Beyond pseudo-democracy…at the ‘end of history’
February 10th, 2018
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.
Fukuyama oblivious to ‘totalitarian democracy’
January 22nd, 2015 •
Now, in the second installment of this two-volume treatise, Political Order and Political Decay, Fukuyama picks up where the French Revolution left off and proceeds to the present. While he stresses that liberal democracy is not “humanly universal,” he still believes that there is “a clear directionality to the process of political development” that favors liberal democracy. But, in stark contrast to The End of History and his concern over hypothetical last men and their possible discontents, in his latest book he is worried about liberal democracies not sustaining themselves and not reliably delivering peace, prosperity, and personal security to their peoples. As he writes, if “there has been a single problem facing contemporary democracies, whether aspiring or well established, it has been centered in their failure to provide the substance of what people want from government: personal security, shared economic growth, and quality of basic public services like education, health, and infrastructure that are needed to achieve individual opportunity.”
Fukuyama keeps talking about democracy but fails to see that we are living in a concealed totalitarian system. That’s suddenly obvious to me: I write a book challenging Fukuyama’s ‘end of history’ thesis with a very cogent argument resolving the problems, but the concealed censorship and mind control of this political culture of ‘democracy’ can’t allow any public review, reference or discussion of this work. Zero. Fukuyama is aware of this book but can’t refer to it in public.
So we are in a worse situation than democracy under strain. We are already in a system that can create a totalitarian mind control system behind the appearance of democracy. As the author of Last and First Men the point is completely obvious, granting the added problem of academic credentialing. A book with no major publisher from the underground is by definition banned from discourse. But it would be almost impossible for the argument stated to find a venue in academic publishing circles (due to its discussion of darwinism, for starters).
The issue is clearer perhaps in the ‘debate’ over evolution: here the mind control system has been spectacularly successful, with a critique from the religious right: this political culture is in a sorry state, and not even the radical left has much clarity on the subject.
Fukuyama’s classic was a powerful constellation of ideas, and the adroit use of Hegel allowed him to escape momentarily from the darwinian dogma that strangles historical sociology. His later books return to dismal darwinian dumbkopfhood, a condition unworthy of the Hegelian legerdemain of his outrageous End of History piece, dealing Hegelian mysticism from the bottom of the deck.
Beyond pseudo-democracy…at the ‘end of history’