Absurdities of the ‘end of history’ argument

If liberal democracy is corrupted by capitalism then it can hardly fulfill the august hegelian requirements for the emergence of freedom in history.

Using fukuyama’s argument against (capitalist) liberal democracy itself

March 29th, 2017 ·

We discussed fukuyama’s argument yesterday and here is the core of the fallacious argument. He has missed the point of hegel but even if we accepted his hegelian metaphysics it would not necessarily follow that liberal democracy represents any endpoint.

The whole idea originally was surely pace kojeve at al, indeed marx, that very simply liberal democracy was too imperfect to be this ‘end of history’ and that a form of communism could achieve the correction to produce real democracy. Here the bolshevik example totally confused the issue, it must be admitted.

Our discussion of ‘kant’s challenge’ and the idea of progress toward a perfect civil constitution is a better formulation: we can see that beyond liberal democracy lie any number of systems that could improve on the confusion created by so-called liberal democracy as a cover for capitalism.

Why use hegel at all? It is a mystification of metaphysics where our eonic model shows clearly the directionality of a freedom effect in world history.

Source: Was Francis Fukuyama the first man to see Trump coming? | Aeon Essays

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s