R48G: end of history or end of eonic sequence? man’s true freedom can’t emerge under domination man’s true freedom can’t emerge under domination by the market…
March 29th, 2017 https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?preview=The+Crisis+of+Modernity_ver4.pdf
This version of the eonic model stages a far better version of both a Hegelian freedom metaphysics and the demonstration of emergent democracy: the model actually produces what Hegel guessed about and fukuyama actually eliminated: the so-called discrete freedom sequence and the way that historical
emergence prompts man toward increased political freedom, which might well suggest ‘democracy’. But the catch here is that macro history can prompt man to freedom but man must make himself and must take the steps toward freedom further to the completion of the task. Big History simply induces a dialectical potential: man must make himself by solving the problem of freedom. Clearly, gyration between liberal democracy, capitalism and some form of postcapitalism is the likely near term outcome. The whole point, cogently noted by the early socialists, was that the field of liberalism was flawed by the domination of capital and that ‘true democracy’ must be redefined. And the obvious point missed by Fukuyama is seen in the contrast between the birth of democracy in the English civil war and its erosion in the restoration and its cynical ‘liberal’ settlement.
In the eonic model we reach, not the ‘end of history’ but the probable end of the ‘eonic sequence’: the point at which man must take control of his own history. That cannot be the same as subjecting man irrevocably to forces of the market, something we can now begin to see is going to be a disastrous outcome. Man’s true freedom can’t emerge under domination by the market…
Using Fukuyama’s argument against liberal democracy itself: history can’t end with liberalism…//Was
Francis Fukuyama the first man to see Trump coming? | Aeon Essays
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