Andreas: I know you read America at the Crossroads, but did you read The
End of History and the Last Man as well? If so I either forgot what I read
back in 1999 or you have a few things wrong. For example, you wrote "For
Fukuyama, Liberal democracy is a Very Bad Idea. It leads to California,
multiculturalism, equal rights, peace, tolerance, and such depravities."
This is not Fukuyama's position as I understand it. His thesis is that
Liberal Democracy is a very good thing: "While some present-day countries
might fail to achieve stable liberal democracy, and others might lapse back
into other, more primitive forms of rule like theocracy or military
dictatorship, the ideal of liberal democracy could not be improved upon."
This was the thesis of his article which he describes "By Way of an
Introduction" on page xi of The End of History.
I don't know where you are getting Fukuyama's deep scorn for the American
public. I utterly missed that. He discusses Nietzsche's deep scorn for the
common man, but Fukuyama doesn't share that believe."
I won't go on because I'm not sure what you are referring to. I know you
don't have time to go into this in detail, but a page number reference on a
few points would help.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andreas Ramos
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:54 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Fukuyama and the end of history
SPEAKING FREELY
Francis Fukuyama's about-face
By C Mott Woolley
In evaluating Francis Fukuyama's criticism of the US
effort in Iraq, it may be worthwhile to see what in
his earlier work has brought him to make this
about-face. In The End of History and the Last Man
(1992), Fukuyama asks: Is there some simple reason as
to how and why history unfolds? The centerpiece of
this earlier work is the collapse of the Soviet Union:
why did it happen and why was there a failure in the
West
I really regret that I don't have time to write a detailed summary of
Fukuyama's book.
Woolley's article seriously misrepresents Fukuyama. Lawrence Helm also
distorts Fukuyama.
As I wrote several weeks ago, I recently read Fukuyama's book (it has just
been reissued
with a new afterword).
> ... The End of History is a
remarkable book. It is the story of how liberal
democracy has developed and why it may one day come to
be the norm throughout the world.
This is completely wrong. Fukuyama is not writing that liberal democracy has
triumphed.
Instead, he is deploring the triumph of liberal democracy. He isn't
celebrating the end of
history at all; for him, it's very bad thing. He offers instead a strategy
to prevent the
end of history.
To understand why the Berlin Wall fell, Fukuyama broadly describes the
actors in global
politics.
1) For most of the 1900s, there were the realists (US govt officials, incl.
the US military,
State Dept, and senior persons in Congress and the White House.) Realists
also included most
European statesmen, incl. the Soviets and the Chinese.
These were countered by:
2) The Neo-cons (insert a trumpet blast).
There's also:
3) The American public, for whom Fukuyama has very deep scorn. "Slave
mentality", "dog
culture", and so on. They are irrelevant and clueless. They offer nothing of
value. No ideas
whatsoever.
This led to several results:
The Realists (led by Kissinger, whom Fukuyama and the neocons seriously
dislike) argued that
states were actors and should be considered in terms of interests and
powers. The USSR was
an opponent with nuclear weapons. Therefore, the USA should seek detente
with the Soviets.
a) Thus the Realists were completely unable to predict the collapse of the
USSR, because
they did not look at the internal politics. They did not realize the USSR
was a paper tiger.
They expected an opponent and thus ignored the facts. They refused to attack
the USSR. They
accepted the existence of the USSR.
b) The Realists also ignored the moral nature of a state. If a state was a
useful tool, then
the US formed an alliance. Whether it was a vicious dictator (such as
Saddam, or many of the
dictators whom the USA supported throughout the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s)
was irrelevant.
"The enemy of an enemy is my friend." US foreign policy was amoral.
The Neocons despised this understanding of the world.
The Neocon Agenda:
a) The moral nature of a state is important. Thus the neocons talk about
"evil" countries.
b) The USA is morally good.
c) Thus the USA is morally obligated to attack and destroy evil countries.
War is good. It strengthens a society. Fukuyama calls for a war every
generation. Peaceniks
are defeatist whiners who drag a country down.
The American public, esp. the Christians, get the blame. Christianity is a
slave morality
(in the full meaning of the word: it's self-delusional story that slaves
come up with to
justify and accept their bad situation.) What's really bad about
Christianity is that the
Christian slave grovelling ethic leads to liberal democracy: everyone is
equal, everyone is
good, and everyone has equal rights.
Fukuyama writes people are not equal. Most people are little more than dogs
(he spends quite
a bit of time to make this point). A few Real Men are Natural Aristocrats,
and by virtue of
their heroic nature, they lead into wars.
It's very clear what Fukuyama and the neocons thought about the 3,000 who
died in the WTC.
They were lawyers, stocktraders, bankers, and so on, whom he despises for
creating the
modern egalitarian world.
Thus the Neocons (from their agenda: a, b, c, and d) feel deeply that they
are called (in
the religious sense) to invade Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya,
California, China, and
so on, to rid the world of immoral power groups. They are in a war to take
over the world.
For Fukuyama, Liberal democracy is a Very Bad Idea. It leads to California,
multiculturalism, equal rights, peace, tolerance, and such depravities.
That's the second part of his title: The Last Man. Fukuyama argues that
slave morality will
result in world where everyone is tolerant, Christian, and... meaningless,
because they
don't assert themselves in combat against others. The "Last Man" isn't a
good thing. It's a
horrible end-game where people have no meaning in their lives.
Thus the Neocons want perpetual war so aristocrats can be forged in the heat
of battle. This
is why Bush/Cheney talk about war that may last several decades.
----------------
When you read this book, you realize the Neocons invaded Iraq. Not for the
oil. Not for
democracy. Not for anything else. They invaded simply to prove they could
start a war. That
in itself is a glorious act. This is why there was no meaningful attempt to
stabalize Iraq,
create a nation, establish democracy, etc. Look at Afghanistan. There's no
democracy there.
It's a military camp. Democracy is a slave idea, and the Bushies are
definitely not in Iraq
to build a slave-morality society.
The neocons talk about democracy in Iraq only to shut up the whining of
American civilians,
who are dumb enough to support a war in Iraq for the sake of democracy.
All of this is very bad news for America and the planet. We see how Lawrence
Helm denounces
everyone here as "unamerican"; even US Army generals with 30-year careers
are unamericans.
Neocons are convinced they are entitled to run the country. Only slaves and
dogs care about
democracy. Thus the ideological justification is set for destroying the
Constitution,
getting rid of elections, and declaring a perpetual state of emergency. Both
of Bush's
presidential elections were marked by election fraud; what else would you
expect from people
who seriously dismiss elections as worthless?
This is also why they ignore treaties as quaint traditions. Warriors don't
bother with
treaties.
The weather forecast? Bush will attack Iraq with nuclear weapons. The
neocons are convinced
that the American people will stop whining and will realize their warrior
values. Bush will
be celebrated as the hero of the world.
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
