Surviving the ‘end of history’ meme

We won’t comment on the multiple issues in this essay and instead will simply reiterate our views on the ‘end of history’ meme. The title of our blog is the ‘end(s) of history’ and we have tried to place the whole discussion in terms of real history and the consideration of teleology.

https://redfortyeight.com/?s=end+of+history Continue reading ” Surviving the ‘end of history’ meme”

The hold of capitalist hypnosis

R48G: the hold of capitalist hypnosis and the failure of a science of either history or economics

May 1st, 2017

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/40376-it-is-profitable-to-let-the-world-go-to-hell-will- capitalism-doom-the-planet

The absurdity of the current ideological fix on all publics with respect to the virtues of capitalism is beginning to crumble but the question of moving beyond capitalism has yet to gel as an actual social project of projects, notwithstanding the apparent commitment of the older left to just this. Continue reading “The hold of capitalist hypnosis”

‘End of history’ argument and pseudo-democracy

R48G: the irony that the ‘end of history’ argument undermines the status of american pseudo-democracy: it is collapsing on the way to the real endgame

May 4th, 2017

One of the great ironies of the ‘end of history’ debate 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 cabal 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’ seems 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 logical 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.

Confusion over ‘end of history’

May 9th, 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.

Fukuyama jettisoned Hegel’s implausible metaphysics, as well as Marx’s idea of ‘dialectical materialism’, as the proposed motor of historical synthesis. In their place, he suggested that the modern scientific method coupled with technological advancement, alongside market capitalism as a form of mass information-processing for the allocation of resources, could explain how humanity had successfully managed to develop – haltingly, but definitely – on an upward course of civilizational progress. The catch, however, was that we had now gone as far as it was possible to go. Liberal democratic capitalism was the final stage of Historical synthesis: no less inherently contradictory form of society was possible. So, while liberal democracy was by no means perfect, it was the best we were going to get. Big-H history was over, and we were now living in post-History. That was what Fukuyama meant by his infamous

claim that History had ‘ended’. To be sure, many critics see Fukuyama’s theory as no more plausible than Hegel’s metaphysics or Marx’s materialism. And his claim that Western liberal democratic capitalism represented the necessary end point of the grand Historical working-out of human existence

– such that no society more desirable than the US of the 1990s was possible – strikes many as no more

likely than Hegel’s notorious claim that the end of History was the 19th-century Prussian state (which just happened to pay his salary).

Source: Was Francis Fukuyama the first man to see Trump coming? | Aeon Essays

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…