment?
He isn't, he pretends to be in his rhetoric.

dude, he wants to cut off the flow of cheap labor from latin america and he's putting tarrifs on steel, do u realize how antithetical this is to all republican and post-clinton democrats? yeah, sure he's not calling for free college and universal healthcare or someshit, but he's definitely not towing the republican line

>Who are you talking to?
the people who call anyone who isnt a clinton toady "ivan"

>>is trump anti-establishment?

u think "the establishment" wanted a trade war with china? is this what liberals actually believe

I've yet to read snything from today's so-called radical left that doesn't either go back to 20th century leninism/maoism, ethnocentric postcolonial critique, or anarchism, local council democracy etc...

None of these ideas can challenge liberal democracy today. Mao launched a full on 'cultural revolution' to snuff out the last traces of capitalism, and in the end it nonetheless returned triumphantly.

maybe he is more of a nationalist than the usual right winger, but still will he be able to resist global capital? An interesting thing I've noticed is that liberals are beginning to criticise him from an even harder rightist position, that he is too soft on russia etc...whereas being friendly with the other major nuclear power was one of the most sensible points of his campaign.
Will he really be able to build a more protectionist, nationalist capitalism without inciting trade wars etc...?

>u think "the establishment" wanted a trade war with china?

This is precisely my point, Trump may individually believe in a more isolationist and protectionist capitalist system, but will he really be able to do it in a global capitalist world?

Paradoxically, the right here finds itself on the same page as the socialist left...

*cough*

Attached: 41PFwmSVPdL._SY445_QL70_.jpg (284x445, 12K)

>we don't depend on billionaires to govern us and provide for us.

Are you serious?

Take a close look at what a state does. It provides services for a small fee. Half of what you use today is a service you pay for. It isn't any different than feudalism from the past because you depend on someone to provide for your basic needs in forms of services, something which corporations already do today, but on a global scale.

>Is liberal democratic capitalism truly the final stage of history?
No. The current model is untenable, either resouces end and growth stops, or production overtakes consumption by so much growth becomes meaningless.
Either way capitalism in the 20th century acception of the term dies.
Democracy comes and goes, liberalism changes meaning every other decade tho so he may be right about that one.

>Things are even worse now in Russia than they were under USSR
>implying Stalin did anything wrong
>implying weather does not exist

Attached: 1519409577940.jpg (1200x1025, 195K)

internationalism is a late-stage nationalism

the non-radical left have good alternatives, see Jerermy Corbyn
outline.com/mez92H

Attached: saddasasddsa.jpg (600x582, 61K)

I know he makes the case that we need to move beyond the capitalist system, but does he propose any alternatives?

Corbyn, Sanders etc are social democrats, they will not challenge liberalism in itself

>you think the washingtonpost is woke for being MSM
>you are like little baby, watch this

abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1

>I pay the state a small fee therefore billionaires govern us
So if I pay taxes I'm at the whims of the billionaire class? America's been under the boot of the billionaire class since its been taxing itself? Give me a break.

>half of what you use today is a service you pay for. It isn't any different than feudalism because you depend on someone to provide for your basic needs
It's actually pretty different in a couple of substantial ways, namely that the people I'm paying don't govern me, don't protect me, and have no ability to enforce my payment. I can go to another "feudal lord" if I really want to, and none of these "feudal lords" can call me up and tell me to go fight for them.

>So if I pay taxes I'm at the whims of the billionaire class?

The corporate class, yes. At least at the whims at the people who the state or anyone else provides for your services.

>America's been under the boot of the billionaire class since its been taxing itself?

It's not so much about the taxes, as how much you have to depend on the services you use.

If medieval times had land which you used in order to provide for yourself and then the lord for various security fees, today you have a job you use in order to pay for them, the job which is created by the same modern transformed lord that you depend upon.

>the people I'm paying don't govern me

Are you sure about that? You get your opinions from news agencies around you, you get your food from companies which mold a specific product in a specific way in order for you to purchase it. You get your clothes that shift your own meaning of what is considered fashion and what is not, you get your entertainment from a mega corporation, and the list could go on and on.

>don't protect me
You have the state that does that, granted, but if you were to opt for a private security to protect you, the circumstances and consequences would be the same.

>and have no ability to enforce my payment.

Oh yeah, just voluntarily choose another company when there's about 5-10 around them anyways that provide for a specific need, and even then their interests are aligned because who the fuck still thinks in the 21st century that competition which represents disorder, is the endgoal of any economic system and not monopoly representing stability is the true purpose?

>I can go to another "feudal lord" if I really want to, and none of these "feudal lords" can call me up and tell me to go fight for them.

Not yet they haven't. But the premises are exactly the same.

Attached: 120607_cartoon_600_905.jpg (805x652, 126K)

I am reading this right now because it had a historical impact on how people perceived the fall of the Soviet Union. In hindsight of course he is wrong, but the problem is that he believes the real fall of the Soviet Union would impact the ideas that it carried. It did not, and as we have seen, it has gained traction with the youth in several countries such as the US with Sanders, Canada with Trudeau, and Britain with Corbyn. This is dangerous in my mind as you are slowly giving away the democratic liberal principles away for morale self interests. I come from a social democratic country where the lines between social and democratic are blurred, but the democratic principles stand somewhat stronger. If the entire foundation is smashed and then you aspire to build a giant building based on what you want rather than what can realistically achieved, it will either come crashing down, or it will turn into a poor bastardization of what one wanted.

I am not a hopeful man for the future.

I think we have to accept today, that the enemy is democracy itself. Only in the name of democracy can every failure of the system be justified. A progressive social dictatorship would be my end game. I don't see how Sanders, Corbyn or Trudeau (lol) really challenge Fukuyama in that liberal capitalist democracy is the final stage etc...
Particularly in the us, I have no idea what "democratic socialism" is supposed to mean.

Attached: Justin-Trudeau-Indian-garb-getty-640x480.jpg (640x480, 65K)

No

So basically 18th century enlightened absolutism with welfare?

Conservatives believe in Monarchism and that the leaders of society having an obligation to the people to create jobs and maintain wealth. Russia is an example of a former capitalist system returning to Monarchism.

Social Democrats in the US are basically New Dealers a la FDR

Its not the political actors in themselves that I believe challenge Fukuyama's claim from the nineties but rather this myriad of socialistic egalitarian ideas that themself, and especially their supporters swim in.

You make a very good point about the use of democracy and justification of failure, but I do not share your progressive social dictatorship ideal. I would rather have a failed free democratic nation, rather than a successful dictatorship. I guess you can say that the failure of a democratic nation is only when it turns into a totalitarian one.

ma boy

the return of feeling alive because you survive another day and have entire control over you destiny, yes

All those socialist utopians are just walking hauntologies

Yeah, you're a loon. Not surprising. If I really want to, I can use my computer, research how to live in the wilderness, then go fuck off innawoods for the rest of my life. It would suck, but there's nothing stopping me. The government won't give a fuck, Apple, Microsoft, McDonalds all wouldn't give a fuck.

Now, I'm not going to do that because I prefer my current state. I don't have a lord who owns me. If I run away during the burger wars, McDonalds can't execute me for treason. The only entity that has that power is the U.S. Government, and if I really wanted I could go become a citizen of a different country, or I could fuck off to Africa where no one cares about whose citizen you are.

I don't depend on the "corporate class," if I really want I can use small town businesses. It's inefficient, but I could do it. I could fuck off the Hickville, Kentucky and be a farmer or something. I could even be a really inefficient farmer, and make only $1000 every year in profit since I don't want to use corporate products, and I could do that and feed myself with my own corn, but it would suck.

I'm not born with an unrenounceable allegiance to a feudal lord. I can renounce my U.S. Citizenship if I really want.

The reason people rely on services by the "corporate class" isn't because the corporate class has a monopoly on these things. I can own my own land. I can buy land and own the water and minerals on it. I don't have to pay rent to Nestle because I'm utilizing their water resources.

Now I'm not by any means saying I trust the corporate class; I believe 100% Nestle would buy all the water spots in the world and charge people to use them if it could. Exxon would buy all the oil reserves in the world and extort people if they could. But the reality is they can't, and they don't. When they do, people get butt hurt and get the government to bust up their monopolies.

I would look up what feudalism is, you have very misguided notions about how it works and how our world works.

>isn't the left and the right today more or less fukuyamais
maybe in your metropolitan imperial financial center

>>
Can you link to video?

No.
Also there's no end of history.

>but there's nothing stopping me

... except for the guy that owns the land you wanna innawoods at

You think you're the only one thinking he can cheat the system bro? After the advent of fully developed feudalism everything which was forest, rock or water belonged to the king. But now that title has shifted to CEO's of corporations

>The government won't give a fuck, Apple, Microsoft, McDonalds all wouldn't give a fuck.
Not until they get to own that land and think you're a trespasser

>I'm not born with an unrenounceable allegiance to a feudal lord. I can renounce my U.S. Citizenship if I really want.

So why don't you?

Exactly the reason why the US is heading towards neo-feudalism. People can't be bothered and it's more convenient to stay put rather than go after some illusions of thinking you can escape the system.

>The reason people rely on services by the "corporate class" isn't because the corporate class has a monopoly on these things.

No, but they do have monopoly on something which you don't, what you think your definition of self is.

> I can own my own land. I can buy land and own the water and minerals on it. I don't have to pay rent to Nestle because I'm utilizing their water resources.

And you surely think this hasn't happened before in history, where freemen would gradually be coerced by the latifundia to sell their land and be dependent on the feudal lord as a serf in consequence?

>I would look up what feudalism is, you have very misguided notions about how it works and how our world works.

Haha, sure thing bro. Maybe you should look up how waking up to reality works like.

End of history? If what we are currently doing fails then we will go back to a more familiar lifestyle: feudalism and the quest for resources. At least until another system rises out of it

>Is liberal democratic capitalism truly the final stage of history?
I'm so glad this book's thesis is now universally derided, even when I was not open to even the vaguest of illiberal visions I was chilled what a suffocating, oppressive world this would be, dust stasis.

>Conservatives believe in Monarchism
:)
>the leaders of society having an obligation to the people to create jobs and maintain wealth
:) by association with:
>Russia is an example of a former capitalist system returning to Monarchism
double :)

Attached: 1520862110499.jpg (2544x4000, 865K)

Islam is the only remaining threat to liberal democratic capitalism. They tried to stamp it out. They tried to defang it with multiculturalism. Now it is destroying its host cells slowly, like a virus....

This is the best Peterson meme sofar

Democracy is, in itself, a much crazier idea than communism. If you asked the average Soviet bureaucrat - should workers own the means of production?, he would laugh at you.
If you asked the average American senator - Should the people control their government? Should the common man in essence make the most important decisions that could trigger international crises?, he would also laugh at you.

One of the great arrogances of liberal democrats is the belief that democracy has no enemies, as you said, the failure of democracy is not within democracy itself, but its degradation into a more primitive system of authoritarian regime. The idea that an authoritarian regime needs a constant supply of enemies (imperialist infiltration, bourgeois counterrevolution, homosexuals, etc) and a democratic regime needs no enemies.
Are you aware to what extent democracy itself is the enemy of democratic regimes? Democracy wouldn't function without suppressing itself, democracy is an empty signifier that no one believes in. Certainly no one with power

>the inevitable return of old traditions, paternal authority and ethnically homogeneous communities

In no meaningful way does this challenge Fukuyama's global capitalism. The right can play its culture wars all it wants, all this cannot fill the theoretical void. Neither they nor the *bloody postmodernist neomarxists* have a real alternative

Russia is a great example of what liberalism does to you if you don't play the game. The great majority of Russians today prefer life under USSR, Yeltsin was the most hated Russian in modern history. If Americans hadn't interfered in the '96 election he would have lost. Whatever the Soviet regime was, it did establish some basic social security things that ordinary people wanted. There were no communist billionaires.

>maybe in your metropolitan imperial financial center

Perhaps you're referring to the Latin American 'revolutions' of the last decade, to which I would ask - have any of them really gone beyond the Fukuyama model? Those who dare to oppose global capital are punished severely, there is nothing outside of global capitalism today. Hasn't Fukuyama basically won?

Rich islamic powers are fully integrated into global capitalism. Saudi Arabia, a far more radical Islamic regime than Iran, Egypt or Afghanistan, which are countries that have had secular governments in recent history, is nonetheless 100% integrated into global capitalism, especially along the 'liberal' side of the divide (US, EU, UK as opposed to Russia, China etc). Just look at the recent red carpet reception for the Saudi Prince in the UK...

Attached: 7be29d8b-ca5a-43ad-8d75-5aa5e153c66e.jpg (650x365, 48K)

>Thinking Islam will destroy liberal capitalism, the ideology that incorporated fascism and ended communism
The so called traditionalist muslims are fading by the day, most muslims in the west indulge in hedonistic behavior that goes against their religion, and even if we were to ignore the social aspect, there is no denying that capitalism in itself is against Islamic laws of finance, yet all Islamic countries practice usury and embraced capitalism

>Have we reached the end? Is liberal democratic capitalism truly the final stage of history?
>Recommend some books that argue otherwise

Fukuyama puts the argument against the 'End of History' thesis in this VERY book. But most people don't even fucking read it.

The argument against the thesis is even in the TITLE of the book.

"Last Man" is a Nietzschean concept that derides the end of history scenario and is highly contradictory to the Hegelian thesis.

In as much as to the validity of the "end of history" thesis itself, it's important to remember that the argument originates in Hegel, updated by Alexandre Kojeve, and only was slightly updated to the times by Fukuyama.

The thesis is less about liberalism as a democratic form or process, and more about hte fact the metaphysical presumptions of liberalism (materialism as the final metaphysics, knowledge as limited) will reign supreme and that in practice no non-modern regime is feasible.

To a philosopher like Kojeve (and Fukuyama following him, although he hides this fact) there's very little of a metaphysical distinction between Communism and Capitalism in that they both aim for universal prosperity and free material life (hence the end of history wasn't really at 1989, but much earlier).

So in a sense even dictatorships, authoritarian regimes, etc. which base their legitimacy and policy on secular principles are all end of history regimes. That includes China, Russia, Trump, etc.

The only real regime that was non-modern was briefly the Islamic State, that drew its legitimacy not from welfare (although it did do this a lot) but from revealed religion and honour (and hence thumos .

Because they were culturally forced to. It’s not a good environment for good morals, that’s for sure.

enlightening post, thank you.