Moshkovich,Boris Rotenberg...so ON and On....If you do not eliminate the CREATORS of the theory, the theory will nevro go way. And do not tell me that LITTLE FUKUIAMA is the brain of all this!
Hegel's End of History was supposed to be an update of the Christian idea that history has a meaning and a GOAL ('End' also means 'goal' in English: in the phrase 'means and ends' for example ). Hegel based everything on uniquely Christian concepts: linear history from Creation to Heavenly Kingdom on Earth. Marx of course started with this idea and proposed the 'scientific' stages by which a perfect world would come to be. Fukuyama was contributing to the theory of Liberalism, which predates Marxism and is more vague. To the extent that Russia embraces modern Liberalism, there is nothing to argue with Fukuyama's tentative suggestions. In fact Fukuyama's NEXT BOOK called 'Trust' argued that liberalism without mutual trust (like the USA) would have problems in contrast to places like Japan (or Russia?) which DO have a lot more in common and citizens trust each other.
I mean, people who think that Fukuyama was arguing 30 yrs ago that the West is the 'End of History' fail to notice that in his very next book ('Trust' in 1995) he cites JAPAN with its traditional social cohesion as having better future prospects in the emerging liberal order than the USA!!!!!
BTW, I studied Fukuyama decades ago, but through RWA I now discover this self-promoting charlatan Hanania has appropriated Fukuyama's name, while totally misrepresenting F's ideas. H is openly advocating a kind of Pol Pot approach. This is not liberalism, it is barbarism. He talks like a thug. You should not let him bait you into going down some rabbit hole with him, he is just trolling you, promoting himself. Typical self-appointed American arriviste. (Hanania is a Middle Eastern name)
Yeah, ok Eric, a Girard angle. But I'm suggesting that Fukuyama's argument in his book 'Trust' (now 30 yrs out of date) may actually support what is happening in Russia now. Definition of Liberalism from Google: 'Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, and equality before the law.' Describes Russia now as well as most countries. And 'Trust' argues that too much individualism makes a liberal state unsustainable - he was definitely criticising USA and saying Japan (back then 30 yrs ago) had better prospects because of its 'social capital'. Looks like Russia now has a lot of social capital too. Liberalism may not be the goal of history, but it seems to be the default we have arrived at so far.
Liberalism is the cause of all the troubles of the 'west'. Liberalism semi-successfully managed to divert the energies of the exploited classes into the pursuit of bourgeois comfort and frivolity, while also destroying social cohesion and ethical behaviour and promoting greed and rapacity.
Indeed, and yet minimal liberalism seems to be the default everywhere, even in Russia. For example even if a monarchy is restored, is there any chance of restoring serfdom?
And Russia seems to have just the right balance now of individual and collective rights.
Not in China, Cuba, North Korea, (Vietnam?). Possibly a longer examination might turn up more. I hope that Russia will turn more to a version of the Chinese economy, as their 'alliance' gets longer and closer, but time will tell. Putin is not a communist - maybe after him.
I wonder if this related to the church being sex-negative for 1900 years. The idea that our appetites just have to be restrained is so impossible to imagine in the liberal system, where the best argument we can make is for delayed gratification. But even delayed, appetite is still there, we are still on a cycle of unquenchable thirst for everybody else’s stuff and everybody else’s mind.
Hi there, Albert here. I know you have a telegram channel, can you join this group T.me/TheContinental88 and then ping me? I want to add you, the admin of the twitter account Rwa, to our chat, with the intelslava admins and more. I will hopefully see you around soon.
Excellent read
What do these PEOPLE have in common?Prigozhin,Zelenky,Kolomoisky,Wolfwowitz,Yellen,Blinken,
Soros,Epstein,Bernanke,Greenspan, Berezovsky,Deripaska, Mikhelson,Fridman, Prokhorov, Khan,Abramovich,Moshe Kantor,Mamut,Nesis,Rotenberg,Shefler,Yushvaev,Abramov,Vekselberg,
Moshkovich,Boris Rotenberg...so ON and On....If you do not eliminate the CREATORS of the theory, the theory will nevro go way. And do not tell me that LITTLE FUKUIAMA is the brain of all this!
Hegel's End of History was supposed to be an update of the Christian idea that history has a meaning and a GOAL ('End' also means 'goal' in English: in the phrase 'means and ends' for example ). Hegel based everything on uniquely Christian concepts: linear history from Creation to Heavenly Kingdom on Earth. Marx of course started with this idea and proposed the 'scientific' stages by which a perfect world would come to be. Fukuyama was contributing to the theory of Liberalism, which predates Marxism and is more vague. To the extent that Russia embraces modern Liberalism, there is nothing to argue with Fukuyama's tentative suggestions. In fact Fukuyama's NEXT BOOK called 'Trust' argued that liberalism without mutual trust (like the USA) would have problems in contrast to places like Japan (or Russia?) which DO have a lot more in common and citizens trust each other.
I mean, people who think that Fukuyama was arguing 30 yrs ago that the West is the 'End of History' fail to notice that in his very next book ('Trust' in 1995) he cites JAPAN with its traditional social cohesion as having better future prospects in the emerging liberal order than the USA!!!!!
BTW, I studied Fukuyama decades ago, but through RWA I now discover this self-promoting charlatan Hanania has appropriated Fukuyama's name, while totally misrepresenting F's ideas. H is openly advocating a kind of Pol Pot approach. This is not liberalism, it is barbarism. He talks like a thug. You should not let him bait you into going down some rabbit hole with him, he is just trolling you, promoting himself. Typical self-appointed American arriviste. (Hanania is a Middle Eastern name)
Yeah, ok Eric, a Girard angle. But I'm suggesting that Fukuyama's argument in his book 'Trust' (now 30 yrs out of date) may actually support what is happening in Russia now. Definition of Liberalism from Google: 'Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, and equality before the law.' Describes Russia now as well as most countries. And 'Trust' argues that too much individualism makes a liberal state unsustainable - he was definitely criticising USA and saying Japan (back then 30 yrs ago) had better prospects because of its 'social capital'. Looks like Russia now has a lot of social capital too. Liberalism may not be the goal of history, but it seems to be the default we have arrived at so far.
Liberalism is the cause of all the troubles of the 'west'. Liberalism semi-successfully managed to divert the energies of the exploited classes into the pursuit of bourgeois comfort and frivolity, while also destroying social cohesion and ethical behaviour and promoting greed and rapacity.
Indeed, and yet minimal liberalism seems to be the default everywhere, even in Russia. For example even if a monarchy is restored, is there any chance of restoring serfdom?
And Russia seems to have just the right balance now of individual and collective rights.
Not in China, Cuba, North Korea, (Vietnam?). Possibly a longer examination might turn up more. I hope that Russia will turn more to a version of the Chinese economy, as their 'alliance' gets longer and closer, but time will tell. Putin is not a communist - maybe after him.
I wonder if this related to the church being sex-negative for 1900 years. The idea that our appetites just have to be restrained is so impossible to imagine in the liberal system, where the best argument we can make is for delayed gratification. But even delayed, appetite is still there, we are still on a cycle of unquenchable thirst for everybody else’s stuff and everybody else’s mind.
I think René Girard more accurately imagined the End as a time when there was no more need to sacrifice. Not sacrifice others as in mythic religion, but also not sacrifice to religion because we have given up covetousness (I’m wildly improvising on him at this point.) But instead of using Christianity to reach a state where we don’t covet, we abandoned it with all the desires as hot as ever. Our major desire is to be like others and our demand is that they be like us. We act it out personally and internationally by setting up scapegoats, raising up sacrificial victims and then tearing them down. As long as we are doing that we are a long way from the End of History.
Hi there, Albert here. I know you have a telegram channel, can you join this group T.me/TheContinental88 and then ping me? I want to add you, the admin of the twitter account Rwa, to our chat, with the intelslava admins and more. I will hopefully see you around soon.