The End of History

[The Minsky Moment]

It's been 25 years since Francis Fukuyama's essay was published.
In terms of the ratio of level of critical comment to people who have actually read the thing, it ranks very high.

The core of the argument:

What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. This is not to say that there will no longer be events to fill the pages of Foreign Affair's yearly summaries of international relations, for the victory of liberalism has occurred primarily in the realm of ideas or consciousness and is as yet incomplete in. the real or material world. But there are powerful reasons for believing that it is the ideal that will govern the material world in the long run.

The End of History thesis has been subject to broad-based criticism from all across he political spectrum, but it seems to me looking back after 25 years, the thesis has held up pretty well.  Communism did utterly cease to exist as a viable ideological alternative.  And liberal democracy, despite its difficulties, remains unchallenged in the ideological sphere.  There are of course illiberal regimes and political currents, and they may even be growing.  But none of these has developed into a viable ideological alternative.  The Chinese "model" as such does not exist - China itself has made little effort to export its system as an ideological or practical alternative, and no other country has had success trying to imitate it.  Russia has stood apart as well but from the perspective of cultural influence, political soft power and economic development, Putinism has been a dismal failure.  Others have followed this "democratic authoritarian" model, but other than Turkey, none has really gotten any traction.  The only real success story in that tradition was one that existed back in 1989 - Singapore. It seemed like an exceptional case then, and still seems so now.

Clearly there are competing systems but is there a viable competing ideological ideal in Fukuyama's sense?  If there is I don't see it.  I think the thesis is still looking pretty good.

Thoughts?

[Jacob]

You don't consider militant Islamism a viable competing ideological ideal?

[Malthus]

Putinism anf Jihadism may be "failures", but they are increasing in influence.

Why should the "end of history", in Fukuyama terms, date to 25 years ago? Facism and Communism were never viable alternatives to liberal democracy, any more than Putinism or Jihadism are now.

[Malthus]

You don't consider militant Islamism a viable competing ideological ideal?

I think the notion is that it isn't serious. In that, it can cause serious trouble, but not pose any sort of real threat to change the direction of world civilization (other than to retard it). 

[Admiral Yi]

Facism and Communism were never viable alternatives to liberal democracy, any more than Putinism or Jihadism are now.

Plenty of people considered Communism a completely viable alternative.  The end of that illusion is pretty much the crux of Franky's thesis, as a I understand it.

[Malthus]

Facism and Communism were never viable alternatives to liberal democracy, any more than Putinism or Jihadism are now.

Plenty of people considered Communism a completely viable alternative.  The end of that illusion is pretty much the crux of Franky's thesis, as a I understand it.

Sure. And pleny of people, apparently, consider Putin a master statesman, with a superior vision of society. And plenty of people, seemingly, think political Islam is the answer.

[Jacob]

I think the notion is that it isn't serious. In that, it can cause serious trouble, but not pose any sort of real threat to change the direction of world civilization (other than to retard it).

If that's true, I don't know if I buy it.

Personally I don't believe we are immune to descents into barbarism, I don't think we are immune to massive upheaval caused by issues in our economic system, and I don't think we are immune to significant environmental issues on the scale that would cause significant changes in the direction of world civilization.

I mean, it's possibly not going to happen in the immediate future, but I reckon that at best we're in a bit of a lull; and I'm not quite ready to relegate militant religious fundamentalism or the range of kleptocracies (from the pseudo liberal democracies, to the pseudo totalitarian ones) to the pile of "irrelevant dinosaurs". Maybe those systems won't directly challenge and supplant liberal democratic ideals in the West (but history is not just about the West anyhow), but they may well be part of crises and conflicts that alter how the West itself sees and applies liberal democratic ideals.

Even if we rule out future revolutions, and I don't, there's still evolution.

[Malthus]

I think the notion is that it isn't serious. In that, it can cause serious trouble, but not pose any sort of real threat to change the direction of world civilization (other than to retard it).

If that's true, I don't know if I buy it.

Personally I don't believe we are immune to descents into barbarism, I don't think we are immune to massive upheaval caused by issues in our economic system, and I don't think we are immune to significant environmental issues on the scale that would cause significant changes in the direction of world civilization.

I mean, it's possibly not going to happen in the immediate future, but I reckon that at best we're in a bit of a lull; and I'm not quite ready to relegate militant religious fundamentalism or the range of kleptocracies (from the pseudo liberal democracies, to the pseudo totalitarian ones) to the pile of "irrelevant dinosaurs". Maybe those systems won't directly challenge and supplant liberal democratic ideals in the West (but history is not just about the West anyhow), but they may well be part of crises and conflicts that alter how the West itself sees and applies liberal democratic ideals.

Even if we rule out future revolutions, and I don't, there's still evolution.

Hey, I'm not sure I buy it either. 

I think the idea being put forth is that there is a certain current in world civilization that divides the 'haves' from the 'have-nots'; that is, as it were, the mainstream of human civilization. This may falter, or destroy itself, or fall to barbarians, but until it does, it is going to drive human society forward. There will be places that don't adopt this mainstream, but they will, by and large, be backwaters.

My objection to the "end of history" idea is that communism was ever really likely to 'be the mainstream' and relegate liberal democracies to the 'backwater'. Certainly some academics thought this to be true, but it was never, IMO, in any way likely.

[The Minsky Moment]

You don't consider militant Islamism a viable competing ideological ideal?

I don't think it qualifies as a coherent political ideology in the Hegelian sense that Fukuyama was talking about.  And radicalized political Islam simply hasn't gotten much traction as an actual form of governance (as opposed to an animating principle of a political movement outside the state).  No one seems to be jumping to the Saudi model; the Muslim Brotherhood's attempt at governance was a fiasco; the Iranians have recruited militias abroad but no one seems much interested in replicating their model either.

[Queequeg]

Actually listening to Origins of Political Order right now. 

[The Brain]

I could possibly buy the idea that Western liberal democracy is the bestest form of government that man will ever reach. Whether it will dominate or even survive in the future I don't know. A huge chunk of mankind hates hates hates freedom.

[Sheilbh]

I think Putinism is a challenge.

I don't think Islamism is.

But more later. Maybe.

[Queequeg]

Putinism is ad-hoc, ghetto Pobedonostsev and nothing more. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Sure. And pleny of people, apparently, consider Putin a master statesman, with a superior vision of society. And plenty of people, seemingly, think political Islam is the answer.

As late as the 1970s and early 80s, it certainly looked like Communism was viable political model - the post-Stalinist USSR recorded very impressive macroeconomic numbers, had impressive technological achievements in high profile areas like rocketry, and had a high profile culturally, from sport to music to film.  Meanwhile the capitalist countries were experiencing stagflation and culture wars.  There had been two decades of former colonies breaking away and adopting various forms of "democratic socialism" in imitation of the Soviet or Yugoslav models.

Putinism doesn't present anything like the ideological challenge that Communism did.

[Barrister]

Sure. And pleny of people, apparently, consider Putin a master statesman, with a superior vision of society. And plenty of people, seemingly, think political Islam is the answer.

As late as the 1970s and early 80s, it certainly looked like Communism was viable political model - the post-Stalinist USSR recorded very impressive macroeconomic numbers, had impressive technological achievements in high profile areas like rocketry, and had a high profile culturally, from sport to music to film.  Meanwhile the capitalist countries were experiencing stagflation and culture wars.  There had been two decades of former colonies breaking away and adopting various forms of "democratic socialism" in imitation of the Soviet or Yugoslav models.

Putinism doesn't present anything like the ideological challenge that Communism did.

And in the last ten years the "democratic authoritarian" model displayed by China has also shown impressive growth, with a number of people around the world do appear to consider it a viable model, even if as you say the Chinese don't go around trying to export it.  Similarly political islam continues to be very attractive, with an islamist government in Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas in Gaza.

Just because those models aren't getting much traction in "the west" doesn't mean they aren't attractive in other parts of the world.