[lit-ideas] Re: Fukuyama and the end of history
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 07:35:11 -0700
Well, Andreas, your note is interesting. Your take on Fukuyama is very
different from mine - and different I might add from others I've heard or
read comment upon Fukuyama. Also, I've heard Fukuyama speak himself and
nothing I've heard him say would support your theory. My take is that he
does see Liberal Democracy as a good thing, but being careful describes its
as the form of society than which there is none better. After his article he
was accused of being a triumphalist, one who celebrated America's (Liberal
Democracy's) victory over the Soviet Union, the last serious threat on the
horizon. He denied that and attempted to distance himself from that idea in
his book.
Yes, I know Fukuyama expresses his ambivalence in Section V of TEOH, but I
took issue with your saying that he criticized Liberal Democracy throughout
his book. You ask that I look at the last line in Chapter 27. It describes
what he is going to take up in Chapter 28. I fail to see it as remarkable.
And Fukuyama did reject the Neocons. Furthermore the Neocons have
reciprocated. On page 7 of America at the Crossroads he writes "Whatever
its complex roots, neoconservatism has now become inevitably linked to
concepts like preemption, regime change, unilateralism, and benevolent
hegemony as put into practice by the Bush administration. Rather than
attempting the feckless task of reclaiming the meaning of the term, it seems
to me better to abandon the label and articulate an altogether distinct
foreign policy position." He then goes on to define his new position and
calls it "Realistic Wilsonianism" [see page 9]
Another way you can understand what Fukuyama is all about is to read his
arguments with Charles Krauthammer which have appeared in the journals. No
one I recall has seen the irony you refer to - or perhaps I don't understand
what you mean by his irony.
Perhaps part of our problem, yours and mine, is that while you were studying
Hegel, I was studying Nietzsche. No one embraces Nietzsche any more, but he
brought up some interesting issues that needed to be addressed and Fukuyama
addresses them.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andreas Ramos
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 11:53 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Fukuyama and the end of history
Lawrence,
Be careful of reviewers of F's book. Either a) they didn't read the whole
book b) they
didn't understand the Hegelian arguments c) they're not familiar with
Continental philosophy
(and very few American academics are) or d) they're Realists who are arguing
against F.
F writes in an ironic tone. When he says that liberal democracies are the
best and final
form of government, he is being very ironic. He is setting the reader up to
hold a belief,
which he will then demolish. After getting you to openly admire the apple,
he has you take a
bite, so you will see for yourself how it is infested with worms.
Read the last two lines of chp. 27. For 27 chapters and 300 pages, he has
explored all the
aspects of liberal democracy, showing why it will assurely win. Now,
finally, he turns to
why democracy is a bad idea. The real danger is...
"the greater and ultimately more serious threat comes from the Right, that
is, from liberal
democracy's tendency to grant equal recognition to unequal people. It is
that to which we
turn now."
Here is the Hegelian dialectic: the very essense of liberal democracy is
poison. Useless
weakings take over the planet and heroes lose.
P. 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."
(Several sentences, in which F denounces citizens of democracies as mere
dogs.) "Human life,
then, involves a curious paradox: it seems to require injustice, for the
struggle against
injustice is what calls forth what is highest in man."
Thus: While mindless fools applauded the collapse of the USSR as the victory
of democracy
and the end of history, F sees the world enters into meaningless stagnation.
What we need is
war, glorious war.
You write that F rejected neocons. Not at all! F creates the moral
foundation for neocon. He
is deeply neoconservative. F is possibly the most brilliant of the neocons.
F sees the
necessity for moral battles, where brave warriors risk their lives to defeat
evil empires.
Those warrors are natural aristocrats and stand far above trivial and quaint
nonsense, such
as laws, treaties, the Geneva Convention, rules against torture, and so on.
Although F supported the invasion of Iraq (as I wrote previously, neocon is
the moral
obligation to topple evil governments), he is unhappy with the way the war
has been carried
out. It turned into a mess. He is trying to rescue neocon and get it back on
the path
towards moral victory.
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
Other related posts:
