Registered: May 2002
Location:
Posts: 8820

Phil and I very briefly discussed Fukuyama and Huntington the other day, the only conclusions drawn were that even Fukuyama no longer believes his own statements in this post 9/11 world.

There are many essays and a few books on the subject that can explain things much better than I, but here are the codnensed versions of their arguements as I see them.

Francis Fukuyama - In '89, Fukuyama wrote an essay called "The End of History?" Modifying Hegel's dialectic in accordance with the progression of politics, Fukuyama hypothesizes that governments have indeed been evolving, but not towards any Final Communism as Marx may have suggested. The liberal democracy, he argued, is the last step in this process. Liberal democracies, he said confidently, do not begin wars... especially with other liberal democracies. The Crusades were no longer. Wars were now the result of either differing ideologies, or a struggle for resources. All countries would become liberal democracies. Since liberal democracies are inherently unagressive, and furthermore, since they are rich and will not have to struggle for resources, and since their ideological values will become relatively homogonized, there is no reason why war should break out. This, he said, was the End of History.

It is intereting only few objected to his claim that liberal societies, due to their very nature, could not start Wars (thy obviously never met Dubya). Their main point of concern (from what I can gather) was whether all countries would eventually become liberal democracies.

Samuel P. Huntington - In '93, Foreign Affairs published Huntington's essay "The Clash of Civilizations." In its first sentence, he mocks the so-called experts predicting an "end of history," the first of many shots he takes at Fukuyama. He does not disagree that the ideological and economic wars are becoming anachronistic, but there will still be conflict, he says. While the nation-state will still be the primary actor in global politics, conflicts will arise between nations and civilizations. "The fault lines between civilizations," he says, "will be the battle lines of the future."

It is important to note here, the difference between a civilization and a state. Civilizations transcend, for the most part, territorial boundaries. One could say the "Western" civilization includes the US, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, and maybe even Japan. Huntington outlined these civilzations in the book he later converted his essay into. I read this book in an International Relations class only a few months before 9/11, and the consensus seemed to be that generalization-proned Huntington was both paranoid and racist, and that his theory could best be described as "bollocks." Once again, 9/11 turned another psychotic into a prophet. His book outlined that the next great war would be between the West and Islam.


Now, slowly, to my question.

Phil mentioned yesterday that Fukuyama has basically been dismissed since 9/11. And yesterday when Bush, being at the helm of a liberal democracy, declared War on a nation not currently invovled in conflict, we see that Fukuyama is indeed incorrect. But not so fast...

Since his speech last night, I've already heard congressman and advisors to Bush stating that when we defeat Iraq, while our presence is already in the Persian Gulf, we should use the opportunity to tell Syria to get the fuck out of Lebanon. What the fuck? We haven't even fought War Number One, and we are considering War Number Two? The Bush Doctrine is presenting democracy as an alternative to currently non-democratic states about as subtlely and peacefully as I want to present my penis to Anna Paquin as an alternative for masturbation.

There will be more Wars in the next decade. Ones that we start. If we win them all, maybe Fukuyama will be proven right. Liberal democracies are ensuring that there can be little "clash of civilization" by begining a systematic process of eradication that simply will not allow for other cultures to flourish. We are persausively and thuggishly "suggesting" democracy for all our would-be opposition. Now, we convert only our most immediate threats. If Bush has his way, soon the only threat left will be our collective conscience.

Once Bush has rid the world of tyrrany, Texas style, Fukuyama's predictions may eventually become accurate. Who will be to attack us? Who will be left for us to bomb?

I'm ranting, and I'm terribly late for work... but I hope to get all of your thoughts on the subject. I will add more of mine later.

For now, I'll try to get that "Where do we go from here?" song from the Buffy musical out of my head.

Last edited by mmmtravis on 03-18-2003 at 03:57 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 1731

Would you call the Bush administration, or the US for that matter, LIBERAL?

I think its pretty fucking conservative.


Let me rephrase:

WHY would you call the Bush Administration, or the US for that matter LIBERAL?

(Its a bunch of consevative christians)

Last edited by amerikanjunkie on 03-18-2003 at 04:18 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2002
Location:
Posts: 8820

quote:

---

Originally posted by amerikanjunkie
WHY would you call the Bush Administration, or the US for that matter LIBERAL?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Just to the right of the moon
Posts: 3141

With respect to Samuel Huntingdon and his theory of the Clash of Civilisations, I have a joke for you. Sorry if you've already heard it.

On Star Trek, both old and new, many different cultures and races are represented - American, Scottish, Irish, Russian, Asian, Black, White, Klingon etc etc. But no Muslims. Why is that?


Because its set in the future.



Aha

Aha ha

Ahahahahahahahaha

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2002
Location:
Posts: 8820

Hahahahaha, that's great.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2001
Location: China
Posts: 11795

I thought Klingons were Muslims.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 1731

I understand that, but is that what Fukuyama was refering too when HE said "Liberal". Or did he mean left wing/right wing?

I dont see how your definition of Liberal is the same Fukuyama was speaking of. If you look at it in terms of left wing/right wing then yes, Fukuyama could be right (because the more liberal the government, the less likely it will impose its beliefs on other countries/governments. If you are speaking of Liberal in your terms then Fukuyama may have very well been wrong.

Get where I am coming from?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2002
Location:
Posts: 8820

quote:

---

Originally posted by amerikanjunkie
I understand that, but is that what Fukuyama was refering too when HE said "Liberal". Or did he mean left wing/right wing?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9454

Wow, that definition of liberal democracy pretty much makes it clear that Fukuyama still has a chance, because Bush sure as hell isn't the leader of a "liberal democracy."

quote:

---

Originally posted by mmmsivart
defend and increase civil liberties against the encroachment of governments, institutions and powerful forces in society


Nope


restrict or regulate government intervention in political, economic and moral matters affecting the citizenry


Nyet!


increase the scope for religious, political and intellectual freedom of citizens


Except in these cases...



question the demands made by vested interest groups seeking special privileges


It's just the economy, stupid!


develop a society open to talent and which rewards citizens on merit, rather than on rank, privilege or status


Kind of hard to find one link that succintly summarizes Bush's rise up through Ivy League School, the Army, business dealings, etc, etc., not to mention that debacle at the Supreme Court that illegally gave him the presidency at that point.


frame rules that maximise the well-being of all or most citizens


Tax cuts for all!

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 1731

interesting.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged