Using fukuyama’s argument against liberal democracy itself

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

Revolutionary musings

R48G: the dialectic of revolution

March 30th, 2017 ·

Red Forty-eight Group: back to the grind: revolutionary harangues…

https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?preview=The+Crisis+of+Modernity_ver6.pdf:

Toward a New Communist Manifesto Democratic Market Neo-Communism https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?preview=Two+Manifestos+version+2.pdf

I hope it is more than someone getting older indulging in revolutionary exclamations, but if nothing else that is a function appropriate in a personal sense…And it is merely useful to remind those who will instinctively move in a more ‘practical’ vein that they could easily end up wasting their time. in the Trump era, watch what you say in public, we are ‘nemo’ here, ditto for nemini…

I don’t think they will waste a drone on me, so as the headmaster quoth in Animal House, ‘Out with it’…

We have made a number of dialectical feints back and forth between evolutionary and revolutionary perspectives but overall our task here seems to be advocating from the sidelines the discipline of truly revolutionary activism. The sidelines is not really OK, but it is still something. It could be cowardly, but maybe not.

As the Trump era approaches we are going to see intimidation in action and the result may be ambiguous jargon on the issues of activist projects. In fact we have seen that already with the Sanders theme, ‘Our Revolution’, about which we have performed rain dances and other semantic

‘propaedeutic’.

We leave open the option of solidarity with these potentially coopted perspectives, potentially the only really practical avenue.

We are stuck with a strange situation: a true neo-communist perspective must consider more than the economics of the local working class. What about all those jobs that went to an international working class?

We should proceed as before with at least the idea of virtual revolution as a gedanken experiment with the possibility open at each point of activation of this potential.

(The women’s march to come is an interesting development indeed (one might have wished a more comprehensive protest, but the platform is excellent). One might note in passing that a women’s march was one of the key triggers of the Russian Revolution!)

The point here is that we can be theoretical and potentially practical at the same time. In the first case the perspective of revolution is a way to remind ourselves that real change is very difficult in the system that we have, and that this system is in fact regressing to the right.

One of the key issues is that evolutionary politics can be stuck in a nationalistic focus on the economic gains of one sector of the system, e.g. the working class. But the working class is an international entity and the problems in any case are far larger and complex than the economic. We need at least in principle a comprehensive platform of the kind the older marxism had. We can’t we use that? We can certain use it as a backdrop but we have a more complicated situation now, and in any case the american case, being that of a fully developed capitalist system, demands what in many ways would be

a first: a post-marxist set of core principles that reflect the legacy but which speak to the reality of postcapitalism. The context here is more than economic, it is an ecological crisis, and the solution is going to conflict with economic issues.

In any case the crisis we face we should be daring enough to challenge conventional activism with the almost insuperable yet somehow more logical demands of a revolutionary platform. This barely exists and strangely the marxist left has very little to say here. Perhaps like poker players they are biding their time.

I fear that strategically it is proving counterproductive to have challenged the marxist canon. Actually we have embraced it, but with a demand that it refresh itself for a new era. Look at Leninism: it simply doesn’t apply to our situation, although in a desperate moment some of its aspects might replicate themselves. Overall we must move on from a failed legacy. (The first step to moving on is to read about ten bios of Lenin, if you have the time…he is a compelling figure).

But in general it would be of great interest to think in a wholly new way, and in this case with respect to

the american system…

The point here is simply that capitalism is self-destructing, more than anything else due to climate crisis, and we confront the need for a whole new system:

a new economic system

a new political system, a new form of democracy a new foundation beyond private property

new approaches to growth/no growth sustainable economies a nationalistic platform in an international context

exposes of the reality of the american system: the imperialistic context, the military-industrial complex, wars manufactured for profit, the covert agencies and the deep state, the corruption of politics by capital, the reckoning of criminal conspiracies and getting it straight on 9/11 and the false flag ops we can only suspect are at the core of the corrupt and criminal system of politics current, and this includes, stunningly, complicity in the international drug trade.

This is a fairly stunning set of required elements but we should at least construct the full list, create a party and a platform that can deal with them, and an aspiration to a group in motion that is a party of the main party, etc…

So there it is: a virtual solution to the above from a not yet senile old timer: a platform, two manifestos, a proto-party: the Red Forty-eight Group, a first born succession if not successor of the classic marxist

Old Testament with its 1848 focus: the once and future revolution and/or a working class evolutionary

party as a focus of social democratic bluffing one’s way to a revolution.

The Red Forty-eight Group needs a huge set of study projects, among them the secular future (and equivalent) of religion, the nature of economic theories, practical training systems and bootcamps, a set of communes and cooperatives, etc…

The Red Forty-eight Group is a template and a basically neo-communist conception. At the start of Last and First Men, Nemo declared that every kid on his block was Captain Nemo, thus nemini…this new left could Nemini in motion, and/or a question like the Who Am I? of the Advaitists. Nemini x factors…plus three finger salutes, a cult, an army, a party, a commune, smorgasboard… March 30th, 2017 · No Comments

Hegel and ‘end of history’

R48G: the absurdity of Fukuyama’s argument…

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 historial 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 techo-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.

…remorphing liberal democracy

R48G: remorphing liberal democracy one to one with DMNC shows the ‘end of history’ argument can apply to both systems…

May 9th, 2017 ·

Let us reiterate our argument in the last post (quoted below): Read our depiction of DMNC and note that the system is essentially the same as a liberal market system and yet different in the way it remorphs one to one the basic elements into a neo-communism of the Commons. But the whole liberal apparatus is still there in another form.

The point should have been obvious given the lesser version of the New Deal, for example. Does Fukuyama’s argument forbid that? His neo-con confreres surely thought so and Fukuyama made the problem worse because it has led to the cancer of privatization taken to extremes.

Does Fukuyama not see that the Commons in our formulation already exists in free market capitalism, albeit in an incomplete form. At what point does moving capital to the Commons violate one and the same ‘end of history’ argument?

https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?preview=Democratic_Market_Neo_Communism_ver_5.pdf

Was capitalism a mistake…?

Was capitalism a mistake…? we are probably dead by capitalism so the answer is clear…

April 2nd, 2017

The question will induce howls of protest in some quarters but if a process generates a runaway train and threatens to destroy a planet even as it induces delusion in the social sphere then the answer to the question is fairly clear….Let’s repeat the point: a process that threatens to destroy a planet as its executives are deluded is a mistake.

Where did we go wrong. Marx/Engels understood this point but retreated to calling capitalism a stage of history. But was it? Capitalism arose as a set of technical and financial innovations that fueled processes of economic growth but which were seen immediately to be problematic. How could this have been the onset of a new stage in history? All the basics of capitalism had existed for centuries, machine production, proletariat issues, factories, financial investment processes, the only difference was the

scale and the onset of the industrial revolution. The ideology that can came into existence at that point was an egregious distortion of the realities of world history, as Marx and Engels well understood. But instead of giving license to capitalism as a stage of world history it would have been better to have denied it any status at all save as a set of technical and economic innovations, and ones that needed integration into a larger system of social culture. Thinking of capitalism as some inevitable stage of history was nonsense: a rational system should have been the first prerequisite. Instead a false process was unleashed that has proceeded beyond control to the stage of ecological insanity, a sign the original conception was bogus or flawed.