1848+…? …the end(s) of history?

We have have changed our logo/blog title again, as predicted, reverting to an earlier one.

We will explore the significance of this as we go along. But the issue to understand, debrief, etc,…the ‘end of history’ meme and the confusion it causes. The basic issue is to see that we can’t use the term as a prediction about the future. In the eonic model the ‘end of history’ would not be a temporal process as such and, depending on our historical coordinates, appear to us as in the past? What? And the term 1848+? Stay tuned…

R48G: the irony that the ‘end of history’ argument undermines the status of American pseudodemocracy: it is collapsing on the way to the real endgame

One of the great ironies of the ‘end of history’ deb ate is that if we take its thesis seriously the directionality of history so proclaimed by Fukuyama will move beyond the pseudo -democracy of liberal capitalism to ‘real democracy’. We see not one but two failures in this directional framework: the failure of bolshevism and now the apparent failure of the kind of fake democracy  we see in the US. And the system under these terms will move inexorably to try and create a new and higher freedom as democracy.

The issue is related to the reciprocity of rights and liberties and the gross fallacy of sacrificing the freedom of the many for the ‘freedom of capital’, free markets. The point is so obvious, and has been from the onset of early socialism, that it is hard to see how we are still mesmerized by the claims of democracy in the current system. But there is no absolute given of such a transformation: the system can simply decay into a degenerate morass and that is what we starting to see in the American system. And there is a peculiar and seemingly organized caba l of rightist reaction that is trying to promote dictatorship against the trend of democracy and this has finally reached the American realm with Trump. The question of a directionality of freedom is far better analyzed in the study of the eonic effect given the obscurity of both Hegel and his so -called interpreters.

The ‘end of history’ should refer to the remarkable way that the ‘evolution of freedom’ in various modes emerges in both the evolution of man and the emergence of higher civilization. But the data of history warns us that the macro action behind emergent freedom operates over a very large scale and can be degraded in the short term as the system moves beyond its acceleration intervals. We can say that ancient democracy shows a correlation with a macro effect (our discrete freedom sequence) but the action is a one -shot deal over a huge range of centuries. Man can completely wreck the result! That seems to be what we are seeing now as democracy  seems to fade away. But we say this before in the rise of fascism and the system did withstand the process to recover.

The point is that the ‘end of history’ meme is misleading. Democracy is not a given entity by definition but a dynamic semantics and one that was the object of an attempted correction by a socialist critique, the most obvious kind of critical pointing to the limit on freedom created by the bourgeoisie. This critique somehow fell into its own nemesis as the anti -liberal tide produced the monstrosity of bolshevism. The claim on ‘communism’ see ms in retrospect to be completely wrong. A democracy on a communist foundation remains a brilliant conception that hasn’t been tried. We see the failed alternatives of social democracy and pseudo -communist dictatorship turn in circle around each other as l ogical complements. We need to recompute the whole possibility and we need to do this as free agents in history. And this ironically fulfills the ‘end of history’ argument far better in the creation of a new level of freedom in social relations.

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 movin g 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

Kant and the origin of the ‘end of history’ meme


After all the confusion over the term ‘end of history’ it is interesting that Fukuyama has in fact altered his view. The term is too confused for use at this point but at least we should note that the idea of democracy is a better candidate for the usage and that in the context of a challenge to its flaws in practice: Marx was insightful on this and rightly analyzed the way ‘democracy’ was hijacked by capitalism. Obvious stuff, so why is everyone confused?

The idea of the ‘end of history’ works very well if we see it in terms of a oscillating correction along the lines of a socialist blend with democracy. Obvious stuff, so why is everyone confused. The whole idea has  been scrambled by the legacy of bolshevism and the capitalist cooptation of the idea. The insights of Marx produced revulsion with liberalism, and finally democracy, in Lenin et al. and the whole fiasco began

Instead of the term we might consider a convergence that can reconcile democracy and communism in a conclusion to the social evolution of civil society: that was incidentally clearly stated by Kant…who fortunately never used the term that has induced fumble in so many….