History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

The great irony in Fukuyama’s ‘end of history’ argument …

December 14th, 2017 · No Comments

The great irony in Fukuyama’s ‘end of history’ argument is that he may be right about the directionality of democracy in history but the outcome so far is not’democracy’: the argument goes into reversal ans the need for a socialist foundation is needed to establish real 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?
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 thinkiong 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 propanda, athough we might realize that historical materialism doesn’t work either.

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 civilisational 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.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment