/lit/ - Literature

The starting point is Fukuyama of course, the pre-eminent liberal intellectual of our time whose work provides the basis for the current liberal world order.

Fukuyama argues that the purpose of liberalism is to "lower the sights of politics" and eliminate violence in societies by turning the masses into consumerist dregs who worry more about themselves than the broader scope of life, society and culture. He argues that this is the best possible system for humanity and completes the Hegelian dialectic: no other ideologies or systems will develop after liberalism although it may lose popularity and suffer defeats.

In the future will this book only be seen as a laughingstock? Or is he kind of right?

>>21751635
you're onto something

>refutes this entire thread

This is my reasoning for believing that liberal democracy is not the end of history.

Because, unless we find some way of generating natural resources out of thin air, we will eventually hit a brick wall in terms of real economic growth.

Then the entire world will become like medieval Japan or pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. A closed system with no way to expand anywhere, with a hard growth ceiling, where huge numbers of unemployed men must compete for limited sources of wealth.

Do you want to know what happens in a system like that? Here's a clue: Sengoku Jidai, and Flower Wars.

We are in for some epic kino when the growth ceiling eventually kicks in. Our children (if we have any) will get the chance to become literal samurai warlords.

Everyone on the Internet pretends like the world is on the brink of destruction or that the West will collapse overnight. In reality most people just go on with their daily lives and follow liberal values of freedom and choice. I'm starting to agree with Fukuyama that there's no serious reason to believe that we will ever evolve past those values and our current political system.

Apologise.

It's fascinating that even when America and the West enter periods of decline and political sedition, everyone still speaks in the language of liberalism. Everything is still about human rights and individual autonomy and secularism. Maybe Fukuyama was ultimately correct. We may fight each other until the end of time but liberalism will be the only weapon we use, in whatever form it takes.

I used to think Fukuyama was retarded, then I actually bothered to read his book and realised that 90% of the people who criticise him haven't read him.
>but 9/11
>but Islamism
>but China
>but Russia-Ukraine war
>but trannies
He literally addresses all of these (not trannies directly but the idea that liberal democracy is creating a generation of Last Men). It's still the best book for understanding the post-Cold War global order, even if he didn't get everything 100% right.

So his argument is that the final stage of political development is liberal globohomo? Tell me again why so many people disagree with this book? We basically already live in a cosmopolitan liberal wasteland where everyone is a narcissistic nihilist. Any country that dissents like Russia is doing right now will be completely isolated and economically broken.

Fukuyamabros, I don't feel so good right now...
(kek)

I honestly don't understand how western liberal societies are supposed survive women and their suffrage

Outside the economists, most people have ignored things that are becoming incredibly obvious to the layman. It is obvious in the modern age that
A)Women have all the power in deciding who gets to date/marry/reproduce

B)Women have extremely shallow preferences, many of which are literally unachievable for most men (like being tall, rich or high status).

C)The combination of these two things mean that most men will simply never marry or reproduce, and will even struggle to date much

Now you can argue that this is morally acceptable, because morals are subjective. You can say that women should have the choice of who to date, even if their reasons are shallow. But the problem is denying reality because it's inconvenient or you simply don't like it. The reality that western and asian demographies and by extension socities are doomed. Population decline will do irreversible damage to the economy, institutional knowledge and scientific progress. We also know the nature of women is behind it because it's happening across varied cultures & economies. From China to Finland to Germany to Korea and Japan, they all suffer slow but gradual decline because of women.

People say restricting womens right is morally wrong but is the decline of modern civilization worth it? Women will benefit from it themselves by not having the walls collapse on them, without some rights they'll be free in thr long term

If Fukuyama was self admittedly wrong on the End of History shouldn’t he and his ilks be shitting their pants right now about the inevitability of Fascist or illiberal political forthcoming?

So, uh... has anyone thought of an alternative to liberal capitalism yet? Has anyone even gotten close to fundamentally changing the system? No? Ok then I guess Fukuyama was right for now

Defeatist mindset on the right is the result of internalized Hegelianism. There is no "right side" of history, as there is no "end" to history; eternal struggle is all there is. We live in the shadow of the 20th century, ideological predilections is a psychological phenomenon. As long as right wing brains exist in this world they will continue to fight for our cause; now or in the future, on earth or in space in a place far far away.

What will it take for Marxism and Communism to gain cache value in the United States and further internationally? What will it take for class consciousness to replace race consciousness?

Since 1989, the narrative has been that capitalism was the end goal of humanity and that we have essentially found the perfect, self-perpetuating system. Because of this and people being raised in capitalism with no oppositon, it has been ingrained as natural and simply "how life is" versus just being a socioeconomic system and stage on the development of humanity. What will it take for people to remove their ideological blinders and see that socioeconomic development project is not through and that change is possible? Revolution is possible.

After everything that’s happened the past year I’m more convinced than ever that this book is correct for now. Even after a pandemic and economic disaster, liberalism still came out on top and people became the most progressive they’ve ever been. It seems nothing can convince people to let go of it

>>17104435
It won't.

Is it true? Is history over?

What is the essential globalism/anti-globalism books both from a classical (left-right, etc.) and non-partisan perspectives. Particularly, what are some books that talk about how the project is going to unfold and the United States' role in this unfolding. Francis Fukuyama and Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington seem as fundamental works to start with. I'm also thinking Peter Zeihan's works can be included in it.

has he been refuted?