Is man free to be free?…//Francis Fukuyama Is Right: Socialism Is the Only Alternative to Liberalism

In Liberalism and Its Discontents, Francis Fukuyama diagnoses the political and psychological malaise caused by capitalism. His analysis makes one thing clear: liberalism is incapable of addressing the social, economic, and ecological crises it faces.

Source: Francis Fukuyama Is Right: Socialism Is the Only Alternative to Liberalism
We have commented many times on Fukuyama here and the title of our blog, which may soon change (again), the ‘end(s) of history’ invokes our idea that the ‘end of history’ dynamic is not univalent, but a constellation of parallel emergent factors, notably, liberalism/democracy and socialism (communism), along with others clustered near the modern divide: abolitionism, feminism, etc… Our analysis uses the ‘eonic model’ to subsume (i.e. gobble up) the ‘end of history’ meme as deeply insightful but in practice schizophrenic as to a set of pseudo-opposites, e.g. democracy, socialism, liberalism, etc…As to the ‘end of history’ dynamic we cannot proclaim one using a science of history, as did Marx: the stages of production theory is given canonical status in his ‘science’ with the epoch of capitalism to lead inexorably to the epoch of communism. The model is surely not science. This evidently is the basis of the end of history meme, thus originally ‘socialist’ but the deviously but significantly pocket-picked by Fukuyama for a play on the (non-duality) of terms. But the so-called ‘eonic model’ shows the basis for the sense of the ‘end of history indirectly’: we can show that from the era of Solon to the modern divide a larger macro-historical driver is at work and the double appearance of democracy (and Solon’s primordial abolitionist vain hope) is thus no accident. This raises question of the nature of human/historical freedom and leaves another question: what is the nature of human freedom as ‘will’ in the evolutionary psychology of man if his ‘democracy’ requires macrohistorical induction (as we suspect without full proof by theory from our model? It is all very well to assume that men will embrace democracy until we see once again in our own time the onset of the falling away of a classic democracy (not yet by any means an endgame complete.
Be that as it may (consider Decoding World History) we have an intuitive sense that the issue is a false duality and that democracy reconstructed as some kind of socialism will be ‘real democracy, exactly the language of the early socialists leading to Marx. That idea is now resurfacing and speaks to Fukuyama’s late equivocations and remarkable socialist ‘asides’/innuendoes, heretic of sorts to his own original heresy against the first ‘end of history’ meme/blurbs of the dratted commies.

In The Last Revolution we have tried to posit what we call democratic market neo-communism as ecosocialist as a resolution of the duality by taking a liberalism and, instead of ‘destroying the liberal state, remorphing it as a socialism, or more specifically a neo-communism, the term prefix ‘neo-‘ declaring that we have moved on from Marxist claims on ‘socialism’, ‘communism’, in order to create a complete break with earlier failures, viz. Bolshevism. This construct can function as a liberal state that is neo-communist: it has (socialist) markets that operate in relation to a Commons but otherwise can be real markets. In open non-‘contradiction’ these markets have a counterpoint in a planning sector, and in general many of the liberal aspects remain in place: legal rights, now balanced with economic rights, and ecological ‘rights of nature’ , a democratic Congress (the Senate is abolished, or else made into a hobo jungle with a spur of the B&O RR leading to the back entrance), a presidential system and a basic dialectic of power between a revolutionary cadre and a Congress with multi parties: a revolutionary constitution is needed to guide the flow of revolution into democracy as its actual constitution in turn is constructed as the revolutionary party cedes power yet remains as a guardian of the Commons. Can a revolutionary party cede power to a democratic leadership? The record of Marxist/Leninist experiments is dismal indeed.
The point here is that constitutional and political forms are still in their infancy, hence their probability of failure and search for reconstruction. But the basic ‘eonic tide’ shows clearly the core rightness behind the ‘end of history’ meme/muddle and that the rapid appearance of ‘second guessers’, early socialists to Marx, was no accident. The path to the end of history taken to the left in Leninist dictatorship thus ends with a sword fight with Fukuyama. The is fellow seems to have won the argument but to a close look was fatally wounded in the fray and we see now the passing away of the old memes in the (Egad, dialectical) contraries which demand a fusion of terms, and Fukuyama’s final words. The brash revolutionary rhetoric perhaps misled many and veiled the essential unity of democracy and socialism(and/or neo-communism, we don’t distinguish socialism/communism as separate terms).
The issue of psychology is critical and barely exists in political science, as the mechanical robot of reductionist scientism and its psychologies serve us at best as a crippled creature of bureaucracy and economic ‘totalitarianism’. Even Christianity at its most muddled could do better, or even the new agers or Buddhists, to see man as a complete creature of the mysteries of consciousness and the factor, so related, of his will and being. Nietzsche to Freud shows the wasteland through which Fukuyama must travel in search of a real psychology, with two such the effort is doomed. And behind Hegel whose brilliant yet toxic flourish is but a descant on the Kantian core (Hegel’s repulsive drift into conservatism made him a heretic to his own thinking in this late stance on the slave trade), but amputating the sense of the noumenal, stands Kant with his great challenge to reductionism, a psychology of will with a robust ethics, and lately in his school the teleomechanists with the real basis for evolution, and the ‘Kantian ethical socialists’ with a robust canon for socialism echoing that ethics. It is the fate of Kant to be remaindered by generation after generation of Lilliputians, and despite his odd manner and own limits, he is the source behind the Marx/Hegel collision. The debate over materialism and idealism missed the point. Kant with his transcendental deduction/idealism (neither transcendental nor an idealism a la Hegel)just may be right. It does not matter one way or the other for the construction of democracy/socialism. The strange joke of the Last Man in Fukuyama, he forgets Kant and takes up with a Kantian hoodlum, Nietzsche. Nietzche tried hard to destroy democracy, one wonders at his hold on Fukuyama.

In some ways the philosophic debate has confused all parties and the task at hand in a new rendering is to construct a ‘socialism’ (as a neo-communism) in a practical series of finite steps and to be wary of the realization of philosophic disputes that can muddy the clarity of practical constructs. The core trick, and tricky issue, if the issue of ‘markets’ and socialism. But that swamp of debate seems passe now. In an age of computronic wonders questions of markets and planning seem to be receding.
Modern man must somehow manage a true philosophy of psychological freedom, in a discourse of will, verboten to the sciences, and the nature of freedom in a species man that aspires to democracy, free of the third wheel on a child’s bike that limits the child’s degree of freedom as he learns a new mechanics. If first democracies are gifts of nature in a macrohistorical ‘ends of history’ mechanics, then the freedom or will of man to enter, create or preserve democracy is the enduring risk, and we see already the hyaena packs closing in on the demoractic camp fire, as the freedom to be free stands unresolved next to facile ideologies of freedom.

In Liberalism and Its Discontents, Francis Fukuyama diagnoses the political and psychological malaise caused by capitalism. His analysis makes one thing clear: liberalism is incapable of addressing the social, economic, and ecological crises it faces.

Source: Francis Fukuyama Is Right: Socialism Is the Only Alternative to Liberalism

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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