/lit/ - Literature

this guy is trolling us all

>>2294269
Smarter than you.

lol his name sounds like fuck yo mama

End of history my ass...
I had to read that shit in International Relations class. All I had to do was watch the news and I could see with my own eyes how full of shit it was. Then I wrote a paper about how full of shit it was. Because it was full of shit and I just had to tell my proffessor how much I thought it was full of shit.
Fuck you Fuckuyama. Fuck you up the ass with the entire military might of the Chinese government.

>>2295167
And yet, he's still smarter than you
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136782/francis-fukuyama/the-future-of-history

>>2295255
lol but didn't he say history had reached his end in 1999? oh and his name has fuk u in it hahaha

>>2295167
you seriously think that china and america are ever going to go to war, bro? not gonna happen

fukuyama is a super smart guy, definitely the most intelligent of the neo-conservatives after big poppa leo strauss.

>>2295260
This does not by any means imply the end of international conflict per se. For the world at that point would be divided between a part that was historical and a part that was post-historical. Conflict between states still in history, and between those states and those at the end of history, would still be possible. There would still be a high and perhaps rising level of ethnic and nationalist violence, since those are impulses incompletely played out, even in parts of the post-historical world. Palestinians and Kurds, Sikhs and Tamils, Irish Catholics and Walloons, Armenians and Azeris, will continue to have their unresolved grievances. This implies that terrorism and wars of national liberation will continue to be an important item on the international agenda. But large-scale conflict must involve large states still caught in the grip of history, and they are what appear to be passing from the scene.

>>2295266
>you seriously think that china and america are ever going to go to war, bro? not gonna happen
When the fuck did I mention China and the US going to war? I simply stated that I hope an authoritarian regime orders it's army to collectively fuck Fukuyama in the ass.
>Lol human ideological development is over! Liberalism and democracy won!
I'll see if you still think that when those millions of fine Asian gentlemen are taking turns penetrating you while shouting communist party slogans, you bastard.

>>2295281
current chinese regime is pretty compatible with fukuyama's thesis in "end of history", bro. his argument isn't that western liberal democratic political regimes have won out, it's that large states are immersed in basically liberal economic regimes and are unlikely to fight major wars. china has, what, a state-capitalist economy? but they trade on the world market the same way america does. despite the illiberal features of their regime, china is perfectly compatible with end of history. it's almost like you haven't read the essay (i bet you think that fukuyama thinks the end of history is an unqualified good thing)

>>2295255
"It is conceivable that the Occupy Wall Street movement will gain traction, but the most dynamic recent populist movement to date has been the right-wing Tea Party" Fukuyuama thinks Fox is the only news channel. All around the world the Occupy movement is having actions. The T.P. jeje only in the U.S.

He was not alone in his hubris, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and has since backtracked quite a bit. Citing Samuel Huntington's ideas as the superior (It is not a call to racism or nationalism)
(Fukuyama: Foo-foo-yah-mah. Do you say "Fook you?")

>>2295302
Agree. That threw me. Fox however isn't alone in their downplaying/smearing the Occupants, while going bonkers in love with the Teabaggers (2009/2010 anyway) Corporate cash man.

>>2295307
it wasn't really hubris, though, and he's been a lot more right than Fucking Huntington

>>2295298
The article I had to read basically said that human ideological development had ended. He wasn't just talking about liberal economics, he thought authoritarian regimes were inevitably going to be replaced by democractic regimes. The whole thing operates under the assumption that liberal government and economics is somehow inherently superior to all other forms of government. China is spitting in his face right now. By the way, China's economy is far from being free market. It allows foriegn investment and trades on the global market, but it's internal economy is still very much regulated, as are it's economic dealing with other nations.
I don't think you read that essay, considering it was written in 1989 and he said that China was on the brink of government collapse and that communism would be gone by the end of the decade. Hey, look how that turned out!

Also, at the end of it he goes on some rant about how idealism and culture is dying and being replaced by consumerism, which sounds like something I would have said when I was 12.

Nations fight wars for many reasons. Economics only prevents conflict if both nations have the same economic needs as the other. A few years ago Russia cut off natural gas supplies to eastern Europe and put the whole place into an energy crises. Russia's biggest export is natural gas. So why would they do this? Because political power is just as important as economic power at the end of the day.

>>2295255
"There are several reasons for this lack of left-wing mobilization, but chief among them is a failure in the realm of ideas. For the past generation, the ideological high ground on economic issues has been held by a libertarian right." Again: Does this guy read anything about postmodernism? Allmost all the intellectuals and philosophers considered relevant in mayor Universities outside the U.S. are considered Marxists.

>>2295307
>Huntington
Nigga just generalized massively different cultures and peoples and governments and stupidly claimed they would all act the same way, which is bullshit.

>>2295102
For many the story of 9/11 is the story of a West under siege from the barbarian hordes, of a global struggle between good and evil. The idea of the ‘clash of civilizations’, first popularized by the American political scientist Samuel Huntington a decade before 9/11, has, in this view, come to define the decade after. It has become a means through which to express the sense of fear and resentment of which Todorov has written, a way of understanding notions of belongingness and enmity in emotional rather than ideological terms.
The argument for a clash of civilizations might provide the certainty of a world divided by sharp lines. It is nevertheless a deeply ambiguous claim.
> This is copy pasta because i read in spanish "El miedo a los bárbaros, más allá del choque de civilizaciones" from Todorov and he defines civilization and barbarie with much more detail and precision than Huntington.

>>2295312
i don't think that's a satisfactory reading of Fukuyama's position. it's not that liberal democratic political regimes are going to prevail all around the world. it's that different ways of life will no longer view themselves as exemplars of different political ideals. something like world war II (worldwide conflict between vastly different political systems) or the cold war (sustained tension between opposed political systems) will never happen again. whatever system china operates under, it's not an entire and complete ideological system maintained in opposition to capitalism. it may be despotic and illiberal, but it's not despotic or illiberal in a way that's an ideological challenge to westernism. and nations that have reached this stage - of basically capitalistic basically liberalistic, however dirty, government - are extremely unlikely to fight actual wars between each other. at least not wars that he considers important (IE large wars between large nations) - something like russia throwing its influence around smaller eastern european nations is pretty insignificant from his view. and i think his dissatisfaction w/ this state of affairs is because of the dirtiness of many regimes that are more or less going to be acceptably stable.

idk man.

>>2295317
Agree Huntington is very dumbass.
He plays Risk too much.

>Huntington
>Bernard Lewis and new orientalists
>'Clash of Civilizations'
>Fukuyama's 'end of history' thesis

IR/Area Studies guy here. People who read still believe in this sort of shit?

>>2295310
>>2295317
I wish I could link to the article, but Fukuyama made a good case for Huntington.
And I haven't been able to crack my copy open on it yet, but I believe that it is SUPPOSED to be a generalized plan/hypothesis. How could you be specific when dealing with all of humanity?

>>2295342
hey hey woah woah woah. don't throw fukuyama in with the lewis / huntington types, he has a very different thesis. those guys are all idiots.

>>2295255
doesn't surprise me i have to pay to read the whole article. What a douchebag.

>>2295347

You're right that Fukuyama is a much more sensible thinker than the others, but the notion that liberal democracy represents the final stage of human sociopolitical organization seems very silly to me.

>>2295354
i dont think you can account for that without going into a lot of stuff about eg bloom and mansfield and kojeve and schmitt, and ultimately leo strauss

>>2295377

Eh, fair enough. I'll admit that out of what I listed, his is is the work I'm the least familiar with.

>>2294269
Tao Lin's stuff isn't that bad.