tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13433228.post115978569564166790..comments2023-12-29T15:17:14.941+01:00Comments on the human province: Fukuyama's new bookseanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01692290924543236943noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13433228.post-1160062432909842122006-10-05T17:33:00.000+02:002006-10-05T17:33:00.000+02:00I've been waiting for Fukuyama's new book, "After ...I've been waiting for Fukuyama's new book, "After the Neo-Cons" for a while now. <BR/><BR/>I've been playing with the idea that Fukuyama, as elaborated in his book "The End of History", represents the *other* side of Karl Marx, in the sense that both Marx and Fukuyama embody the extreme left & right of Hegelian-teleology. <BR/><BR/>For Marx, the end state of history starts with the triumph of the socialist system over capitalism, whereas Fukuyama asserts that it was the liberal-capitalistic-democratic sweep that overtook communism. Hence, do we get sophisticated interpretations regarding the "pacification" of Czechlosovakia, or the "liberalization" or "democratization" in Iraq. <BR/><BR/>It seems that Marxism is dying out as a credible philosophy/theory because of history's liberal-democratic direction. On the other hand, Fukuyama's sadistic-teleological logic will be here to stay, *as long as* history pulls toward the capitalist synthesis. Meanwhile, Fukuyama will perhaps remain *legitimate* and therefore *powerful*, as long as such neo-con intellectuals trumpet the fall of communism, and then further claim that "democracy-promotion" inevitably *works* due to the synthesizing crystallization of free-market, democratic (neo-conservative) norms.<BR/><BR/>Thus, just as it is a pain in the ass to argue with sophisticated Marxists, it is practically dangerous to argue against intellectual neo-conservatives. In other words, these are "the means rationalize the ends" kinds-of-people. <BR/><BR/>Once the Iraq-experiment fails, Fukuyama will once again trumpet his annoying "end of history" thesis, and will continue to argue that "democracy promotion" must *still* be a major element in US foreign policy. <BR/><BR/>Only history will tell. <BR/><BR/>-kmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com