May 9th, 2017 ·
We have two clear lines of objection to Fukuyama’s argument: we don’t need Hegel, historical materialism, as the ‘motor of historical synthesis’: our study of the eonic effect shows something else driving history. One can object to that but the material is clearly able to expose techno-economic thinking as an inadequate explanation.
The second, if you don’t like the eonic effect, is that it is unreasonable to reject any challenge to unrestricted capitalism. This is the claim that any modifications to free markets is against the ‘end of history’ argument (which has no basis either in Hegel or anything else, put poppycock).
If you look at our Democratic Market Neo-Communism you can see that liberal market capitalism has been remorphed one to one with alternations that work just as well as those of straight market capitalism. In effect, Fukuyama is arguing that the injustices of free markets can’t be altered, a gross and nauseating propaganda. The argument only worked for about five minutes after 1989. The whole ‘end of history’ is neo-con propaganda, although we might realize that historical materialism doesn’t work either.