is he the most misunderstood thinker of modern times?

[Anonymous No.19813925]

>you are Francis Fukuyama

>use Kojeve's interpretation of Hegel to predict that the end state of world politics is a stagnant technocracy and globohomo world government

> everything you predict comes to pass in the 21st century

> people mistake your thesis for a jingoistic defence of American values and ruthlessly make fun of you

> you become the poster child for delusional liberalism

is it time to rehabilitate Fukuyama?

[Anonymous No.19813942]

>>19813925
He’s been proven wrong by the collapsing american society and the rise of China AND Islamism in the East.

[Anonymous No.19813949]

>>19813925
How come no Mearsheimer, lit?

[Anonymous No.19813955]

this thread goes so far over my head I love it

[Anonymous No.19813966]

>>19813942
Islamism is reactionary force that gets squashed wherever it emerges. Fukuyama points out that it has no political appeal outside its heartlands and most Islamic nations end up integrated into the world consensus on some level or another (Turkey, the Saudis)

China has only got as far as it has through market integration via a Dengist interpretation of neoliberalism

[Anonymous No.19813971]

>>19813925
What caused that "gotta touch my chin to look smart" gesture and why does it look so retarded in this pic?

[Anonymous No.19813982]

>>19813942
>Islamism

anyway Fukuyama never proposes that we will see the end of political events, his thesis is that nothing will be able to challenge the post-Soviet market consensus other than technological upheaval (transhumanism, cyborg elite)

[Anonymous No.19814047]

>>19813942
His thesis is meta-historical you dipshit. A giant meteor could hit the Earth, killing 90% of the population, and reducing the rest of us to hunter-gatherers. This would not make him wrong.
His this is that liberalism is the final stage of human development.
Try actually reading the book dummy.

[Anonymous No.19814121]

>>19814047
this is exactly what I'm saying, no one has any idea what the end of history is about. I don't believe anyone who levels this sort of criticism has read the book, or the follow-up articles

[Anonymous No.19814174]

>>19814121
>>19814047
Then it ends up with the same problem as Marxism: you posit some eventual end-point for humanity that is impossible to disprove, which makes the theory basically meaningless. Any evidence to the contrary can be absorbed by the theory or dismissed as insignificant.

>>19813925
Interesting take. I think the issue is that his theory was never presented in these pessimistic terms (otherwise it wouldn't have been so popular among the globohomo elites and his star would not have made such a spectacular ascent (and descent)).

If you read his as a prophet of doom, then yes, this makes sense -- it's just that the stagnant technocratic globohomo world government would most likely collapse -- lacking any kind of genuine democratic element there would be nothing to prevent the continued rape of nature, which would bring about full-scale ecological apocalypse.

[Anonymous No.19814303]

>>19814174
>his theory was never presented in these pessimistic terms (otherwise it wouldn't have been so popular among the globohomo elites and his star would not have made such a spectacular ascent

but he does express deep pessimism about the future development of technology and its role in history, the problem is that pundits were too high on their own fumes after the fall of the USSR to engage with this aspect of the bookbook

>If you read his as a prophet of doom, then yes, this makes sense -- it's just that the stagnant technocratic globohomo world government would most likely collapse -- lacking any kind of genuine democratic element there would be nothing to prevent the continued rape of nature, which would bring about full-scale ecological apocalypse.

again, ecological collapse doesn't disprove his thesis, because it's not a political event. Fukuyama isn't proposing that there will be no more events, he's saying that it will only be possible to engage with these events through the framework of liberalism. Maybe the title of the book leads people astray - he's referring to history in the Hegelian sense, ie the dialectical development of higher modes of political activity

[Anonymous No.19814361]

I for one hope World Federalism happens.

[Anonymous No.19814474]

>>19813925
Capitalism realism is further confirmation that he was actually based and correct.

Origin of political order is a superb history.

[Anonymous No.19814826]

>>19814303
Ecological collapse, if it were to happen, would be tied to a liberal order founded on industrial development. It would be tied to political events and would certainly cause many more which could reshape the global order.

[Anonymous No.19814971]

>>19814303
>Fukuyama isn't proposing that there will be no more events, he's saying that it will only be possible to engage with these events through the framework of liberalism.

And that's why he's wrong. Because the framework of liberalism would not survive total ecological collapse.

[Anonymous No.19815021]

>>19814971
It wouldn't survive an asteroid hit either. Or the second coming of Christ. Or alien invasion.

[Anonymous No.19815132]

>>19814826
This is already happening. It’s not like climate change is causing people to reject liberalism. Every global institution from the UN to the World Economic Forum to international treaties like the Paris Climate Accords are all understood through liberalism. China has not demonstrated that socialism solves the issue of climate change since they are actually responsible for most carbon emissions.

[Anonymous No.19815561]

>>19814971
that's not the point though. he's not saying that liberalism can never end, he's saying there's no possibility of further development *beyond* liberalism. If civilisation collapsed tomorrow and we had to restart human development from scratch, we'd eventually return to a liberal world order

[Anonymous No.19816362]

Bump keep thread alive and active /lit/

[Anonymous No.19816828]

>read Hegel
>read Kojeve
>read Fukuyama
you are now enlightened

[Anonymous No.19816857]

>>19815561
>he's saying there's no possibility of further development *beyond* liberalism.
Are there even any realistic possible developments? This seems so obvious to me at this point. It's impossible to maintain the global economy as we have it right now without liberalism, and it's impossible to hold society together without this global economy. Everything stands up precariously as a whole.

[Anonymous No.19816956]

I started to give Fukuyama reconsideration after 2020. That year saw the largest protests in American history. 20 million people protested for BLM and 2 years later, it's forgotten. Nothing came out of it. The slogans were plastered on corporate billboards and the supposedly radical protestors were marching alongside Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. It was fucking unbelievable to witness. Imagine such a significant moment in history being so worthless --- imagine an uprising being turned into a circus performance with the same people you're supposedly rising against.

I learned that there is truly no revolution. No one wants another 20th century. No one actually wants war, genocide, ethnic cleansing, violence, mass migration and chaos, all the things that are required for overthrowing a regime and establishing a new government. They just want to be able to fantasize about those things and move on with their lives. It seems increasingly clear that modern liberalism is designed to provide those simulations without actually changing its structure. In that way, the BLM riots were a success. But I can't shake off this feeling of being trapped. Nothing ever changes and no alternative to our global society has been invented. I just have to watch everyone become liquidated into the same cosmopolitan lifestyle of narcissism, consumption and anxiety. It's horrifying, but Fukuyama did actually admit that in his book. Liberalism is a prison.

[Anonymous No.19816993]

>>19816956
good post but cringe filename

[Anonymous No.19817046]

>>19816956
>It seems increasingly clear that modern liberalism is designed to provide those simulations without actually changing its structure. In that way, the BLM riots were a success.

You could have said the same thing about Occupy, but who even remembers it? It's as if it never happened

In the 21st century, everything is political except politics.

[Anonymous No.19817069]

>>19816857
total technocratic world-order

[Anonymous No.19817252]

>>19816956
i know what you mean bro. Its funny you wrote this because I just started reading a fiction called Napoleon of Notting Hill, which is about people being in a similar mood.

[Anonymous No.19817295]

>>19814361
March 2020 called

[Anonymous No.19818672]

>>19813925
>use Kojeve's interpretation of Hegel to predict that the end state of world politics is a stagnant technocracy and globohomo world government
not really. he just gave an updated whig-history for post-cold war america

[Anonymous No.19819154]

>>19818672
are your denying his account is Hegelian?

[Anonymous No.19819194]

>>19816956

Marginalized folks have every reason to trust progressive bourgeoisie and managerial strata over fascist white settlers who want them dead.we have every right to deplatform fascists and reactionaries and class reductionists and science deniers and ensure safety for marginalized and vulnerable members of our communities. We have every right to demand the destigmatization and normalization of sex work, mental health, fat positivity, drug use, decolonization prison abolition police abolition family abolition the sexual enmancipation of children and an end to white supremacy and the gender binary.

Instead of pandering to the most backward secrors of the working class we should lead the way along with the most advanced ones, black and indigenous people, and queer/ trans sex workers. Sex workers not the straight male labour aristokkkracy who are at the vanguard of the proletarian movement, women and queer people taking the means of production into their own hands by refusing to perform unpaid sexual and emotional labor for white men. The real class struggle is not in factories but in womens bodies. Sexwork is a threat to patriarchy the capitalist system itself it is radically queer because it goes against the idea that sex is for the reproduction of the nuclear family and the patriarchal ideology of romantic love. Its a means for workers to take the means of production into their own hands here and now to abolish the distinction between the private sphere and the public, between work and pleasure and self expression. To break down the walls of lily white christian suburbia into a brave new world of pleasure rebellion and freedom. Yes it is true what they say about us queer postmodern neomarxists We are gonna groom all your daughters to be whores and your sons to be nympho trans sex workers.

[Anonymous No.19819205]

>>19813971
Looks retarded because the rest of his body is completely wooden

[Anonymous No.19819225]

>>19813925
so... history has ended you say. ah, but things still happen! sorry bud, your thesis is disproven.

[Anonymous No.19819257]

>>19813949
>Mearsheimer
He predicted, exactly, the current Russia-Ukraine situation ---- 28 YEARS AGO.

[Anonymous No.19819275]

>>19816828
>Kojeve
GOAT Wikipedia profile pic

[Anonymous No.19819285]

>>19813971
>What caused that "gotta touch my chin to look smart" gesture
The photographer.
No idea why eminent people listen to camera clickers.

[Anonymous No.19819296]

>>19817046
>It's as if it never happened
it had no real focus.

[Anonymous No.19819543]

>>19816956
>surprised something so astroturfed can end so quickly

[Anonymous No.19820064]

>>19819225
read Hegel and stop being retarded about things you don't understand

[Anonymous No.19820090]

>>19815561
I know Hegelians are autistic but could it be that there is no such thing as "political development" and that your defenitions of liberalism are basically just the marxian definition of capitalism?

[Anonymous No.19820098]

>>19814174
>muh unfalsifiable hypothesis
No. You can disprove it by showing that it fails to meet the core human needs that he says it's suppised to meet, or by showing that he's wrong about what the needs are, or by showing that something else meets them better. There are so many ways you can attack his thesis and his arguments. Just read the bloody thing for heaven's sake.

[Anonymous No.19820100]

>>19820064
Hegel was retarded and his books should be burned.

[Anonymous No.19820114]

>>19820098
Not without working within his frame. You just have to reject his hypothesis all together. What even is his definition of liberalism?

[Anonymous No.19820124]

>>19816956
What the fuck are you talking about? What is it that you want to see achieved? Do you think BLM has had no social influence whatsoever because private ownership is still a thing?

[Anonymous No.19820125]

>>19813925
>stagnant technocracy and globohomo world government

That's not what he predict lol, what a horseshit reading.

[Anonymous No.19820160]

>>19813925
Liberalism is not the end-state. Liberalism is a disease.

[Anonymous No.19820169]

>>19814303
>ecological collapse doesn't disprove his thesis, because it's not a political event
It is though. when that collapse comes as a result of the need for endless growth and thus at best an endless use of the available resources or at worst a need for an ever increasing need of these resources this leads to a collapse because of the societal structure and the views held by the people. This would mean that the political structure proposed is in the long term unsustainable and most of the solutions proposed up until this point consist of very anti-liberal methods of evinonmetal protection. This would make the liberal state just another temporary phase replaced because of its inherit problems.

[Anonymous No.19820179]

>>19816956
>No one actually wants war, genocide, ethnic cleansing, violence, mass migration and chaos
No shit, you idiot. These things are miserable. No one wants them.

[Anonymous No.19820192]

>>19820125
This
He was very clear in his arrogance, he believed Liberalism was the solution to the social, political and economic problem.
He thought the end of history was utopic

[Anonymous No.19820219]

>>19820179
These kids just want to kill people, that's all there is. Liberals are just progressives who don't want to kill people at whim which is mainly why the other progs hate them, and because they are more popular.

[Anonymous No.19820399]

>>19820192
Less a solution and more the only system left standing after countless wars and historical contingencies.

[Anonymous No.19820798]

>>19816956
God you're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.19821286]

>>19820125
>>19820192
He very unambiguously said that Liberalism is an unfulfilling and boring system. He’s a liberal because he thinks that this is a better alternative to warfare and satisfies people’s desires for recognition. Did either of you dipshits even read the book? He never affirms Liberalism as utopian, he wants globohomo stagnation because he thinks it’s more peaceful. That’s it.

[Anonymous No.19821328]

>>19820124
What were the demands of the BLM movement? Defunding or abolishing the police. The NYT even ran a story advocating this. Neither of these actually happened, and in the instances where police were defunded, those cities actually surged in crime and had to reverse course. The other major effect of BLM, a perpetual racial consciousness of envy and hierarchy in America, is completely compatible with liberalism. That’s the exact reaction why BLM was endorsed by corporations and most money that was raised for the movement was funneled to the Democrats. So anon, tell me, what did BLM accomplish that actually threatens liberal democracy?

[Anonymous No.19821359]

>>19814474
God I hate Mark Fisher

>>19813949
prefer him over Fukuyama, Fukuyama is just warmed over neoliberalism. Mearsheimer has the right ideas about China. he's way more relevant now than ever. sucks people give him the once over compared to "techno-liberals" like Fukuyama

[Anonymous No.19821535]

>>19820160
Did he actually say that?
What a blow to post-modernists everywhere.

[Anonymous No.19821560]

>>19813925
>end state of world politics is a stagnant technocracy and globohomo world government
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/inchoroi-love-song/
"The potential problem with rendering HUMAN nature compliant to HUMAN desire is quite obvious: given that HUMAN desire is rooted in HUMAN nature, the power to transform HUMAN nature according to HUMAN desire becomes the power to transform HUMAN desire according to HUMAN desire. This is a cornerstone of what troubles so-called ‘bioconservatives’ like Francis Fukuyama, for instance: the possibility of ‘desire run amok’—or put differently, the breakdown of the consensual values required for liberal democratic society.

For the first time in HUMAN history, in other words, the biological basis of HUMAN desire will be put into play. Given that this is historically unprecedented, and given the degree to which social cohesion depends upon overlapping networks of consistent—or at the very least, compatible—desires, the threat seems quite clear. ‘Designer desires’ should have the same sinister ring as ‘neurocosmetic surgery.’ Imagine waking up and deciding what to wear as well as what to feel for the day."

"Now, we are entering an era which will see HUMAN nature become thoroughly compliant to HUMAN desire, and so dwell in the shadow of yet another catastrophic consequence: the Semantic Apocalypse."

[Anonymous No.19821567]

I the article he recently published and he seems like just a typical libtard.

>>19816956
The revolution has been happening for decades. Every year America gets more afrocentric and anti-white. This is a process, not something that happens instantly.

[Anonymous No.19822006]

Bump. Has anyone posted any decent arguments to try and disprove (OP) yet? Will read the thread later in the evening.

[Anonymous No.19822016]

>>19813925
>everything you predict comes to pass in the 21st century
Except it doesn't.

>>19813966
>Fukuyama points out that it has no political appeal outside its heartlands and most Islamic nations end up integrated into the world consensus on some level or another (Turkey, the Saudis)
There is a very large span between the claim that "the end state of world politics is a stagnant technocracy and globohomo world government" and that countries will be integrated in "world consensus on some level or other".

[Anonymous No.19822059]

I guess my critique of Fukuyama's central idea is that his idea of "liberal democracy" has turned out to not be very liberal at all. We have essentially returned to a de facto aristocracy, with a small amount of people controlling most of the wealth and most of the power. That, to me, seems to be the antithesis of liberal democracy. Sure, they don't CALL themselves dukes, barons, and princes. But that is, effectively, what the people who run the world are.

Fuck, China is an aristocratic republic. The CCP is the landed gentry. The rest of the world isn't much better. Liberalism has come and gone and we have reverted to a social order that does not look terribly different than what existed in the 18th Century. The differences are merely cosmetic.

[Anonymous No.19822077]

>>19822006
no, they haven't. this thread comes up every month or so. no one ever disproves fukuyama, there are just varying levels of misinterpretation.

[Anonymous No.19822084]

>>19819154
Hegel is whig-history

[Anonymous No.19822112]

>>19813925
>literal slanteye
Opinion discarded. Guy needs to get back to writing hentai or designing vidya. He is fighting against his nature.

[Anonymous No.19822304]

Liberal democracy is a approach to democratic government grounded in liberalism. Generally, it's the approach used by the country's we consider part of the “free world.” The U. S., Canada, most of Western Europe, Japan, Australia--all liberal democracies.

“Liberalism" is a political philosophy emphasizing liberty and equality. Basically it's a system that respects individual liberty--often including positive liberty, and where everyone is supposed to be equal under the law (which can also include a rejection of entrenched privilege). It's pretty much the philosop

[Anonymous No.19822313]

>>19813925
>thinker
Name one thought he ever had.

[Anonymous No.19822315]

>>19821286
Good post

[Anonymous No.19822359]

Liberal democracy, also referred to as Western democracy, is the combination of a liberal political ideology that operates under an indirect democratic form of government.

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.

[Anonymous No.19822376]

Liberal democracy, also referred to as Western democracy, is the combination of a liberal political ideology that operates under an indirect democratic form of government.

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.

[Anonymous No.19822397]

>>19822016
>There is a very large span between the claim that "the end state of world politics is a stagnant technocracy and globohomo world government" and that countries will be integrated in "world consensus on some level or other".

there literally is no difference. have you seen the gulf states? supposed Islamic theocracies are building western-style steel and glass CBDs in the middle of the desert and flying out instagram models to kickstart their tourist industry. Whatever you believe, market integration will have you singing the same tune in the end

[Anonymous No.19822420]

>>19821560
this is pretty good but what's with the CAPITALISATION

[Anonymous No.19822435]

>>19822059
>critique of Fukuyama's central idea is that his idea of "liberal democracy" has turned out to not be very liberal at all
doesn't matter. if this system we have calls itself liberal democracy then it *is* liberal democracy. saying it's invalid because it doesn't live up to its supposed ideals is the same as when leftists say that real communism has never been tried

[Anonymous No.19822443]

>>19821286
thank you for actually reading the book

[Anonymous No.19822880]

>>19821328
BLM is a progressive movement yeah. I'm jyst wondering what the fuck you were expecting

[Anonymous No.19823767]

>>19821567
What are the revolutionary vanguards? Netflix? The Democratic Party? Amazon? HR departments that push diversity?

[Anonymous No.19823805]

>>19822397
> flying out instagram models to kickstart their tourist industry
Which begs the question -- any books on Saudis taking dumps on 17 year old Ukrainian and Russian prostitutes after paying them to get railed by dogs on a yacht?

I figure someone is already on top of this as its been going on for over a decade, but haven't seen it published.

[Anonymous No.19823993]

>>19822397
global market integration has existed since the Columbian Exchange you preening sophist

[Anonymous No.19824063]

>>19822435

Fukuyama defenders will claim that he wasn't talking about real liberalism at all, just its self-proclaimed manifestation, then turn around the next moment and cite Fukuyama's definitions of liberalism, and arguments in favor of liberalism, which are clearly constructed in the form of a true believer's attempt to systematize and promote their viewpoint.
No, the fact that he was pessimistic about some aspects of liberalism at the end of history doesn't make him a jaded detached structuralist genius. This rhetorical tactic is the equivalent of a radlib socialist claiming that Marx would approve of their intersectional solarpunk gay space fantasy as genuine communism.

methinks it's actually just about appropriating Fukuyama's thesis to claim the apparent dominance of liberalism for oneself, then inflate one's ego by beating down people who can easily be strawmanned and discredited as losers for countering the currently dominant system.
In other words, these threads are an exercise in intellectual masturbation for a few blackpilled egotists by dunking on the average 4channer, as if that isn't the sole province of failed burnouts in itself

[Anonymous No.19824067]

>>19824063
>radlib champagne* socialist
fixed, contradiction fully intended

[Anonymous No.19824183]

Another critique of Fukuyama is that as far as I can tell he has no answer for the slow churn of history that grinds all mountains to sand.

Maybe that's unfair to him. He's speaking of a few centuries of development, after all. His concern is the 18th, 19th, and 20th Centuries, and the 20th Century in particular. I suppose he's not to be blamed if he can't think 100, 300, 500, 1000 years into the future.

But maybe he can. What happens as America inevitably falters and weakens? It's already happened, what if it happens in earnest? No empire has lasted forever. No cultural and political hegemony has endured for all time. The Persians didn't, the Romans didn't, the Spanish didn't, the British didn't. Why should America be any different? And what happens when America declines and collapses as all other imperial powers have done? Because so much of Fukuyama's "end of history" seems dependent on US hegemony. Is the implication that when the United States crumbles, history restarts?

[Anonymous No.19824242]

>>19824183
omg cute doggy

[Anonymous No.19824246]

>>19813925

I read The End of History about a year ago. The book was very foreboding, he seemed to bemoan the lack of large ambitions in politics and art in modern life. And the rise of the "last man". Most of the book seemed frivolous except for his references to Koyjeve, Hegel, Plato, and the last chapters warning about the danger of political violence from unsatisfied male "megalothymes" from a minority of men. The distinction between it and isothymes - the drive to equality. Which is really a euphemism for mob behavior and the darker social drives underpinning it

[Anonymous No.19824277]

>>19822059

Those "aristocrats" are just petty bureaucrats and businessmen lmao. Some of them I'm sure are hard headed and can see past their nose but practical success never selects for those qualities, and pride or some degree of megalomania - which is a great virtue in a leader or ostensible "elite" - comes at a great cost everywhere else in life where it can inspire apathy towards mundane work and domestic affairs, or arouse envy or resentment in others

[Anonymous No.19824293]

>>19819194
I know this is bait but dude, sex doesn't even exist anymore after they invented the pill. What was once the final item on every living organism's to-do list has been reduced to the genital equivalent of a wine tasting.

[Anonymous No.19824299]

>>19813966
>China has only got as far as it has through market integration via a Dengist

Jefd Bezos did more for China than any Chinaman ever did

[Anonymous No.19824312]

>>19813942
this

fukayama is an ivory tower moron who couldn't recognize the real world if it slapped him in the face. the 21st century has proven him wrong over and over again

[Anonymous No.19824316]

>>19814047
>His this is that liberalism is the final stage of human development.

and that makes him an idiot

[Anonymous No.19825124]

>>19824183
yet I again I must remind you that the end of history does mean the end of *events*

[Anonymous No.19825130]

>>19824312
have you read the book anon

[Anonymous No.19825143]

>>19825124
this sounds like a massive neolib cope

[Anonymous No.19825162]

>>19821567
That's what your simulation wants you to feel

[Anonymous No.19825242]

>>19825143
sounds like you haven't read the book

[Anonymous No.19825272]

>>19823993
>global market integration has existed since the Columbian Exchange

How is that in anyway a refutation of his point? It is clearly something that intensifies over time in conjunction with technological development. As the world becomes increasingly connected frontier space shrinks and alternatives are forced to make concessions, compromises, and in time become interchangeable with the rest of the world. Its a process, not a switch, and one that obviously hasn't finished completely homogenizing its strongholds and has a ways to go, however it is also a process I have not seen any meaningful pushback to that hasn't been crushed or slowly dissolved.

[Anonymous No.19825299]

His best book is the origins of political order anyway, the liberal hegelianism is his weakest shit.

[Anonymous No.19825329]

>>19816956
But they got what they wanted, which is the withdrawal of policing on blacks. There was no need for a revolution because everyone with any institutional power supported them.

[Anonymous No.19825417]

To take Fukuyama's opinion seriously, one would first have to take it for granted that liberalism and democracy are actually the modes under which the Western world operates. If that was actually the case, the power of government would have slowly devolved to much lower levels, local direct democracies on the level of municipalities, cities, neighborhoods, etc. Instead, power is steadily accumulating in the hands of a tightly connected overclass, as is evidenced by the current economical inequality and the pushback which follows all attempts to dissociate from the prevailing monetary system. This leaves the so-called end of history in the form of "liberal democracy" to be nothing more than a bright color which the hegemons have chosen for the farm walls of their servants.

[Anonymous No.19826556]

>>19813925
Most retards ins this threat will just cope and say everything happening is just events while liberal world views have only been attained not because of some free market place of ideas but because of American militairy hegemony. He even says America and thus liberal hegemony as well is in decay (of course just an event bro don't worry). The only *proof* for his theory is that communism and fascism were "disproven" as working alternatives which is not even true. Communism failed because of its economy sure but it is still a possible form of government. Fascism went away through a war so saying it is disproven is just wrong in every way. Coincidentally that same war is the reason liberal democracy was imposed again after it had already been in decline. You even have people here calling an environmental collapse just an event. Even though that happens because of overconsumption and the inherent flaw of the system to always need economic growth while only limited resources are available. He has no proof, History already had a decline of liberalism, The present has one once again. There is a reason it isn't some widely accepted theory

[Anonymous No.19826996]

does anyone have any reading recommendations for exploring more exotic politcal/economic arrangements, even if they aren't exactly plausible? I think this is what makes fukuyama "feel" correct, there is a total lack of imagination of possible futures, as compared to the previous century where there was an explosion of ideas. Everything seems like it is already mapped out. I'd especially be interested if they had a sustainability angle, I have seen Bookchin shilled here before, maybe him?

[Anonymous No.19827582]

>>19825329
police funding actually went up across the board in the first biden year

[Anonymous No.19827613]

>>19826996
Bookchin is worth reading, also David Graeber (dawn of everything covers the many political models in early history) but remember that anarchists are fundamentally retarded. John Zerzan is an anarchoprimitivist. You could also try Arne Naess and Pentti Linkola etc

[Anonymous No.19827634]

>>19825417
>If that was actually the case, the power of government would have slowly devolved to much lower levels, local direct democracies on the level of municipalities, cities, neighborhoods, etc.
why?

fukuyama isn't arguing that liberal democracy is either liberal or democratic. that's simply the name this system has adopted. If if were to defend communism but then claim no current or former socialist state is representative of the path to communism, because those realities don't line up with my interpretation of the theory, wouldn't you call me a retard? yet that's what you're doing

[Anonymous No.19827646]

>>19826996
also this

[Anonymous No.19827664]

>>19819257
i don't know the mood of the time but that doesn't exactly seem hard

[Anonymous No.19827673]

>>19822059
its liberal in the sense the elites are enjoy their freedoms. for everyone else its a social prison

[Anonymous No.19827678]

>>19826996
>there is a total lack of imagination of possible future
Typical commie cope.

[Anonymous No.19827690]

>>19824246
>the last chapters warning about the danger of political violence from unsatisfied male "megalothymes" from a minority of men

gee whiz, I wonder why he's not doing anything about that, um, problem, for lack of a better word?

[Anonymous No.19827701]

>>19827646
I'm currently reading that. seems like a weird stream of consciousness rant in several epochs, a wall of punk rock graffiti donning the walls of a hollowed out city.

[Anonymous No.19827708]

>>19813925
>use Kojeve's interpretation of Hegel to predict that the end state of world politics is a stagnant technocracy and globohomo world government
this is the only option for the State like the austrian school said too, the State has all the incentives to centralize and grow more and more, which would culminate in a world government, but it will fail if they even manage to get to it
https://mises.org/wire/ten-reasons-why-governments-fail

>>19813942
the same will happen to China (the Islamists are a different group because they're religious, the only counter to them is Christianity and Judaism), the solution people (not the State) will want is decentralized societies, maybe anarcho capitalism even, but this is the pessimistic scenario for glowies

this is what is more or less written in the intelligence community reports for the future they imagine
>2017
https://publicintelligence.net/odni-nic-paradox-progress/

>2021
https://www.intelligence.gov/publics-daily-brief/public-s-daily-brief-articles/1055-national-intelligence-council-releases-global-trends-report-on-the-more-contested-world-of-2040

anarcho capitalism (a society of private laws) seems inevitable to me as log as the cost of transaction gets lower with time (because those who obey the and care about playing by the State rules will be less efficient than the ancaps, people will start copying the ancaps and thus the State is destroyed by people ignoring it)

[Anonymous No.19827716]

>>19813982
there isn't a market consensus

Austrian economics directly challenges MMT and so does the fed now apparently which for some reason doesn't do what it says it should do
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/25/fed-economists-warn-of-inflation-and-economic-ruin-if-mmt-is-adopted.html

[Anonymous No.19827717]

>>19827701
hakim bey is a total nutcase and also a pedo, but the book has value

also inspired CHAZ lel

[Anonymous No.19827724]

>>19826996
oh also look into tiqqun/the invisible committee

[Anonymous No.19827750]

>>19827716
the economic consensus is markets supported by quantitative easing, that's it. Any debate that takes place is limited to arguing about whether to do more QE and/or how much. This is a *consensus*. Imagine seriously proposing a planned economy today, you'd be laughed out of the room

[Anonymous No.19827771]

>>19827708
>the State is destroyed by people ignoring it

this is your brain on anarchism

[Anonymous No.19827817]

>>19827771
ok not by literally ignoring it, but by agorism, which included not paying taxes

in a sense you could call it ignoreming the State because you can live as if it doesn't exist essentially

I can't wait to join an anarcho christian city with old testament laws

[Anonymous No.19827847]

>>19827750
>quantitative easing
aka money printing aka monetary bade expansion
you could call it dick in people's anus easing and it would be more accurate
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4293900-qe4-begins-fed-printed-extra-161_7-billion-last-week

[Anonymous No.19827958]

>>19827716
>economists-warn-of-inflation
https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2021/11/24/the-truth-about-inflation/
"To understand inflation as it actually exists, we must look not to economics textbooks, but to real-world data. That’s what political economist Jonathan Nitzan did during his PhD research in the early 1990s. His work culminated in a dissertation called Inflation As Restructuring. In the real world, Nitzan observed, price change is always ‘differential’, meaning there are winners and losers. The consequence is that inflation is not purely a ‘monetary phenomenon’, as Milton Friedman claimed. Inflation restructures the social order.
It is this real-world feature of inflation that is most important, because it means that inflation signals a change in society’s power structure. Predictably, it is this real-world feature that mainstream economists ignore — largely because it conflicts with their tidy theory of inflation as a ‘monetary phenomenon’. Fortunately, the evidence is clear. Inflation is (and has always been) overwhelmingly differential. Inflation is restructuring."

[Anonymous No.19828026]

>>19827847
what you call it is irrelevant, my point is that's the system we have. The market defines the economic mood and the central government picks up the slack. We're never going to stop printing money in times of crisis because that's a defining feature of the consensus. what point are you even making?

[Anonymous No.19828099]

>>19828026
>what point are you even making?
they won't have a choice, printing the money is what causes the crisis, people will notice this and move to bitcoin or something else

[Anonymous No.19828292]

>>19828099
delusional, monetarism is retarded

[Anonymous No.19828409]

>>19827634
Because that is how the spread of democracy and liberalism would look like, things would be done more democratically and liberally, leading to greater political autonomy and the lessening of state power.

If Fukuyama is not claiming that liberal democracy is liberal democracy, then what is he claiming? What is the nature of this "system" you mention?

[Anonymous No.19828750]

>>19828409
'liberal democracy' is just a name. It's the name of the current system. whether or not the current system lives up to its name is irrelevant, because Fukuyama isn't arguing in favour of a theoretical system of perfect liberal democracy, he's saying that *the system we have now* (which is commonly called liberal democracy) is the final system. you could give that system any name you want, the name doesn't have any relevance to his argument because he's not talking in terms of ideology

[Anonymous No.19828785]

>>19813966
>Islamism is reactionary force that gets squashed wherever it emerges.
Nope

>Iran run by a theocratic government, Turkey slowly becoming more theocratic
>significant force needed to supress Islamists in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iraq, etc.
>Taliban just retook Afghanistan
>As the US retreats from the region, secular governments will either have to fold or supress people even more as they get less and less gibs
>Europe on track to becoming a muslim colony in the next 100 years...Germany just took in a million syrians in the last 10 years, French people don't have kids and import tons of north africans

[Anonymous No.19828830]

>>19828750
I asked you what is the nature of this system

[Anonymous No.19828855]

>>19827613
thank you

>>19827678
how so? what does that even mean? I don't care what the model is, like I said I'm just looking for some exotic, interesting alternatives, even if they are completely implausible. it can be techno-monarchism or direct-democracy localism or fully automated fascism for all I care.

[Anonymous No.19829162]

>>19813925
Guy got everything wrong. The only real relevance in his work is that it showcases the kind of self-coincidence liberals had in the 90s.

[Anonymous No.19829202]

>>19822006
The strange thing is that people always laugh at Fukuyama and say that he's wrong, yet whenever you ask them what they personally dislike about the world, they always respond that it's a soulless technocratic wasteland where demographics are being obliterated, society is degenerate and capital controls us all.

So... uhh.. Liberalism then? The exact system that Fukyuama knew would dominate the world one way or another?

[Anonymous No.19829234]

>>19822006
Even Fukuyama has moved on.
https://youtu.be/AXVEnxtZe_w

[Anonymous No.19829364]

>>19829234
>There's something about intellectual property [movies, music, etc.] is that they resist being constrained by private property.
Yeah, because you can just copy it and upload it. If only I could just right click and copy my breakfast so all the kids in Botswana could have some.
Why do leftists, once they stray far enough, seem to forget that there's a limited throughput and availability of resources? The apes we evolved from only developed greed in response to this factor. Their premises would be acceptable if there was enough to go around to meet everyone's needs, but since there's no such cornucopia, no horn of plenty, it is always necessary to instead constrain what people see as their needs or constrain the number of needy. Their final hope is that the trend of declining birth rates continues as it's the only way to meet their goals without resorting to authoritarian repressions.

[Anonymous No.19829648]

>>19828830
the system we live in! market economy, government intervention, globalism, integrated supply chains, some sort of universalisation of a system of laws

[Anonymous No.19829652]

>>19829162
have you read the book? doesn't sound like you've read the book anon

[Anonymous No.19829661]

>>19829202
>a soulless technocratic wasteland where demographics are being obliterated, society is degenerate and capital controls us all

and this is exactly fukuyama's criticism of the system, which he goes into detail about in the book

[Anonymous No.19829666]

>>19829364
>Why do leftists, once they stray far enough, seem to forget that there's a limited throughput and availability of resources?

why do capitalists forget this?

[Anonymous No.19829676]

>>19829661
That’s not his criticism. He supports all of that. The only thing he admits is that it’s not at all fulfilling. But he’s a liberal after all, he sees it as better for humanity to be constrained and weak than violent and aggressive. It’s best to look at this book as a blueprint for the liberal world order. People may not agree with his thesis, but the system we live in certainly does.

[Anonymous No.19829726]

>>19829666
They remember, but they don't want to share. You or I not making it, or our children starving isn't a failure condition for them. They don't care if God sends a flood. What matters is if you're sitting on the ark.

[Anonymous No.19829860]

>>19829676
saying it's not fulfilling is a critique of sorts

>he’s a liberal after all, he sees it as better for humanity to be constrained and weak than violent and aggressive.

it isn't quite like this, he isn't 'choosing' liberalism as the final system because he thinks it's better, he's theorising that *because* liberalism promotes this form of passivity, it will never be superseded. He isn't making value judgements

[Anonymous No.19829876]

>>19829202
That's not strange at all because both perspectives can and will coexist if we assume liberalism is on the way out

[Anonymous No.19829903]

>>19829876
>if we assume liberalism is on the way out

why are we assuming this? this whole thread not one single piece of evidence has been provided to suggest this is happening. people are just carping about islamism and BLM like always

[Anonymous No.19829968]

>>19829903
Global IQ scores are going down
Fertility rates are plummeting
Supply lines are breaking down
Capitalism printing itself into oblivion
And so on

[Anonymous No.19829986]

>>19829903
>Where is your evidence??
Where the fuck have you been the last 20 years? Or do you have to wait until experts at snopes fact check it?

[Anonymous No.19830020]

>>19829903
Anon literally asked "durr how can people hold these two superficially-contradictory views? Aren't I right???" And I specifically responded that somebody who already thought liberalism was on its way out would see no contradiction between them.
If you are asking why one would assume this, that's a separate question.
Here are a few reasons liberalism is on the way out:
- The current global supply chain depends on exploitable reserves of natural hydrocarbons
- The current system of international transportation depends on exploitable reserves of natural hydrocarbons
- Any alternative to hydrocarbons requires a monstrously more complex resource-management and manufacturing base (chiefly to produce advanced electronics like powerful batteries for transportation and shipping)
- International wireless communication already requires such advanced technologies and rare materials
- The legitimacy of modern sociopolitical systems is pinned on the minimal functioning of these systems to deliver luxury goods to Western masses
- The Western masses have lost all ability to justify their own existence except as a function of consuming luxuries
- Liberalism and its consequences destroys human fertility and hyperspecializes them to a technological society which, as stated above, trends towards byzantine boondoggle
And therefore, the whole house of cards is set to fall at any moment, because the system has grown too complex and is now terribly fragile. We are seeing cracks appear at every step of this process.

[Anonymous No.19830027]

>>19829903
Anon literally asked "durr how can people hold these two superficially-contradictory views? Aren't I right???" And I specifically responded that somebody who already thought liberalism was on its way out would see no contradiction between them.
If you are asking why one would assume this, that's a separate question.
Here are a few reasons liberalism is on the way out:
> The current global supply chain depends on exploitable reserves of natural hydrocarbons
> The current system of international transportation depends on exploitable reserves of natural hydrocarbons
> Any alternative to hydrocarbons requires a monstrously more complex resource-management and manufacturing base (chiefly to produce advanced electronics like powerful batteries for transportation and shipping)
> International wireless communication already requires such advanced technologies and rare materials
> The legitimacy of modern sociopolitical systems is pinned on the minimal functioning of these systems to deliver luxury goods to Western masses
> The Western masses have lost all ability to justify their own existence except as a function of consuming luxuries
> Liberalism and its consequences destroys human fertility and hyperspecializes them to a technological society which, as stated above, trends towards byzantine boondoggle
And therefore, the whole house of cards is set to fall at any moment, because the system has grown too complex and is now terribly fragile. We are seeing cracks appear at every step of this process.

[Anonymous No.19830037]

>>19829903
western society hasn't been liberal for a while now, I'd say 2020 was the turning point

[Anonymous No.19830064]

>>19829726
The Ark isn't back-country New Zealand estates, it's Afghanistan and the Bedouin and Peruvian villagers. They will survive the collapse.
Nobody else is really assured survival and especially not known wealthy elites, who will at least be targeted by new emergent elite strongmen

[Anonymous No.19830119]

>>19830037
what happened in 2020 anon

if you say BLM I'm killing myself

[Anonymous No.19830129]

The main problem I observe with people who claim Liberalism is dying is that they assume just because the basic tenets of freedom, civil rights, equality and individualism are not seen these days, that means Liberalism has failed. But this is literally the main function of Liberalism and how it reinforces itself. None of these things are supposed to be real. The whole point is to delude the masses into embracing those ideals and thus conceal how power actually works in liberal democracies. The people will be placated and the elites will continue to rape the world as long as they have meme elections every few years, and if anything goes wrong, everyone will collectively go “well that wasn’t REAL democracy or freedom” and double down on those same values.

This is happening right now across the political spectrum since our ruling class and consumer culture has stagnated so the usual propaganda isn’t as productive anymore. You have both sides accusing each other of being fascists and communists respectively when in reality we all live in the same boring decadent system since 1991. So yeah, Liberalism is contradictory and its values are never realized, but that’s the fucking point. It isn’t a real argument against Fukuyama considering this whole book is an admission that Liberalism is technological enslavement.

[Anonymous No.19830131]

>>19829986
can you actually explain how anything that has happened in the last twenty years poses a threat to liberalism?

[Anonymous No.19830134]

>>19830131
Post your country, so we can be very specific.

[Anonymous No.19830150]

>>19829968
none of this stuff disproves fukuyama in any way, because despite the problems liberalism continues to expand and entrench itself on the large scale. Fukuyama says that setbacks may occur on the scale of centuries, but no matter what the liberal order will not be surpassed

[Anonymous No.19830157]

>>19830129
finally, a good post

[Anonymous No.19830163]

>>19830134
let's say america, for the sake of argument

[Anonymous No.19830174]

>>19830163
You won't even pretend to tell the truth on an anonymous basket weaving forum? Eat shit.

[Anonymous No.19830218]

>>19830150
>Khruschev says that setbacks may occur on the scale of centuries, but no matter what socialism not be surpassed
>Aquinas says that setbacks may occur on the scale of centuries, but no matter what Christendom not be surpassed
>Aurelius says that setbacks may occur on the scale of centuries, but no matter what the imperial order will not be surpassed
yawn

[Anonymous No.19830229]

>>19830129
>>19830150
Watch Adam Curtis’ Hypernormalization documentary.
In the final days of the Soviet Union the party didn’t even try to appear coherent, the propaganda was churned out even when it was obvious to everyone how delusional and out of touch with reality it was.
The same is happening with Liberalism right now.
First they said the masks were effective.
But actually they aren’t.
The vaccines are effective.
Actually they are only effective for 6 months.
Actually only for 3 months, and so on.
No matter how hard they try to convince people we live in a post-truth society, the truth is objective. It exists indecently of what people think or believe.
Trannies are the perfect metaphor for Liberal society.
Xir can fool themselves into thinking they are real women, supported by the echo chambers of Discord groups and whatnot.
They can keep up the illusion for years even.
But eventually it stops working. They get hit with a cold, harsh dose of reality.
Then they an hero.
The question isn’t if the house of cards will hold up.
The question is when is it going to cave in.

[Anonymous No.19830248]

>>19830129
>first paragraph
Liberalism existed for centuries as an at-least-partially genuine phenomenon. de Tocqueville and the French and American Revolutionaries may have had self-interest in promoting the ideas, but these were also men who went to great lengths to create policy and government structures that fit their ideals; and anyways practically everyone pushes ideas that fit their own circumstances, that doesn't mean they're dishonest.
You're the one who's implying "real liberalism has never been tried", when there is ample reason to believe that it has.
Also, as an academic, it is immensely clear to me that at least the intellectual class to which Fukuyama belongs is populated by true believers. Charges of conspiracy or dark-enlightenment-tier underhanded control are unfounded. They are just stupid zealots.
>second paragraph
What will it take for you to admit that Fukuyama's reservations amount to little more than concern-trolling? We see the same language of "growing pains" used in every smug apologetic liberal folio, none of it means they're cynical or doubters or aiming to do anything besides mock their enemies and safeguard their order.

[Anonymous No.19830287]

>>19825272
It's a refutation of the point for a number of obvious reasons.
First of all, it means that global market integration pre-dated liberalism. It actually predated even the arrival of the Renaissance in the notoriously conservative Spanish monarchy. Colonialism originated along Crusader lines instead of any sort of characteristic Early Modern tendency, because the Spanish were extending the Reconquista to the New World. Furthermore, this means that globalization is practically something that liberalism co-opted, because first hundred plus years of that dynamic were defined by the Spanish spreading theocratic agrarian imperialism across an entire continent - and their exported feudalism was nothing like Anglo-Dutch economized Atlanticism. Here is a concrete example of one globalizing tendency being replaced by another, and it didn't have to happen this way at all.
That leads to the second point. The New World was ONLY discovered by Europeans because of a confluence of factors that precipitated it, and it was only conquered because of its own historical foibles. The Turks blocked trade from the Orient, the Spanish were triumphant off the heels of the Reconquista, Columbus was forward-thinking enough to establish a base on Hispaniola, the native societies were already going through apocalyptic warfare even before the European plagues ravaged their societies, and the system was ripe for collapse anyways. The native societies could have adapted to the Europeans with less initiative or competence on the part of Spain. If another Black Death hit Europe during the Great Turkish Wars while leaving the Ottomans unscathed then all of Europe would have been Muslim long ago, and writing triumphalist literature about THAT outcome instead.
Without the Royal Navy and the VOC, liberalism does not have free reign. Without the Habsburgs the Royal Navy is never strengthened and the VOC is less driven. Without American gold the Habsburgs never have the power to fight England over the Netherlands. Without the factors I just mentioned, Spain doesn't have American gold; and also, the Netherlands is less developed because the Northern Hansa trade route remains more viable, and the German lowlands don't receive the same investment and never become as developed.

[Anonymous No.19830289]

>>19825272
>>19830287
When Leif Erikson first landed half a millennium earlier, his little Viking colony did not leave a lasting imprint, because the historical circumstance was not fitting. The great Treasure Fleets of Zheng He fully had the capability to colonize and subjugate other lands, and they did so, but only as a one-time exercise in flexing the might of the otherwise-isolationist Ming. The Mongols conquered massive territories but unlike the later Turks, they lacked the social and imperial motives to make good their conquests - which is why the Huns and Pechenegs and Cumans and Mongols did not transform the West, but the Turks and Hungarians did. Conversely, in the East, the Yuan failed where the Manchu succeeded literally because of bad luck.
Finally - in what world are trade and conflict exclusive? Throughout history even vicious bitter rivals have traded between wars. I will tell you where this counts: in Western Europe, where losing 2% of your population in a war is a good reason to never wage war ever again, and perform the most destructive and humiliating social reforms necessary to prevent it. This is also the same place where the bloody Napoleonic Wars made everyone think that the borders were set and peace would prevail forever under the banner of trade, just before the fucking World Wars ravaged the entire social order.
So all in all, the "End of History" is a triumphalist prescriptivist concept spawned from a particular time and place in history, attempting to objectively justify the Western subjective viewpoint in a post-objective world, which neatly explains why the pompous advocates deserve to get viciously bricked til their brains leak out their crushed skull

[Anonymous No.19830306]

>>19819194
I will rip your head off with my bare hands.

[Anonymous No.19830371]

>>19830248
>the intellectual class to which Fukuyama belongs is populated by true believers

I'm not denying that Liberals aren't true believers in their values. The main reason why Liberalism is so strong is because most people genuinely support it. I'm saying that Liberals are blinded by their arrogance and devotion to their ideology even though it never produces the world they desire. I shouldn't have to point out the absurdity that the same people who invented the values of individuality and liberation also owned slaves, because everyone today already knows how ridiculous it is. Real Liberalism has been tried and it is being tried right now, but it's not an egalitarian utopia, it's a crippling prison of mediocrity, something that prominent liberals like Fukuyama eventually concede. I'm interested in answering why people continue to uphold the Enlightenment paradigm and never seek an alternative to those values even when they no longer satisfy anyone. Until an alternative is presented (and no, socialism is the same shit) then Fukuyama seems correct that technological societies usually mediate into Liberalism and the masses become narcissistic dregs. Older generations may be more ideologically diverse, but the younger generations raised on social media are universally liberal in their values.

[Anonymous No.19830410]

>>19827958
he was already wrong by saying inflation is price change, it is not, inflation is the inflation of the supply of money

[Anonymous No.19830434]

>>19819194
>Marginalized folks have every reason to trust progressive bourgeoisie and managerial strata over fascist white settlers who want them dead.we have every right to deplatform fascists and reactionaries and class reductionists and science deniers and ensure safety for marginalized and vulnerable members of our communities. We have every right to demand the destigmatization and normalization of sex work, mental health, fat positivity, drug use, decolonization prison abolition police abolition family abolition the sexual enmancipation of children and an end to white supremacy and the gender binary.
>Instead of pandering to the most backward secrors of the working class we should lead the way along with the most advanced ones, black and indigenous people, and queer/ trans sex workers. Sex workers not the straight male labour aristokkkracy who are at the vanguard of the proletarian movement, women and queer people taking the means of production into their own hands by refusing to perform unpaid sexual and emotional labor for white men. The real class struggle is not in factories but in womens bodies. Sexwork is a threat to patriarchy the capitalist system itself it is radically queer because it goes against the idea that sex is for the reproduction of the nuclear family and the patriarchal ideology of romantic love. Its a means for workers to take the means of production into their own hands here and now to abolish the distinction between the private sphere and the public, between work and pleasure and self expression. To break down the walls of lily white christian suburbia into a brave new world of pleasure rebellion and freedom. Yes it is true what they say about us queer postmodern neomarxists We are gonna groom all your daughters to be whores and your sons to be nympho trans sex workers.

Meh. Usual far-left anti-capitalist socialist trick of ripping off Libertarian options then trying to impose them and rip off the people by spouting word-salad.

The only queer sex the far-left gets is Libertarians kicking your butts when they're not busy getting the far-right to behave and crush Islamo-socialism.

[Anonymous No.19830442]

>>19830218
>>Aurelius says that setbacks may occur on the scale of centuries, but no matter what the imperial order will not be surpassed

Aurelius was right.

[Anonymous No.19830511]

>>19829648
Does Fukuyama say this is what he means by liberal democracy and can you lead me to a quote?

[Anonymous No.19830721]

>>19830064
>The Ark isn't back-country New Zealand estates, it's Afghanistan and the Bedouin and Peruvian villagers.
It's likely to be both. When empires collapse they don't necessarily just disappear. Some states will survive and adapt to changing conditions and continue to prosper even if they don't reach (or even approach) the might of the parent empire.

[Anonymous No.19830743]

do you guys know francis himself stated that he was wrong about the end of history

[Anonymous No.19831223]

>>19830743
yeah but that is just an event thus it doesn't disprove it. Have you even read it?

[Anonymous No.19831327]

>>19830410
>it is not, inflation is the inflation of the supply of money
It is not. The supply of money per se has little to do with inflation, the raising of prices does. Money is the way elites quantify power.

[Anonymous No.19831394]

>>19830743
this isn't true, he said he was more pessimistic now than he was in the 90s. He has never once said he was wrong

[Anonymous No.19831402]

>>19830229
coronavirus confusion demonstrates nothing and is certainly not an example of regime instability. The state lies constantly, always has, and always will

[Anonymous No.19831403]

>>19813942
>the rise of China AND Islamism
This is nice /pol/ headcanon.

[Anonymous No.19831409]

>>19830410
I'm begging you to read someone other than Friedman for once

[Anonymous No.19831413]

>>19830371
thank you for actually understanding the book unlike nearly everyone else

[Anonymous No.19831425]

>>19831403
truly amazing to see people still carping about radical islam in the '20s

[Anonymous No.19831435]

>>19819194
bait

[Anonymous No.19831448]

Can someone provide a definition of what modern liberalism claims to be and what its detractors think it really is

[Anonymous No.19831458]

>>19831402
It’s not confusion, it’s the state not lying competently anymore.
This is how Russians living in the final days of the Soviet Union put up with.
>it’s a feature, not a bug
Failed ideology cope.
The truth exists independently of what the state says.
There was a solid foundation beneath Liberalism at one point, otherwise it would have never taken off.
But there isn’t anymore. It’s a house of cards built on nothing.
And it has to keep piling on lies to keep itself afloat.
Eventually a gentle breeze will be all you need to make it collapse on its own weight.
You can’t build a country out of thin air.

[Anonymous No.19831529]

>>19813966
Retard, the middle east is straight up LESS liberal than in the 60s. 2nd-3rd muslim generations in the west are also way more extremist in their views than 1st gen.

[Anonymous No.19831544]

>>19819194
t. Dog walker troo

[Anonymous No.19832061]

Take the Mearsheimer pill, Anons.

https://youtu.be/bSj__Vo1pOU
https://youtu.be/ESwIVY2oimI
https://youtu.be/TsonzzAW3Mk

[Anonymous No.19832145]

>>19831223
kek

[Anonymous No.19832242]

>>19820169
Ecological collapse isn't an essential part of the current market liberal framework though, right? One could even forsee a liberalism emerging where there are market mechanisms to mitigate the total destruction of the "natural environment" to allow for its continued use and exploitation (carbon credit systems, reusable energy incentives, et cetera).

[Anonymous No.19833185]

bumping for interest.

[Anonymous No.19833291]

There is nothing more midwit and arrogant than suggesting that [[[current era we live in]]] is the end of history and nothing will ever change or get worse or get better.
It's defeatist and stupid and it's why literally every political scientist is a fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.19833457]

>>19832061
Considering that this guy also wrote an anti-israel lobby book and is, on the surface, pretty based, I can't help but wonder where the magician's trick lies. You can't be genuinely based AND popular/academically approved, they are mutually contradictory.

[Anonymous No.19833491]

>>19833291
>There is nothing more midwit and arrogant than suggesting that [[[current era we live in]]] is the end of history and nothing will ever change or get worse or get better.

>nothing will ever change or get worse or get better.

>or get better.

2optimistic4me.

[Anonymous No.19833517]

>>19830027
Sure, this analysis is good to summarize, but what's the solutions ?

t. didn't heard about F. Fukuyama before this thread.

[Anonymous No.19834196]

>>19833517
>Nice critique, but how about some solutions
I swear, every midwit take on societal issues. Typical Middle-Management Serf peasant brain defending their slow death.

[Anonymous No.19834425]

>>19834196
If you can't offer any alternatives then your "critique" is just a whine. Unless you say there's no alternative of course, however you can't build an ideology and mobilize any fanatics if you claim nothing can change.

[Anonymous No.19834514]

>>19816956

The problem is that it takes the full force of the working class to enable a revolution and if they are provided with enough incentives they wont take part. The hippies never got a revolution because the working class saw them as selfish and self indulgent. BLM never got a revolution because they told the working class that what they had was worth nothing to them. A revolution is possible but only when the powers that be get too greedy and forget how to keep their structures in place.

[Anonymous No.19834809]

>>19834196
You must be +18 to post on this website.

[Anonymous No.19835561]

>>19830371
>I'm interested in answering why people continue to uphold the Enlightenment paradigm and never seek an alternative to those values even when they no longer satisfy anyone.

Even the stupidest person can understand the upsides of simple material abundance and a libertine social order, and liberalism has used this appeal to empower itself because it uniquely becomes directly stronger by tearing down competing ideologies. (It has captured the elites by captivating children with the promise of making material abundance and libertinism more efficient.)
A bad Christian does not go to Church, a bad Communist does not participate in organized labor, but a person can be a good liberal just by eating and watching ads. The individualistic economic organization and basis of liberalism is self-empowering and self-legitimizing.
It also now has the technical ability to enforce itself on a level never previously observed. Even the poorest people have smartphones and experience a personalized conditioning through them on a daily basis.
So, the liberal society drives the masses towards hedonism and exceptional people towards academia. The average person sees no gain and quantifiable loss (such as it is) by opposing liberalism, and this would be an even worse deal for the people in charge of things. Every person resorts to consumerism and abandons social membership in groups led by competing elites, and ultimately a total atomization of society takes place, and the managerial society becomes invincible from its own perspective.

Why would you expect any critical mass of people to recognize these problems and seek an alternative? There will be no revolution in a system which cannot distinguish between luxuries and subsistence needs. The system will just collapse on itself, and be totally replaced by the renegades and outcasts of the old order, or the men of the new order. This is a certainty, because our current state of affairs can't exist with pre-industrial demographics and levels of technology. But while there is more human and natural capital to extractively rape, liberalism will persist.

[Anonymous No.19835670]

>>19834425
Critique-poster here.
Any attempt to solve the problem would require economic degrowth and a campaign of popular mobilization in order to re-moralize and re-acculture the population, and create a sustainable political and economic landscape. You would need to create a revolutionary fervor and sustain it for several generations, then create a simpler and more resilient order.
This is a communist-tier fantasy and will never happen. It couldn't even happen if the still-powerful modern institutions were taken over and fully converted by esoteric ecofascist zealots with an understanding of every aspect of the problem and zero qualms about acting to solve it; no human endeavour could succeed so completely over such a long span of time as would be necessary.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no solution and that the governments and economies of our time will gradually simplify through disuse, institutional decay, and supply chain collapse. What will emerge is a stagnant bizarro-warlordism, with a level of technology somewhere between Late Medieval and Early Industrial standards. Life expectancies would probably drop drastically for an extended period of time, and the world will drop below even pre-industrial population levels until institutions recover. Some places will become completely depopulated wastelands. In other areas, existing rural and nomadic populations will spread out and recolonize these quite quickly, like what happened after the Bronze Age Collapse. Expect Gypsies, Pashtuns, Bedouins, and indigenous peoples of South America and Eurasia to be big players, like the simple pastoral Arameans who defined the Near East after the collapse of the great Bronze Age societies and cultures. I also think that some places in Europe and North America have the capability to quickly revive their moribund agrarian ways of life from just before the World Wars. The Midwest and Southern Europe come to mind.
Former urban centers will become rubble-filled polluted wastelands useless for agriculture and dangerous for hunting, but picked over by scavengers and miners. Your average countryside will be studded by a patchwork of incorporated townships, agrarian collectives, and small-scale artisan manufactories; local leadership will consist of strange pseudo-democratic positions like sheriffs, militia leaders, religious leaders, and tribal or traditional rule in other parts of the world. I would expect to see a re-emergence or rebirth of old forms of social organization, but it is impossible to say which will eventually come forth at this point.
Either way, I did not really have to do this, or propose or describe alternatives at any level of detail in order to prove that Fukuyama is incorrect.

[Anonymous No.19835772]

>>19835561
Completely agree, I do believe liberalism will eventually implode but for now it’s best to situate ourselves in an era where it utterly dominates. If not structurally, then certainly in the hearts of most people who are more than content with the material luxury of the day compared to the violence of the past. People who dismiss the power of liberal hegemony are making a severe mistake, it’s quite blatantly the greatest hurdle we face in actually making the world remotely fulfilling and stable in the long-term

[Anonymous No.19835858]

>>19828785
GOOD.

[Anonymous No.19836036]

>>19835670
>Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no solution and that the governments and economies of our time will gradually simplify through disuse, institutional decay, and supply chain collapse.
Indeed.
>What will emerge is a stagnant bizarro-warlordism...
I don't know if this is a popular prediction or not as I haven't read anyone mentioning it before but I'd come to a similar conclusion myself when considering the issue.
>...with a level of technology somewhere between Late Medieval and Early Industrial standards
I disagree on this point. The tech genie is out of the bottle but the extent to which modern technology is deployed will be scaled down drastically given the lower coordination and industrial output of the necessary resources to keep it all going. The distribution in space (region by region) and class (the coming era's kings vs the peasants) of who has access to what will not be uniform.

On the issue of Fukuyama being right or not it depends on what happens after the collapse. Does something change the next time civilization organises itself or is it doomed to a constant loop of reaching liberalism and then collapsing? Again, I think this depends on the amount of technological progress. Is there a point where the end of history means the end of humanity as we know it.

[Anonymous No.19836055]

>>19819194
>Sexwork is a threat to patriarchy the capitalist system itself
Yeah you're going to selling your neopussy to pay rent and spending the rest of your money on wal-mart brand weed and xanax.

[Anonymous No.19836187]

>>19813949
>Europe will return to a pre WW1 state after the Cold War

I like him but Offensive Neorealism is pretty retarded desu

[Anonymous No.19836639]

>>19822880
BLM is the Bureau of Land Management once again. And I am pleased.

[Anonymous No.19836765]

>>19830371