In hindsight, the whole "End of History" spiel was dumb af

[Onix555]

For those too young, or not born in the 90's; after the Soviet Union fell in 1991 the white western world kind of just assumed that humanity had reached its zenith and that the world would forever be a peaceful, western capitalist orientated civilisation with infinite growth and nothing would change on the global scene. In particular Americans were masturbating the idea of a 1000 year US Reich where everyone would serve them indefinitely.

As I mentioned in the title, this whole spiel is pretty dumb to look back on when you consider:

-Climate change was already well known about, but ignored
-People seemingly ignored the giant ass global power vacuum the USSR left, and assumed no one would stand against the US
-Many parts of the world were in massive turmoil (ME, Balkans, Africa) with wars, power plays, and just general instability
-Resentment and terrorism was on the rise due to fore-mentioned turmoil and decades of abuse from the West
-The economies of most nations were being drained away by the 0.1%, it wasnt as severe as today but the signs of the beginnings of mass poverty in the worlds "richest" countries were already in place.

And the list literally just goes on.
Overall looking back it seems to have just been white arrogance with a tinge of malicious ignorance on the part of global issues.
Regardless, those days are long past now.

 

[Version 3.0]

We didn't start the fire.

 

[Pall Mall]

End of history was bad even then. Bad history to think we as humans necessarily head always towards some hypothetical 'best' end state.

 

[Ctrl Alt Del]

Not only in hindsight. Any serious historian and international relations analyst could have told Fukuyama so (and they did).

 

[sphagnum]

Yes, it was. The contradictions within capitalism were always going to cause stuff to unravel at some point.

 

[Monkey Gland Sauce]

Spoiler: Watchmen (comic)

"In the end"? Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends.

 

[Deleted member 24118]

I don't think he claimed what you think he claimed.

Basically what Fukuyama said is that in the long term the world will trend towards liberal democracy and that the collapse of the Soviet Union, which represented the other major societal framework (that labor relations and class warfare would chart a straight line through history that would lead to international communism), was proof of that. He didn't say that we'd entered a utopia or that liberal democracy would never have setbacks, but that even if fascism or totalitarianism return that we can reasonably conclude that they'll ultimately lose out to liberal democracy.

His thesis, generally, wasn't "U-S-A! U-S-A!" (though I suppose it did come off that way to sensitive Europeans, especially the circles that had built their careers on the monolithic, permanent nature of the Soviet Union).

 

[xxracerxx]

after the Soviet Union fell in 1991 the white western world kind of just assumed that humanity had reached its zenith and that the world would forever be a peaceful

Click to shrink...

Umm...what?

 

[Deleted member 7130]

Yeah It's also just really silly to think there's no better arrangement than the global capitalist one

 

[Deleted member 24118]

Umm...what?

Click to shrink...

This is what happens when you learn your philosophy from the ahhrrrrr slash LateStageCapitalism discord server.

 

[Ether_Snake]

For those too young, or not born in the 90's; after the Soviet Union fell in 1991 the white western world kind of just assumed that humanity had reached its zenith and that the world would forever be a peaceful, western capitalist orientated civilisation with infinite growth and nothing would change on the global scene. In particular Americans were masturbating the idea of a 1000 year US Reich where everyone would serve them indefinitely.

As I mentioned in the title, this whole spiel is pretty dumb to look back on when you consider:

-Climate change was already well known about, but ignored
-People seemingly ignored the giant ass global power vacuum the USSR left, and assumed no one would stand against the US
-Many parts of the world were in massive turmoil (ME, Balkans, Africa) with wars, power plays, and just general instability
-Resentment and terrorism was on the rise due to fore-mentioned turmoil and decades of abuse from the West
-The economies of most nations were being drained away by the 0.1%, it wasnt as severe as today but the signs of the beginnings of mass poverty in the worlds "richest" countries were already in place.

And the list literally just goes on.
Overall looking back it seems to have just been white arrogance with a tinge of malicious ignorance on the part of global issues.
Regardless, those days are long past now.

Click to shrink...

They did not think there would be peace. They thought the US would now stand unopposed by leading an alliance dependent on the US' military and economic interests. They thought that as a result the rise of new challengers on the economic and military stage would be kept under control, and the US would be the center of command regardless of what crisis would arise.

They were completely right except they didn't anticipate that China would not be contained, and more recently that Russia would successfully carry out asymmetrical warfare on the socio-political front, which really no one could see coming unless they were working for the Kremlin, or unless they were Kojima lol.

Problems like climate change were not expected to not arise, all that mattered was that the US would decide what would or wouldn't be done relative to their interest and its alliance/empire.

I think the only popular figure who has figured where the world is heading is Adam Curtis, as so well documented in his documentary Hypernormalisation.

HyperNormalisation (2016 + subs) by Adam Curtis - A different experience of reality FULL DOCUMENTARY

Added subtitles (french, braziianl, hebrew, english, croatian, spanish, turkish and russian) The cult documentary maker explores the falsity of modern life i...

youtu.be

The disappearance of democracy resulting from individual dopamine addiction provided by technological advancement.

 

[fontguy]

I'm having trouble imagining a dumber thought.

 

[StrangeRoboMemory]

IIRC even Fukuyama himself hasn't gone to bat for these ideas for a long time.

 

[Tophat Jones]

90's and early 00's were good times at least.

 

[Kittens McMittens]

It was really stupid even at the time. It's worth reflecting that it was what passed for serious liberal thought back then. It's why the elites in the west decided to pursue globalisation and basically dismantle our industrial base and hand it to third world despots like China and Myanmar. It was such an outrageously stupid and short-sighted outlook.

 

[Deleted member 24118]

IIRC even Fukuyama himself hasn't gone to bat for these ideas for a long time.

Click to shrink...

No, he still stands by it.

 

[StrangeRoboMemory]

No, he still stands by it.

Click to shrink...

Ah, I stand corrected...I seem to remember reading something about how he changed his mind, but I must be mis-remembering a piece of commentary I read in school.

 

[Deleted member 24118]

Ah, I stand corrected...I seem to remember reading something about how he changed his mind, but I must be mis-remembering a piece of commentary I read in school.

Click to shrink...

He gave an interview a year or two ago where he expressed dismay about Trump and suggested that current democracies are going "backwards," but he didn't throw out his theory. Like I said earlier, he didn't believe that we'd entered a democratic utopia but that in the long run the world will trend towards liberal democracies.

 

[Deleted member 46493]

Always thought it was strange considering we unnecessarily got into war in Iraq pretty soon after.

 

[Bold One]

They did not think there would be peace. They thought the US would now stand unopposed by leading an alliance dependent on the US' military and economic interests. They thought that as a result the rise of new challengers on the economic and military stage would be kept under control, and the US would be the center of command regardless of what crisis would arise.

They were completely right except they didn't anticipate that China would not be contained, and more recently that Russia would successfully carry out asymmetrical warfare on the socio-political front, which really no one could see coming unless they were working for the Kremlin, or unless they were Kojima lol.

Problems like climate change were not expected to not arise, all that mattered was that the US would decide what would or wouldn't be done relative to their interest and its alliance/empire.

I think the only popular figure who has figured where the world is heading is Adam Curtis, as so well documented in his documentary Hypernormalisation.

HyperNormalisation (2016 + subs) by Adam Curtis - A different experience of reality FULL DOCUMENTARY

Added subtitles (french, braziianl, hebrew, english, croatian, spanish, turkish and russian) The cult documentary maker explores the falsity of modern life i...

youtu.be

The disappearance of democracy resulting from individual dopamine addiction provided by technological advancement.

Click to shrink...

Still waiting for Adam's next film - Hypernormalisation was 4 years ago - which is insane when you think about it.

 

[Adnor]

 

[Icolin]

This is what happens when you learn your philosophy from the ahhrrrrr slash LateStageCapitalism discord server.

Click to shrink...

you're in no position to judge others on their viewpoints, mister "oopsie i defended/sympathized with a white supremacist reddit mod"

 

[Ether_Snake]

Still waiting for Adam's next film - Hypernormalisation was 4 years ago - which is insane when you think about it.

Click to shrink...

Yeah I'm thinking he keeps on having to delay it to add more stuff to it. He could definitely do a part 2.

 

[Icolin]

They did not think there would be peace. They thought the US would now stand unopposed by leading an alliance dependent on the US' military and economic interests. They thought that as a result the rise of new challengers on the economic and military stage would be kept under control, and the US would be the center of command regardless of what crisis would arise.

They were completely right except they didn't anticipate that China would not be contained, and more recently that Russia would successfully carry out asymmetrical warfare on the socio-political front, which really no one could see coming unless they were working for the Kremlin, or unless they were Kojima lol.

Problems like climate change were not expected to not arise, all that mattered was that the US would decide what would or wouldn't be done relative to their interest and its alliance/empire.

I think the only popular figure who has figured where the world is heading is Adam Curtis, as so well documented in his documentary Hypernormalisation.

HyperNormalisation (2016 + subs) by Adam Curtis - A different experience of reality FULL DOCUMENTARY

Added subtitles (french, braziianl, hebrew, english, croatian, spanish, turkish and russian) The cult documentary maker explores the falsity of modern life i...

youtu.be

The disappearance of democracy resulting from individual dopamine addiction provided by technological advancement.

Click to shrink...

adam curtis is the best

 

[Deleted member 24118]

you're in no position to judge others on their viewpoints, mister "oopsie i defended/sympathized with a white supremacist reddit mod"

Click to shrink...

I'm never going to live that down, am I

Will you forgive me if I say the Holodomer was a capitalist hoax?

 

[TorianElecdra]

This is a recurrent theme with liberalism in general. Always turning a blind eye in a delusional way while proclaiming to be "rational", "pragmatic" and "unbiased".

 

[Video Games Are Dumb]

Back when "conflict" was code for proxy war. Personally speaking, revisiting the actions of the Clinton presidency was very sad.

 

[Icolin]

I'm never going to live that down, am I

Will you forgive me if I say the Holodomer was a capitalist hoax?

Click to shrink...

when did i ever say the holodomor was a hoax lmao chill out

all i'm saying is take the L on how you caped for literal ethnostate desiring nazis before antagonizing any vaguely leftist posts

 

[Deleted member 24118]

when did i ever say the holodomor was a hoax lmao chill out

all i'm saying is take the L on how you caped for literal ethnostate desiring nazis before antagonizing any vaguely leftist posts

Click to shrink...

You're right, it was inappropriate for me to point out that OP has literally no idea what he's talking about because I *checks notes* posted an image without knowing its background last week.

I apologize and take my L! But sorry, OP definitely learned about Fukuyama on the r/LateStageCapitalism discord server.

 

[Doggg]

It served its purpose -- providing an intellectual veneer for neoconservatism.

 

[Icolin]

This is a recurrent theme with liberalism in general. Always turning a blind eye in a delusional way while proclaiming to be "rational", "pragmatic" and "unbiased".

Click to shrink...

I N C R E M E N T A L C H A N G E

You're right, it was inappropriate for me to point out that OP has literally no idea what he's talking about because I *checks notes* posted an image without knowing its background last week.

I apologize and take my L! But sorry, OP definitely learned about Fukuyama on the r/LateStageCapitalism discord server.

Click to shrink...

what's with the discord and reddit obsession lmao, this is some extremely online poisoning

 

[Deleted member 31817]

No, he still stands by it.

Click to shrink...

Lmao maximum clown

 

[Madison]

It served its purpose -- providing an intellectual veneer for neoconservatism.

Click to shrink...

it was also another brick on the wall for the poisoning of Social Democratic Parties all over Europe, leading then to the rise of far right populism

 

[TorianElecdra]

You're right, it was inappropriate for me to point out that OP has literally no idea what he's talking about because I *checks notes* posted an image without knowing its background last week.

I apologize and take my L! But sorry, OP definitely learned about Fukuyama on the r/LateStageCapitalism discord server.

Click to shrink...

When even simple argumentation tools like memes in a subreddit can destroy the logic behind your core thesis then that tells you everything about Fukuyama's theory.

 

[Deleted member 24118]

When even simple argumentation tools like memes in a subreddit can destroy the logic behind your core thesis then that tells you everything about Fukuyama's theory.

Click to shrink...

I mean he doesn't even know what Fukuyama's theory is. How has he destroyed it?

This thread is weird. I don't even agree with Fukuyama's theory, but most people here are making up some bizarre cartoon version of it and are extremely proud of not engaging with the actual thing, like not having any idea what's going on is something to be smug about.

There was some Marxist user who used to post here, cocaloch, who would always complain about some anti-intellectual bent he always saw on this forum. I'm starting to see where he was coming from.

 

[BossAttack]

When even simple argumentation tools like memes in a subreddit can destroy the logic behind your core thesis then that tells you everything about Fukuyama's theory.

Click to shrink...

I fail to see how memes destroy his theory. I don't even support his theory, but it seems many in this thread don't understand it and are just going, "lol" at the title of the theory.

 

[Quixzlizx]

I mean he doesn't even know what Fukuyama's theory is. How has he destroyed it?

This thread is weird. I don't even agree with Fukuyama's theory, but most people here are making up some bizarre cartoon version of it and are extremely proud of not engaging with the actual thing, like not having any idea what's going on is something to be smug about.

There was some Marxist user who used to post here, cocaloch, who would always complain about some anti-intellectual bent he always saw on this forum. I'm starting to see where he was coming from.

Click to shrink...

Why read a book when you can read 300 memes instead?

 

[electricblue]

There was a lot of misplaced optimism in the early 90's I really miss it

 

[danm999]

He didn't mean history would stop he meant neoliberal capitalist democracy was the final form of human society.

But he did still get incredibly owned by events following the publication of his book yes, just in a different way.

 

[UCBooties]

The absolute last date that anyone should have taken Fukuyama's theory at all seriously was 9/10/01.

Yes, there was more nuance to it than just "USA win, history over," but the core idea that America hegemony would continue on as the unopposed singular force shaping world culture into the foreseeable future didn't survive a single decade after the fall of the USSR.

America's economic leadership is in constant dispute, our diplomatic power has been eroded and splintered by decades of bad deals and reneging on the agreements we do make. Our military force projection is still the best in the world (no surprise, considering what we pay for it) but we've squandered that advantage on decades long Quagmire's against broken states and asymmetrical insurgencies that render our advantages moot. And this is after we already had decades to learn from the last time we made this mistake.

The post world war order that was supposed to solidify under the US after the fall of the Soviet Union had collapsed under repeated economic shocks and the dual rise of nationalist and austerity movements in the very Western Democracies that were supposed to be the blueprint that other nations would follow going forward. "The End of History" was a prediction that American Imperialism would be the driving cultural and economic force of the 21st century and the Empire is at a historic low in its ability to use hard or soft power to advance its interests abroad while it is divided, weak, and decadent in the Imperial Center.

It was always a bad prediction that too many people took as an excuse for an ideological victory lap and two decades after it was shown to be a complete sham it is embarrassing that anyone would still champion it.

 

[Doukou]

No, he still stands by it.

Click to shrink...

That was from 2014. After Trump/Brexit is when he changed.
"Twenty-five years ago, I didn't have a sense or a theory about how democracies can go backward," said Fukuyama in a phone interview. "And I think they clearly can."

The man who declared the 'end of history' now fearful of the very fate of liberal democracy

'Twenty-five years ago, I didn't have a sense or a theory about how democracies can go backward,' said Francis Fukuyama. 'And I think they clearly can'

nationalpost.com

 

[Deleted member 24118]

Why read a book when you can read 300 memes instead?

Click to shrink...

Don't even need to read a book, the guy laid his theory out in an 18-page essay lol. Still too many words I guess.¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Deleted member 24118]

That was from 2014. After Trump/Brexit is when he changed.
"Twenty-five years ago, I didn't have a sense or a theory about how democracies can go backward," said Fukuyama in a phone interview. "And I think they clearly can."

The man who declared the 'end of history' now fearful of the very fate of liberal democracy

'Twenty-five years ago, I didn't have a sense or a theory about how democracies can go backward,' said Francis Fukuyama. 'And I think they clearly can'

nationalpost.com

Click to shrink...

"I have not heard anyone posit an alternative political economic form other than liberal democracy tied to a market economy that I think will be a higher form of human civilization that will produce higher levels of prosperity and more happiness for the people that live in it."

Nope, he still believes that liberal democracy will be the end of history, even if he's not as enthusiastic about it as he was in the '80s.

 

[Kittens McMittens]

I mean he doesn't even know what Fukuyama's theory is. How has he destroyed it?

This thread is weird. I don't even agree with Fukuyama's theory, but most people here are making up some bizarre cartoon version of it and are extremely proud of not engaging with the actual thing, like not having any idea what's going on is something to be smug about.

There was some Marxist user who used to post here, cocaloch, who would always complain about some anti-intellectual bent he always saw on this forum. I'm starting to see where he was coming from.

Click to shrink...

I dunno. I feel that the point I made about how his ideas were used to justify globalisation was sound. All throughout the 90s our leaders were going on about how capitalism would bring peace and human rights to the world, so we had to outsource everything and have free trade. Liberal democracy would inevitably follow.

Even at the time it was clear that the CCP would never give up power. Now we have constant debate about how we're all basically complicit in Chinese atrocities because we have no choice but to consume their products. This alternative outcome - that actually expanding trade to totalitarian states would actually erode our liberal democracies, not strengthen them - was ignored at the time.

So you have to consider his ideas in practice.

 

[Doukou]

"I have not heard anyone posit an alternative political economic form other than liberal democracy tied to a market economy that I think will be a higher form of human civilization that will produce higher levels of prosperity and more happiness for the people that live in it."

Nope, he still believes that liberal democracy will be the end of history, even if he's not as enthusiastic about it as he was in the '80s.

Click to shrink...

That's a weird interpretation of his quote. He is clearly giving his opinion on what is the best politic economic policy in relation to current suggestion but you talk about it being inevitable/end of history. He has 100% walked back on liberal democracy being inevitable after seeing Trump and co. Now he thinks it's just the best option.

 

[Palette Swap]

Always thought it was strange considering we unnecessarily got into war in Iraq pretty soon after.

Click to shrink...

Actually, that line of thought peaked during the decade between the fall of the Soviet Union and 9/11, and it was essentially used as the rationale for explaining 9/11 and invading Iraq.

"They hate our freedoms" to explain 9/11 directly stems from that framework, and so does the neoconservative bullshit of bringing freedom and nation building used in Iraq.

 

[cnorwood]

Umm...what?

Click to shrink...

Yeah it definitely felt like that growing up, I was born in 91. The sentiment was like things will still happen but the important stuff stopped in the late 80s. 9/11 was one future footnote.

 

[Kay]

Actually, that line of thought peaked during the decade between the fall of the Soviet Union and 9/11, and it was essentially used as the rationale for explaining 9/11 and invading Iraq.

"They hate our freedoms" to explain 9/11 directly stems from that framework, and so does the neoconservative bullshit of bringing freedom and nation building used in Iraq.

Click to shrink...

Osama bin laden said something along the lines of 'if we hated freedom why didn't we attack Sweden?' but the American propaganda machine is probably the most efficient in all of history so nobody gave a shit

 

[Deleted member 24118]

I dunno. I feel that the point I made about how his ideas were used to justify globalisation was sound. All throughout the 90s our leaders were going on about how capitalism would bring peace and human rights to the world, so we had to outsource everything and have free trade. Liberal democracy would inevitably follow.

Even at the time it was clear that the CCP would never give up power. Now we have constant debate about how we're all basically complicit in Chinese atrocities because we have no choice but to consume their products. This alternative outcome - that actually expanding trade to totalitarian states would actually erode our liberal democracies, not strengthen them - was ignored at the time.

So you have to consider his ideas in practice.

Click to shrink...

That is a valid criticism. Fukuyuma absolutely got China and globalization 100% wrong and has walked a lot of that back.

That's a weird interpretation of his quote. He is clearly giving his opinion on what is the best politic economic policy in relation to current suggestion but you talk about it being inevitable/end of history. He has 100% walked back on liberal democracy being inevitable after seeing Trump and co. Now he thinks it's just the best option.

Click to shrink...

No, it's what he means. Immediately after that quote he states that the only genuine competitor to liberal democracy is the Chinese system, and that (for reasons he doesn't expand upon) he doesn't believe that it will ultimately hold out. He mentions that he considers his book Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalisation of Democracy to be the "rewrite" of The End of History, and in it states that China is basically the only thing that may prove his theory wrong. So you aren't necessarily wrong, I don't think he'd stand by The End of History 100% today. But while he certainly guards it with qualification he still believes in "the universality of liberal democracy."

However your statement that Trump changed his mind is wrong. "Political decay" is something he's talked about for a long time, he doesn't see Trump as being some grand refutation of democracy even if he hates him. The headline of the article you linked is extremely editorialized and acknowledges at the end that "The turbulence of the moment doesn't have to be read as a rebuttal of his original thesis."

Nah, I actually think you're right on this one.

 

[Excuse me]

Bit off topic but has anyone here read his latest book Identity and is it worth the read? I like some of Fukuyama's stuff but haven't read him extensivly, for example I never read End of History.