Le end of history

Fucking Reds in Veeky Forums huh who would've thought, maybe it's safe to assume you're all from rOddOt too

Looks like he was correct

Pretty much the height of post Cold War triumphalism. It had been so long since communism wasn't the big bad boogieman that people actually forgot other major political problems existed. Not only that, but people failed to realize that without a motivating factor (i.e. the Soviet Union and the global spread of communism), the world would begin to slide back into the multipolar chaos of pre-war geopolitics.

The assumption that everyone wants democracy and all democracies inherently want the same things is stupid and has been repeatedly disproven at this point.

but doesn't it basically lament on that idea

this happened, only for europe and some other countries
it could happen for the larger part of the world, it will just take some more time

>1991
>now that the USSR is ded, non-democratic governments will collapse before the end of the century
>haha China thinks they can build things! Don't they know Free Men™ produce more than semi-slave labor?
>hmm those middle eastern governments we propped are getting more authoritarian. Guess it isn't a problem, Saddam is a freedom fighter

>2002
>jingoism jingoism jingoism
>this war will end fast, US military numbah 1
>China will collapse any time now, because urbanization+industrialization = democratization

Let's just say that it being a meme in the 90's and now being so hilariously wrong helped substantiate this new meme that it was universally applauded/accepted before 9/11.

>people failed to realize that without a motivating factor (i.e. the Soviet Union and the global spread of communism), the world would begin to slide back into the multipolar chaos of pre-war geopolitics

I don't think this comes up enough.

In the 90s, all the political theorists just assumed the int'l political system would remain hunky dory after the fall of communism, and nations would continue to sacrifice their personal interests and even sovereignty for the greater good.

It's just that, without a foe to direct combined efforts and progress against, the "the greater good" ends up meaning "maintaining the status quo of American primacy".

>we could all become billionaires any day now! It just needs more time to happen!

fucking thank you

people who were actually alive and forming memories in the 90s will know that fukuyama and others like him made some waves, but they were practically on the fringe of the field. it was never universally accepted, not even amongst the American academics it pandered to.

>Contrary to popular Western belief, however, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing for all places and people. Not all dictatorships end in misery, and not everyone wants to live in a democracy. “A bad democracy might be worse than a humane dictatorship,” Pinker points out.

>There is no proof that the desire for freedom and democracy is an innate part of human nature, Ezrow says. As long as quality of life remains high and people are allowed to live their lives as they wish, citizens can be completely happy under a dictatorship. Some even become nostalgic for the authoritarian regime after they lose it. “When I was younger, as a student in graduate school, I just assumed that everyone wanted to be living in a democracy,” Ezrow says. “But if you look at survey research in some countries under authoritarian regimes, people are happy.”

>In other words, ending all dictatorships might not be ideal for everyone. As long as leaders avoid the inherent pitfalls of that mode of governance and take their citizens’ wishes into account, dictatorships are simply a different approach for leading a country, one that values order over individual liberties. As Ezrow puts it: “Some cultures may just prefer security and stability over freedom.”

It was extremely popular and widespread among the general populace/media/popular media.

This widespread popularity severely limited the acknowledgement of the criticisms that came out in response to Fukuyama.

My point is that just because many academics didn't accept Fukuyama's arguments, doesn't also necessarily mean that the general educated populace (AKA the people who's opinions matter) didn't accept the meme.

>A bad democracy might be worse than a humane dictatorship
Wow so (undefined) bad things might be worse than (undefined) good things? Thank god we have Pinker to blow our minds with these hot takes

Communism is also and end-of-history ideology.

Liberal democracy and communism are both materialistically end-of-history idelaogies, by which I mean they posts the "completion" of human history under a single ideology that will endure forever and ensure no further human conflict. This is an inductive statement and so it cannot be "proven" but end-of-history idelaogies that are materialistic are doomed to failure because that's not how humans behave. Their end games are not sustainable, even if they "won" and all systems of human government adhered to the ideology, more conflict would generate five minutes after the victory was achieved. An end-of-history ideology that is capable of actually "winning" and thus ending human conflict and history needs to literally end physical existence, and thus must be a religious one.

He's making a point for BBC readers. Not an academic thesis.

Furthermore, he is correct. His point is that it is almost universally assumed and taught in the West that
Democracy = good for everyone
Dictatorship = bad for everyone
and that this false dichotomy of "either democracy/good or dictatorship/bad" is simply inaccurate.

There's a reason they were both developed in Abrahamic (apocalyptic) societies.

If anything westerners will end up as mongrelized easterners at the rare things are going

What?

"Easterners" make up maybe 10% of all the OECD population (that includes Japan and Korea).

Easterners= anyone from Asia and North Africa

why are people are so obsessed with democracy in the west anyway?

Millennials these days are too soft. We need a good old fashioned war!

...

I know the point the image is trying to make but it *is* really only in the last few centuries that the sovereign (for whatever value that means in a particular country) became a or a collection of administrators and symbols rather than a or a class of warriors. Partially due to the advent of more dangerous weaponry but also due to the influence of the idle intellectual class gaining undue power and influence over the course of a civilazation.

The image is a better argument against the sovereign being a or a collection of craven bean-counters rather than war itself.

any kind of nonhobbesian authoritarianism is pure cuckoldry

Fashionable intellectuals did.

>Guess it isn't a problem, Saddam is a freedom fighter

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

>He says while posting a logh cap

In the show, part of the reason the empire was given a significant degree of moral authority was that its leaders fought on the front lines.

>not liking the redpill anime

He said the only "threat" to it was radical islam.

protip: guess what's habbeding?

>...and conservatism took the place of progressiveness.

redpilled indeed :^)

I believe in the show the word "conservatism" meant more status quo and risk-averse stagnation and "progressivism" meant getting out there to make stuff happen. Considering the show is older than the modern uses of the words.

>He said the only "threat" to it was radical islam.

He says so now. In the 1992 book he dismissed it saying it's unable to challenge liberal democracy outside of historically Islamic areas and literally stated that the days of its expansion are over.

tl;dr: Read the book before you comment on it.

Pretty much all the prophet Fukuyama had to say on the Islamic threat:

>It is true that Islam constitutes a systematic and coherent ideology, just like liberalism and communism, with its own code of morality and doctrine of political and social justice. The appeal of Islam is potentially universal, reaching out to all men as men, and not just to members of a particular ethnic or national group. And Islam has indeed defeated liberal democracy in many parts of the Islamic world, posing a grave threat to liberal practices even in countries where it has not achieved political power directly. The end of the Cold War in Europe was followed immediately by a challenge to the West from Iraq, in which Islam was arguably a factor.

>Despite the power demonstrated by Islam in its current revival, however, it remains the case that this religion has virtually no appeal outside those areas that were culturally Islamic to begin with. The days of Islam's cultural conquests, it would seem, are over: it can win back lapsed adherents, but has no resonance for young people in Berlin, Tokyo, or Moscow. And while nearly a billion people are culturally Islamic—one-fifth of the world's population—they cannot challenge liberal democracy on its own territory on the level of ideas. Indeed, the Islamic world would seem more vulnerable to liberal ideas in the long run than the reverse, since such liberalism has attracted numerous and powerful Muslim adherents over the past century and a half. Part of the reason for the current, fundamentalist revival is the strength of the perceived threat from liberal, Western values to traditional Islamic societies.

Two dismissive paragraphs before he returns to waxing lyrical about the worldwide liberal revolution for four hundred pages.

I like your dubs but I find your response to my post shitty senpai. I read the essay and the book, and I understand the context of it in his book. However, the OP didn't originally say, "Hey, the 1992 book by Francis Fukuyama-- is it trufax?" I was merely vomiting out what Fukuyama said and the various criticisms surrounding it.

so yeah, the only "threat" is radical islam.

>I was merely vomiting out what Fukuyama said and the various criticisms surrounding it.
And he didn't say what you claimed he did in the 90s you moron, which is specifically the period OP asked about.

Who cares if he changed his tune after the previous one proved untenable?

Nigga I am putting it in quotations for a reason.

I don't follow. This is not the marxist end of history we're discussing.

Because you suggested ("protip: guess what's habbeding?") he could identify the "only threat" and merely underestimated it.

Where in reality he dismissed it as a threat while also identifying some other, more significant threats; you'll find out what those were when you read the book.

you reap what you sow

American exceptionalists will ignore this

ah yes the science of political science v. impressive

>before you tell other people do this or do that...how about you do it you----

>volunteers for front
>leaves the safety of the trench and rescues his wounded LT from no mans land dodging bullets
>takes shrapnel in the leg and begs to stay on the front
>gets better and instantly volunteers to go back
>Takes 4 enemies prisoner singlehandedly
>wins 2 iron crosses for general bravery
>blinded by gas
>offered promotion but turn it down because too good at job and the soldiers need him
>well liked by his peers for brave and kind disposition
>almost died more times than he could count
>rescues dog
>shares rations with comrades when they are still hungry

And he went completely fucking crazy like a lot of people in ww1.

This would have happened already if it wasn't from dune coons

*for

He was right though. The only reason there are so many salafi imams in western Europe is because the technocrats running the show are suicidal.

Fukuyama dindu nuffin wrong. There is no coherent threat against neoliberal capitalism in the foreseeable future. Even the gulf states are basically puppets who can't do much really.

I know, right?! it actually ended in the 80's

BUT THE DIGITAL CLOCKS FOR NUKES, BRO

>he is right, it's reality that's wrong

You didn't read it or even glance at the wikipage

But he didn't ever say or write what you just said until after 1992

So you "vomited" a lie.

>this whole post