Torgeir,
Hmm. You perhaps weren’t around during all the discussions we had here in
regard to the theories of Samuel P. Huntington* and Francis Fukuyama**. Key,
was Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last man. In it, he argued
that history is at an end because Liberal Democracy has won out over its two
20th century competitors, Fascism and Communism and there are no competitors
left. He acknowledges that there are some third-world hold outs, but since
they can’t compete with the Liberal Democracies economically, they must either
remain on the fringe of history or become Liberal Democratic themselves.
The term “end of history” was originated (if I remember correctly) by Hegel who
argued that Capitalism would be the end of history. Marx, a Hegelian of sorts,
subsequently argued that Hegel didn’t go far enough. Communism would succeed
Capitalism. Communism would be the end of history. Fukuyama gives credit to a
philosopher (whose name I can’t recall) in the beginning of The End of History
and the Last man, and argues that Hegel was right after all. Capitalism
(redefined slightly until it become Liberal Democracy) is the true end of
history.
Fukuyama does describe the term in words die-hards who place great emphases on
nuances would be uncomfortable with. The somewhat socialistic Liberal
Democracy of the EU is grouped with what we have in the U.S., and the
variations we have elsewhere in the world. I am sometimes uncomfortable with
Fukuyama’s term, but I do see his point. Liberal Democracies do largely agree
with each other in regard to economics, laws and morals.
There was a great controversy in the U.S. regarding “Neo-Conservatism” a while
back. The Neo-Conservatives credited Fukuyama as their great inspiration.
Since Liberal Democracy had “almost” achieved world-wide dominion, it would be
good (the NC’s argued) to help it along a bit. Some Neoconservatives were
behind Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Fukuyama was appalled. He wrote a book
denouncing the Neo-Conservatives and argued that his ideas were not intended to
be activistic in any way. He also started a publication called The American
Interest, which was supposed to advance views contrary to those of the
Neo-Conservatives, but it has faded (in my opinion) into something not unlike
some other political publication I used to read. I should cancel my
subscription but Fukuyama does occasionally publish an article I read.
He recently wrote an article in which he seemed to concede that his original
argument had been a bit diminished by subsequent history, but he drew attention
to the last part of his book in which he described Nietzsche’s “Last Man”
which went something like this: If history is at an end, and every nation is
Liberal Democratic and all are involved in the same economic system, there will
be no reason for any more wars. Wars will be at an end. But when that
happens, there is a danger that men will become like “the last man” that
Nietzsche described, “men with no chests,” and then there may arise charismatic
leaders who, disgusted with these “last men” will start wars based on the
vagaries of their own wills. Fukuyama was seeing a bit of that in the world,
but I don’t recall what he had in mind.
Lawrence
*Huntington, who wrote The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World
Order was one of Fukuyama’s professors. Fukuyama has presented arguments that
counter those of his mentor. Many today think that Huntington was closer to
the truth than Fukuyama.
**Andreas Ramos argued vehemently that I had misunderstood The End of History
and the Last Man; so I subsequently reread it, and quoted copiously to show
that I had not misunderstood Fukuyama. Coincidentally at that time, Ramos left
Lit-Ideas for bigger and better things.
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Torgeir Fjeld
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 2:12 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Democracies, kinds of
Dear all,
Thank you, Lawrence, for the interesting explanation of secession
potentialities in the U.S. context. We agree that Europe is a different cup of
tea in this regard; however, as events are unfolding we do well to hold our
judgement, at least until after Halloween!
You then go on to write:
As an overlay to all these matters is the current fact that “liberal democracy”
is the prevalent economic and cultural force in the modern world. Liberal
Democrats largely agree with each other on matters of economics, laws, and
morals.
If you don't mind, it seems that you're a bit ambiguous as to the sense of
"liberal" here. Let's say we have (ala Speranza),
liberal1: a type of constitutional democracy (or, in the case of the U.K., a
parliamentary democracy governed by precedence) based on the pillars of
division of government into three branches, freedom of speech, etc. These are
the famous French 18th Century virtues!
liberal2: a person who subscribes to the values he or she sees as furthered in
present-day movements and political parties self-consciously adhering to the
ideas of liberal1; OR, more specifically, someone who prefers any of the
following values: freedom of civil society, minimal state, free market economy,
union busting, union building, etc. Clearly these are potentially
self-contradictory and incoherent value statements.
We loosely use "liberal" as a way to characterise political positions. Some use
it to characterise themselves. It may be positive or negative. Often we use it
positively in some senses, and then negatively in others, so that the same
person may evaluate a "liberal constitution" as something grand, while a
"liberal sexuality" may be considered less appropriate.
Finally, there are those who accept the "liberal revolution" of France as a
democratic innovation, so that political authority today largely derives is
foundation from some kind of reference to the voting system. Even so, we may
not find it contradictory to remain skeptical when we observe the
flattening-out of all social values entailed by the triumph of neo-liberalism,
as it surged from Reagonomics to the Clintons.
We are now in a different age.
Mvh. / Yours sincerely,
Torgeir Fjeld <https://torgeirfjeld.com/>
~~ ereignis <https://ereignis.no/> : taking you to who you are ~~
