[lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 21:05:50 -0700
I confess that Andreas' comments are so far from my understanding of
Fukuyama?s work that I in the past suspected him of not reading the book.
Be that as it may, Fukuyama is so identified with the ultimate victory of
Liberal Democracy that inasmuch as he wrote his book right after the fall of
the Soviet Union he was known as a triumphalist, i.e., someone who
celebrated the victory of Liberal Democracy over Communism. Note that in
embracing Kojeve?s interpretation of Hegel?s idea of the end of history,
Fukuyama is perforce saying that Liberal Democracy is the end of history.
This cannot really be disputed. He does believe this. In his introduction
on page xii he writes ?Whether, at the end of the twentieth century, it
makes sense for us once again to speak of a coherent and directional History
of mankind that will eventually lead the greater part of humanity to liberal
democracy? The answer I arrive at is yes, for two separate reasons. One
has to do with economics, and the other has to do with what is termed the
?struggle for recognition.?
Insofar as Fukuyama considers himself Hegelian we can see that he embraces
the process that leads to the end of history as inevitable. It is as
inevitable as Marx thought Communism was. Marx thought Hegel was right up
to a point but wrong insofar as the system that would comprise the end of
history. With the fall of the USSR Fukuyama declared (with Kojeve) that
Hegel was right after all. Capitalism, aka Liberal Democracy, comprises the
end of history. At the end there will be no more struggles and no more wars.
Now presumably Andreas doesn?t disagree with what I have written thus far.
He doesn?t disagree that Fukuyama declares Liberal Democracy to be the end
of history and he doesn?t disagree that the end of history comprises the end
of war and therefore World Peace. What he seems to have a problem with is
Fukuyama?s attitude toward Liberal Democracy. Andreas claims that this
thesis, the one that made Fukuyama world famous, the one he is identified
with, the one that helped form the Neocon movement, is a system he really
doesn?t like. Now if that strikes you as preposterous I must confess that
it strikes me the same way. I have heard Fukuyama speak a number of times
on CSpan. I have read countless articles by him and never has he hinted
that he is an enemy of Liberal Democracy. What he is an enemy of, as he
describes in his latest book America at the Crossroads, is forcing Liberal
Democracy upon nations not ready for it. He very much objected to forcing
Liberal Democracy upon Iraq. Does his book America at the Crossroads
indicate that he is fed up with Liberal Democracy? No, of course not. One
needs but remember that Hegel was an Historical Determinist. He believed in
the inevitability of an historical process that would lead to the end of
history, one in which Capitalism, aka Liberal Democracy, would be
victorious.
I suppose Andreas could say that even if Fukuyama declared Liberal Democracy
the form of society that would comprise the end of history, and even if he
declared his support and admiration for it in CSpan interviews, at the end
of his book he didn?t like it. So let?s turn our attention to that
possibility. One will recall that there are two parts to Fukuyama?s title;
The End of History is the first part. The Last Man is the second. One will
recall that ?The Last Man? is Nietzsche?s term. It was Nietzsche who was
unhappy with the observable societal changes. Nietzsche imagined a future
time when The Last Man would be something very like Sinclair Lewis described
in Main Street and Babbitt: Men Nietzsche called, ?Men without chests.?
Nietzsche of course preferred the Ubermensche, the Superman, the Great Man.
His philosophy is considered the philosophical underpinning of Fascism and
Hitler, but I don?t believe that is accurate. His sister on the other hand
was very much a Fascist and a supporter of Hitler and slanted some of his
works, as I recall, to favor Fascism, but Nietzsche?s reputation has
survived that misuse of his works if I remember correctly. Like Carlyle
Nietzsche did believe that it took great men to move history forward, and
Nietzsche didn?t believe in the end of history. His view he called ?the
doctrine of eternal recurrence.? What does that have to do with Fukuyama?s
book? Well it has this to do with it: Fukuyama considered the Last
Man-condition of the end of history to perhaps not provide adequate focus
for the Thymos of that occasional individual who might have the charisma,
drive and power to gather followers and restart history. It was the only
thing that might interfere, in his view with the permanent end of history.
That he considered the ubermensche doesn?t mean that he sought or wanted
him. He didn?t.
Now Andreas is quite convinced that his view is correct, that Fukuyama was
appalled that Liberal Democracy might succeed and hated the Last man which
would mean that He embraced Nietzsche rather than Hegel, and this of course
is preposterous. Fukuyama did write from Nietzsche?s point of view in much
of the last section but only as a literary device. Consider the following
from page 311:
?The end of history would mean the end of wars and bloody revolutions.
Agreeing on ends, men would have no large causes for which to fight. They
would satisfy their needs through economic activity, but they would no
longer have to risk their lives in battle. They would, in other words,
become animals again, as they were before the bloody battle that began
history. A dog is content to sleep in the sun all day provided he is fed,
because he is not dissatisfied with what he is. He does not worry that
other dogs are doing better than him, or that his career as a dog has
stagnated, or that dogs are being oppressed in a distant part of the world.
If man reaches a society in which he has succeeded in abolishing injustice,
his life will come to resemble that of the dog.? Well here we have
something that seems to support Andreas? view. Sure the end of history
results in World Peace, but look at the price to be paid. Men become like
dogs. A footnote attributes this section to Kojeve, and if one checks the
footnote one sees that Fukuyama isn?t identifying with Kojeve at this point.
Kojeve does accept Nietzsche?s negative view of the end of history, but
Fukuyama doesn?t agree for look at what Fukuyama writes on page 313:
?It is difficult for those of us who believe in liberal democracy to follow
Nietzsche very far down the road he takes. He was an opponent of democracy
and of the rationality on which it rested.? Here Fukuyama doesn?t distance
himself as he did in the section where he is paraphrasing Kojeve. He writes
that he believes in liberal democracy. Now what does that mean? I see no
reason to doubt that it means what everyone I have read aside from Andreas
say about Fukuyama, namely that he did believe, admire, and embrace liberal
democracy to such an extent that he was known at the time of his book and
the article that preceded it as a ?triumphalist.?
What I have written here is my understanding of Fukuyama?s position as found
in his The End of History and the Last Man, 1992. I believe the evidence is
clear that Andreas is incorrect when he writes ?Fukuyama deplores the trend
of liberal democracy: it leads to pacifists and legalists, where everyone is
equal. That condition produces men who won't fight. Democracy is a form of
Christian slave ethic. Instead, eternal war is necessary to produce
aristocrats in every generation who lead and, yes, kill. That produces noble
spirits.? Andreas has confused Fukuyama?s position with that of
Nietzsche?s. Does it seem reasonable that anyone who deplored Liberal
Democracy would write ?It is difficult for those of us who believe in
liberal democracy to follow Nietzsche very far down the road he takes?? I
think not.
I confess to having trouble following the thought processes of Irene and
Andreas. Just why Andreas has concluded his note with ?Lawrence is taking a
stand on both sides: he applauds Fukuyama for processes that will result in
world peace, and he rejects anyone who talks about world peace. We know
where he really stands.? What could Andreas possibly mean by this? I have
written a note ?On the Prospect of World Peace? in which I have recommended
Fukuyama?s (and Barnett?s which only differs in that it is more proactive
than Fukuyama might prefer) process as a path to world peace. I commented
that those who really wanted world peace might be well served if they gave
up mere wishful thinking and embraced these processes that led to world
peace. What in this has led Andreas to believe that I reject the prospect
world peace? The only thing I can imagine is the absurd idea that if one
believes in the ultimate success of a process that leads to world peace one
ought to assume that world peace exists in the here and now. It shouldn?t
need to be said that neither Fukuyama nor Barnett are naïve enough to
suggest such a thing. They are quite aware of the residual Rogue and Failed
States, the Non-Integrating Core. Over time the Core will become integrated
as nations adopt Liberal Democracy. Neither Fukuyama nor Barnett advocates
military means for facilitating this process. The military will be needed
to fight against Rogue states bent upon aggressive military action against
Liberal Democracies. In other words we still need to fight wars against
hostile malevolent forces bent upon the destruction or domination of Liberal
Democratic nations. We don?t want to give up our means of defense until it
is clear that it is no longer needed.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andreas Ramos
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 7:35 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
"Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> In case any pacifists are treating this discussion train seriously, they
> should understand that Fukuyama and Barnett both advocate processes that
> would result in world peace.
No, Fukuyama doesn't say that. Lawrence, you challenged me to read his book
and I did. And I
found that what you say about Fukuyama is misleading.
Fukuyama deplores the trend of liberal democracy: it leads to pacifists and
legalists, where
everyone is equal. That condition produces men who won't fight. Democracy is
a form of
Christian slave ethic. Instead, eternal war is necessary to produce
aristocrats in every
generation who lead and, yes, kill. That produces noble spirits.
If anyone is interested, read the book. It's fascinating. Fukuyama is
brilliant and an
excellent writer. Okay, and crazy too.
Lawrence is taking a stand on both sides: he applauds Fukuyama for processes
that will
result in world peace, and he rejects anyone who talks about world peace. We
know where he
really stands.
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
Other related posts:
