The End of History

[Valmy]

That may be true - at least at the moment - but it seems a bit overwrought to call it the end of history. History also happens in places that are not Western nations, and it happens in the interactions between Western nations and non-Western ones. And the ascendance of liberal democracy globally seems far from certain to me at this point.

Are you suggesting Fukuyama is not aware of non-Western states?  I find that humorous.

[The Minsky Moment]

Is there a fundamental difference between ranting about the herrenvolk, droning on about the dictatorship of the proletariat or speeches about democracy & capitalism? 

Is that your understanding of historical Nazism; merely a lot of pointless speeches, nothing else to see there, nothing to write home about?

I disagree.

[The Minsky Moment]

That may be true - at least at the moment - but it seems a bit overwrought to call it the end of history. History also happens in places that are not Western nations, and it happens in the interactions between Western nations and non-Western ones. And the ascendance of liberal democracy globally seems far from certain to me at this point.

But what is the competing idea?
There are plenty of illiberal states and plenty of undemocratic ones but most at least play lip service to "bourgeois" democracy and human rights.

[Malthus]

So is that what "the end of history" means?

That Western nation states think they have the best system, and that they feel there are no competing models that they are willing to consider. That there are no credible ideological competition from our point of view?

That may be true - at least at the moment - but it seems a bit overwrought to call it the end of history. History also happens in places that are not Western nations, and it happens in the interactions between Western nations and non-Western ones. And the ascendance of liberal democracy globally seems far from certain to me at this point.

My understanding is that the idea of the "end of history" can be summarized as follows (I'm open to correction as I read his work a long, long time ago):

1. Human society is ever-evolving. There is a hierarchy involved: some societies rank higher than others. This is evidenced by improvements in ethics, politics and economics.

2. Right now, the most "evolved" societies are the Western liberal democracies.

3. The end of history is not the end of events - or even, an inevitable, physical triumph of Western democracies. They could fall, be overwhelmed by barbarians, etc.

4. The 'end of history' means that there are no alternative systems that could challenge some sort of democratic, liberal system for the title of 'most evolved form of society'.

5.For example, it is theoretically possible that the Western demoracies could lose a war with the combined might of Putin's legions and Islamoid fundies. But even if that where to happen, it would not give said Putinite legions or fundies the title of 'more evolved', it would just signal a regression in world civilization. Such societies would not be ethically, politically or economically better than the societies they defeated.

[Martinus]

So is that what "the end of history" means?

That Western nation states think they have the best system, and that they feel there are no competing models that they are willing to consider. That there are no credible ideological competition from our point of view?

That may be true - at least at the moment - but it seems a bit overwrought to call it the end of history. History also happens in places that are not Western nations, and it happens in the interactions between Western nations and non-Western ones. And the ascendance of liberal democracy globally seems far from certain to me at this point.

This is my take on this as well. We may indeed see the end of ideological struggle in the West - at least for the forseeable future - but that does not mean that the struggle is not happening elsewhere (and "seeping" into the West, perhaps not at the structural level, but at individual level - see, for example, Westerners joining up with the jihad). And, truth be told, end of this internal struggle in the West may not be such a good thing - it breeds complacency, which may prove fatal in the end.

I'm fairly certain, for example, that at the beginning of the Qing dynasty's reign, the Chinese could have happily concluded that this is the end of history - but it turned out to be the end of China instead.

[Martinus]

So is that what "the end of history" means?

That Western nation states think they have the best system, and that they feel there are no competing models that they are willing to consider. That there are no credible ideological competition from our point of view?

That may be true - at least at the moment - but it seems a bit overwrought to call it the end of history. History also happens in places that are not Western nations, and it happens in the interactions between Western nations and non-Western ones. And the ascendance of liberal democracy globally seems far from certain to me at this point.

My understanding is that the idea of the "end of history" can be summarized as follows (I'm open to correction as I read his work a long, long time ago):

1. Human society is ever-evolving. There is a hierarchy involved: some societies rank higher than others. This is evidenced by improvements in ethics, politics and economics.

2. Right now, the most "evolved" societies are the Western liberal democracies.

3. The end of history is not the end of events - or even, an inevitable, physical triumph of Western democracies. They could fall, be overwhelmed by barbarians, etc.

4. The 'end of history' means that there are no alternative systems that could challenge some sort of democratic, liberal system for the title of 'most evolved form of society'.

5.For example, it is theoretically possible that the Western demoracies could lose a war with the combined might of Putin's legions and Islamoid fundies. But even if that where to happen, it would not give said Putinite legions or fundies the title of 'more evolved', it would just signal a regression in world civilization. Such societies would not be ethically, politically or economically better than the societies they defeated.

By that definition, didn't history end with the Enlightenment? I mean, there have been set backs, but overall these have been two solid centuries of liberal democracy gaining more ground.

[Malthus]

By that definition, didn't history end with the Enlightenment? I mean, there have been set backs, but overall these have been two solid centuries of liberal democracy gaining more ground.

That, in a nutshell, is more or less my critique of his thesis. WTF was so damn special about the end of the Cold War? Why does that represent the "end of history"? The development of liberal democracy has been centuries in the making, and no, I don't think fascism or communism were serious "competitors" in the "evolutionary" sense, any more than Putinism or Islamicism is now - only, the fascist and communist 'barbarians at the gates' were (1) a lot more threatening, and (2) some deluded academic types *thought* they were "competitors". They were dead wrong then, as has been proved now.

[Grallon]

Is that your understanding of historical Nazism; merely a lot of pointless speeches, nothing else to see there, nothing to write home about?

I disagree.

No my original point was that all those regimes were complex apparatus of domination and as such were equivalent. 

However as PDH rightly pointed out that was a facile categorization because there was a fundamental difference between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia on one side and the western democracies on the other: totalitarianism. 



G.

[The Minsky Moment]

By that definition, didn't history end with the Enlightenment? I mean, there have been set backs, but overall these have been two solid centuries of liberal democracy gaining more ground.

From the original essay:

Hegel  . .  proclaimed history to be at an end in 1806. For as early as this Hegel saw in Napoleon's defeat of the Prussian monarchy at the Battle of Jena the victory of the ideals of the French Revolution, and the imminent universalization of the state incorporating the principles of liberty and equality. Kojève, far from rejecting Hegel in light of the turbulent events of the next century and a half, insisted that the latter had been essentially correct.[2] The Battle of Jena marked the end of history because it was at that point that the  vanguard of humanity (a term quite familiar to Marxists) actualized the principles of the French Revolution. While there was considerable work to be done after 1806 - abolishing slavery and the slave trade, extending the franchise to workers, women, blacks, and other racial minorities, etc. - the basic principles of the liberal democratic state could not be improved upon. The two world wars in this century and their attendant revolutions and upheavals simply had the effect of extending those principles spatially, such that the various provinces of human civilization were brought up to the level of its most advanced outposts, and of forcing those societies in Europe and North America at the vanguard of civilization to implement their liberalism more fully.

So the answer is basically "yes" but with the exception that there emerged a competing enlightenment vision - Marxism - whose political manifestation was not definitively defeated until much later.

[grumbler]

There is only one prevailing and consistent social order throughout History: the 'Have' rule - the 'Have Not' are being ruled.  What changes are the modalities which enable one to be a member of the former group rather than to be confined to the latter one.  Everything else is merely window dressing - no matter what ideologues may prattle about it at any given time.

OK so Stalin and Roosevelt, Hitler and Churchill - all the same, the differences are just "window dressing" to prattle about?

I can't believe that you, of all people, bit on this troll! 

[The Minsky Moment]

That, in a nutshell, is more or less my critique of his thesis. WTF was so damn special about the end of the Cold War? Why does that represent the "end of history"? The development of liberal democracy has been centuries in the making, and no, I don't think fascism or communism were serious "competitors" in the "evolutionary" sense, any more than Putinism or Islamicism is now - only, the fascist and communist 'barbarians at the gates' were (1) a lot more threatening, and (2) some deluded academic types *thought* they were "competitors". They were dead wrong then, as has been proved now.

If you look at the 10 concrete measures proposed in the Communist manifesto - most of them were adopted in whole or in part by capitalist regimes: graduated income taxation, taxation of estates, central banks with a monopoly of currency issuance, centralized regulation of transport and communication, common agricultural policies, mechanization of agriculture, free universal education.

Communism was a very powerful ideological force, so powerful that is was to a significant extent co-opted.  And the Cold War was part of that process: progressive taxation, large-scale public transport, the development of the welfare state, expansion of higher education, even the civil rights movement were all influenced by the ideological and physical competition against Communism.

Communism was a viable competitor, but liberal democracy proved more adaptable.

[The Minsky Moment]

There is only one prevailing and consistent social order throughout History: the 'Have' rule - the 'Have Not' are being ruled.  What changes are the modalities which enable one to be a member of the former group rather than to be confined to the latter one.  Everything else is merely window dressing - no matter what ideologues may prattle about it at any given time.

OK so Stalin and Roosevelt, Hitler and Churchill - all the same, the differences are just "window dressing" to prattle about?

I can't believe that you, of all people, bit on this troll! 

Sheer curiosity to see how far he would go.

[Valmy]

I'm fairly certain, for example, that at the beginning of the Qing dynasty's reign, the Chinese could have happily concluded that this is the end of history - but it turned out to be the end of China instead.

The Chinese could have happily concluded they would be ruled by foreigners forever and delighted to be second class citizens in their own empire?  Are you sure this is a good example?

[grumbler]

There is only one prevailing and consistent social order throughout History: the 'Have' rule - the 'Have Not' are being ruled.  What changes are the modalities which enable one to be a member of the former group rather than to be confined to the latter one.  Everything else is merely window dressing - no matter what ideologues may prattle about it at any given time.

OK so Stalin and Roosevelt, Hitler and Churchill - all the same, the differences are just "window dressing" to prattle about?

I can't believe that you, of all people, bit on this troll! 

Sheer curiosity to see how far he would go.

Yeah, I realized after I posted that you probably didn't read the board often enough to know that he was going to go nowhere - I don't think he even realizes that emotion is not intellect.  Well, now you know.  It was a pretty cheap price to pay, I suppose.

[grumbler]

I'm fairly certain, for example, that at the beginning of the Qing dynasty's reign, the Chinese could have happily concluded that this is the end of history - but it turned out to be the end of China instead.

The Chinese could have happily concluded they would be ruled by foreigners forever and delighted to be second class citizens in their own empire?  Are you sure this is a good example?

Marti is also apparently unaware of the fact that Chinese political historiography was completely wrapped up in cyclic theory; the Chinese intelligentsia "knew" that the Qing Dynasty would eventually lose the Mandate of Heaven and be replaced.  It had always happened and, they supposed, always would.