The End of the End of History

April 4, 2007 7:15 PM

"The End of History was never linked to a specifically American model of social or political organisation... I believe that the European Union more accurately reflects what the world will look like at the end of history than the contemporary United States." Francis Fukuyama, one of the leading lights of the canonically neoconservative Project for a New American Century, jumps ship. Via.
posted by unSane (120 comments total)

If a Starbucks worker gives the wrong change, the company fires him.

If "intellectuals" such as Fukuyama get their predictions completely wrong, especially about things like the outcome of a war, why should be listen to another word they say?
posted by dydecker at 7:22 PM on April 4, 2007 [2 favorites]

Christ, what an asshole.
posted by John of Michigan at 7:26 PM on April 4, 2007 [2 favorites]

So much for manifest destiny. I suppose I'm not surprised by the "bait and switch" metholody of drawing inaccurate philosophical conclusions from political history, while trying to save your career. "Oh, I meant the Europeans."
posted by phaedon at 7:29 PM on April 4, 2007

If "intellectuals" such as Fukuyama get their predictions completely wrong, especially about things like the outcome of a war, why should be listen to another word they say?

Just because you make a claim about how a cake in an oven will end up after three hours doesn't mean you have to take the blame for idiots who triple the heat to get it done in one.
posted by Firas at 7:29 PM on April 4, 2007 [1 favorite]

If "intellectuals" such as Fukuyama get their predictions completely wrong, especially about things like the outcome of a war, why should be listen to another word they say?

Because we should judge arguments on their merits, rather than by their proponents?
posted by Kwantsar at 7:30 PM on April 4, 2007 [4 favorites]

Is "Fukuyama" a verb yet?

Like: "he thought he won the lottery but it turned out he was just Fukuyama'ed."

Or: "man, I really Fukuyama'ed when I picked Detroit to win the series."
posted by telstar at 7:32 PM on April 4, 2007 [3 favorites]

Well, nitpick all you want, but this is a fucking stunt of a move.
posted by phaedon at 7:32 PM on April 4, 2007

Just because you make a claim about how a cake in an oven will end up after three hours doesn't mean you have to take the blame for idiots who triple the heat to get it done in one.

Well, you could say the same thing about Marx.
posted by thirteenkiller at 7:33 PM on April 4, 2007 [3 favorites]

Is "Fukuyama" a verb yet?

What'd you say about my mama?
posted by phaedon at 7:35 PM on April 4, 2007 [1 favorite]

Uhm, to clarify, I'm not saying a better-executed war would have borne out the neoconservative worldview. I'm saying that believing in End of History type arguments (which I do) doesn't mean that you believe that regime change easily brings about liberal democracy (a notion which post-Colonial history resoundingly disproves.)

Thinking about it in these terms makes me wonder whether neoconservatism is certifiably an ideology, the way Communism was... if you're dead sure something's going to end up a certain way you really don't care what's done in the meantime (Solzhenitsyn: "Macbeth's self-justifications were feeble--and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even Iago was a little lamb too. The imagination and the spiritual strength of Shakespeare's evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology.")

Kwantsar, I sort of disagree… if I make a claim about the nature of X and am wrong, I think people should look more skeptically at my claims about Y (and vice-versa if I was right on X.) Fascinating issue though, you can probably discuss the the usefulness 'intellectual track records' and research into them all day.
posted by Firas at 7:38 PM on April 4, 2007

My knowledge of The End of History is less than perfect (I haven't read the book but I'm familiar with the general thesis) but I don't see any real inconsistency here. His point has (as i understand it) is that Capitalist Democracies are the best form of government. The EU is considerably more protectionist in its markets that I think Fukuyama would like, but I don't think that disproves his central idea.

That said, The End of History always struck me as pandering at best and hubristic at worst
posted by lekvar at 7:40 PM on April 4, 2007

Just because you make a claim about how a cake in an oven will end up after three hours doesn't mean you have to take the blame for idiots who triple the heat to get it done in one.

Every single person I know knew it was a completely ridiculous delusion that democracy was ever going to "spring up" in Iraq. And we are all total morons.
posted by dydecker at 7:40 PM on April 4, 2007 [2 favorites]

thirteenkiller, whoa! Yes, as evidenced by my previous comment, Lenin is exactly what came to mind. I don't really believe in Marxist "capitalism will eat itself" theory—trying to speed it up didn't work but I don't think 'unforced' history will bear it out either.
posted by Firas at 7:40 PM on April 4, 2007

For added credibility, he could have said all this long before now.
posted by grouse at 7:45 PM on April 4, 2007 [3 favorites]

dydecker: I don't get your point. I'm calling the neocon war advocates morons, not your friends.

It's easy to give Fukuyama/End of History, or Democratic Peace, or other ultimately dry academic ideas the flack for the iraq war while overlooking the militaristic, us vs. them, Clash of Civilizations type thinking that made neocon-style acts so appealing to war fetishists.
posted by Firas at 7:45 PM on April 4, 2007

That cake was never going to bake, Firas.
posted by dydecker at 7:46 PM on April 4, 2007

This is quickly degenerating into a surreal argument about a metaphor about a historical model. Let me be specific, the cake I was talking about is that the world will eventually end up as mostly liberal and democratic as the only way to arrange for the mass governance of human beings. It could a while. What the hell does the iraq war have to do with that?
posted by Firas at 7:49 PM on April 4, 2007

What the hell does the iraq war have to do with that?

Fukuyama was one of the signatories to the letters from the PNAC to Clinton and subsequently George Bush recommending that Saddam be overthrown "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack."

Try to keep up.
posted by unSane at 7:55 PM on April 4, 2007

To summarize the article.

Fukuyama on Iraq:

Long before you have a liberal democracy, you have to have a functioning state (something that never disappeared in Germany or Japan after they were defeated in the second world war). This is something that cannot be taken for granted in countries like Iraq.

Fukuyama on the EU:

The EU's attempt to transcend sovereignty and traditional power politics by establishing a transnational rule of law is much more in line with a "post-historical" world than the Americans' continuing belief in God, national sovereignty, and their military.

I think the thing that annoys people is the way Fukuyama "ties in" his ideology with actual events. Up until now, at the least he was consistent. But this switching of alliances ( the bush administration doesn't listen to me?) appears arbitrary, and worse, self-serving, and dilutes his political philosophy into a matter of historical interpretation with a sprinkle of questionable motives.
posted by phaedon at 7:56 PM on April 4, 2007

Can we keep all the cake out of this, please?
Cake is not for reactionary-revisionist-sinking-shippery-rat-asses.
Cake is for nice folks and fluffy bunnies.

Your Supreme Commander of Cake.
posted by Dizzy at 7:58 PM on April 4, 2007 [1 favorite]

I heard that.
And I'm cutting off your milk, mister.
posted by Dizzy at 8:00 PM on April 4, 2007

Kwantsar: "Because we should judge arguments on their merits, rather than by their proponents?"

But if you're not a historian or a political scientist or an economist, when experts in those fields make predictions, you can only rely on their past performance. Mr. Fukuyama has proven himself to be totally full of shit more than once so I can pretty safely assume that his current arguments are crap even if I'm not qualified to critique them.
posted by octothorpe at 8:05 PM on April 4, 2007 [4 favorites]

Fukuyama really ought to just be quiet at this point. He and his pet ideas have been completely discredited at this point.

It could a while.

It's kind of like predicting there'll eventually be a global socialist revolution and the whole world will end up like Sweden. The reality is that teleological arguments about the "essence" of human beings and the "destiny" of the world serve only to justify and enable imperialist agendas. Sort of like the way Fukuyama's idiotic 'End of History' theory justified and enabled the neocon "we'll give them democracy or else" foreign policy. But I suppose the thought that hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings have died thanks to the weakness of your ideas would be pretty upsetting to most anybody. I guess Fukuyama will be playing this "no, really, I'm not a neocon" game all the way to the grave.
posted by nixerman at 8:06 PM on April 4, 2007

unSane, I'm quite familiar with PNAC et al. Tell me again what part of 'a war on iraq in 2003 is a good idea or will turn out well' Fukuyama fervently espoused or has rested his political science credibility on? kthx.

nixerman, that's misplaced. You think people should stop making predictions or putting forth theories in the humanities because someone can seize upon them for intellectual firepower? Where do you draw the line?

Knee-jerk 'End of History' hatred because someone disagrees with the Iraq war is no more sophisticated than knee-jerk Quran hatred because you disagree with Al Qaeda.
posted by Firas at 8:14 PM on April 4, 2007

neocon + cake = ?
posted by acro at 8:17 PM on April 4, 2007 [2 favorites]

nixerman: it's like saying that Neitzche & Darwin are to blame for Auschwitz, or Marx for the cultural revolution.

Note that I don't mean to suggest that Fukuyama is in the league of Neitzche/Darwin/Marx etc. or that End of History is anything like the Quran.
posted by Firas at 8:18 PM on April 4, 2007

Did someone say yellowcake?
posted by ericb at 8:18 PM on April 4, 2007

intelligence baking
posted by phaedon at 8:23 PM on April 4, 2007

Firas says: Tell me again what part of 'a war on iraq in 2003 is a good idea or will turn out well' Fukuyama fervently espoused or has rested his political science credibility on? kthx.

"But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a “safe zone” in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means."

Letter from PNAC to Pres. George W. Bush, Sept 20 2001, signed by Francis Fukuyama.

Kthx
posted by unSane at 8:24 PM on April 4, 2007 [3 favorites]

Fukuyama's great mistake was trying to apply what is basically a politically neutral theory to a particular wing of a political party. He should have remained an academic and stayed out of politics.

I think what he is doing now is trying to rehabilitate his theory by restoring it in its original light as an abstraction.

And a lot of people are misquoting the theory. He didn't say that at the end of history all countries would be capitalist democracies, he merely said that no other form of government would emerge that is better, the way liberal democracy emerged as being better than facism, monarchy, etc.

And he didn't say it had to be strictly unfettered capitalism either, but rather some form of social democracy (like in Europe) where there are free markets as well as regulation of those markets.

Furthermore, the war of the last six years in no way overturns the theory. It not as if anyone thinks that because the US lost the war that liberal democracy is therefore inferior to a theocracy.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:25 PM on April 4, 2007

The problem with the premise of THE END OF HISTORY is simply that liberal democracy only appears to be a 'better' form of government when viewed through the lens of a liberal democracy.

Judged by the metrics of a theocracy, it falls horribly short.

Fukuyama's hubris is much greater than Pastabagel supposes.

I daresay that both Christian and Islamic theocrats believe that Christian and Islamic theocracies respectively represent the End of History, as do Libertarians, Marxists, Seventh-Day Adventists, the Aum Shinrikyon sect and so on.
posted by unSane at 8:32 PM on April 4, 2007

Firas, it's not simply that Fukuyama's theories can be abused it's that they are designed to be abused. This is their essential logic. Fukuyama's theory is a retroactive justification of the domination of the whole world by the West. He's a water carrier, nothing more. He offers a wishy washy, intellectually weak teleological justification for everything from the invasion of Iraq to WTO policy of the last thirty years. Do yourself a favor and stop playing the naive Stalinist. Fukuyama was no more 'tricked' into supporting the neo-con course than so many of the pro-Communist left of ancient yore. Rather Fukuyama understood that the neo-con ideology was the necessary realization of his theories (can we really let these buggers stand in the way of the End of History?) and he wholeheartedly threw his weight behind them. And his current backpedaling is even more disgraceful. Rather than directly tackle the question of whether the US Army should export democracy he's doing a jig and dance trying to get across that he never meant the End of History was a necessarily desirable condition (hint: he did) he was really talking about a post-nation state, UN-led sing along. The guy is a joke and honest people really should not truck with him.


nixerman: it's like saying that Neitzche & Darwin are to blame for Auschwitz, or Marx for the cultural revolution.

For the love of God and sweet little red-headed girls don't bring Nietzsche into this and compare him to Fukuyama. Nietzsche's philosophy was extremely pro-individual and explicitly anti-State. He could only be co-opted by deliberately mangling his work after his untimely demise. OTOH Fukuyama has repeatedly and explicitly aligned himself with the neocons. It's a bit different.
posted by nixerman at 8:32 PM on April 4, 2007 [3 favorites]

neocon + cake = The anal leakage known as PNAC and all the terrible things that resulted from it.

Fukuyama should go hide under a rock forever for giving this most incompetent and anti-intellectual of presidential administrations any credence whatsoever. Personally, I will not be happy until all the signatories of PNAC and the attendent utopianist asshats at the American Enterprise Institute receive a sound and thorough beating.
posted by Skygazer at 8:39 PM on April 4, 2007

I daresay that both Christian and Islamic theocrats believe that Christian and Islamic theocracies respectively represent the End of History, as do Libertarians, Marxists, Seventh-Day Adventists, the Aum Shinrikyon sect and so on.

You're ignoring methodology.
posted by phaedon at 8:40 PM on April 4, 2007

But i agree with you. Political philosophy seems utterly relativistic.
posted by phaedon at 8:40 PM on April 4, 2007

I also don't get all the hate for Fukuyama. And what's this with him having "jumped ship" from the neoconservatives in the top post? It's stated like it's a recent development, but one of the links says that he disapproved of the 2003 invasion and called for Rumsfeld's resignation. He also stated that he would not vote for Bush in 2004. So what is the complaint or criticism against him?

It is not at all surprising that he sees the E.U. as being the most likely possibility for the shape of liberal democracies in the future. One of his strongest philosophic influences was Kojeve, who was one of the shaping forces of the E.U. So it's not exactly a shocking recent development.

It's quite possible to be for the removal of Saddam Hussein and then disagree with the process by which it was accomplished so strongly as to feel that it would have been better to do nothing.

The attacks on his predictions seem off base to me. Do you expect perfection in forecasting? Commentators don't tell the future they just point out some variables and how they might interact in the future. They point out what to observe.

By the way, not all Straussians are neoconservatives. They range across the spectrum. I doubt there's any communists or even strong socialists but they aren't all Republicans either. One of Strauss' most prominent students is Stanley Rosen, who has stated that he generally votes for the Democrats.

I'm no neoconservative, and I find Strauss' and some of his students' ideas profound. Ultimately the West must triumph. I don't mean this as nationalism, it isn't. There is both a respect for the individual that underlies the Western tradition which is qualitatively different than any other society and an economic efficiency which is unmatched.
posted by BigSky at 8:46 PM on April 4, 2007

"Political philosophy seems utterly relativistic."

An interesting statement.

Political philosophy developed out of the desire to protect society from a relativism that rejects the values of the state, and sees those values as unnecessary.

Some claim, and they seem to have a good argument, that Strauss and those he would label philosophers are relativists and that they know their is no ultimate 'cosmological' meaning. But that this same knowledge when told to people without emotional restraint, who are running wild with the passions of the moment, leads to a breakdown in social mores. The value of a stable social structure is easily overlooked and the philosophers realize it needs to be maintained for the good and safety of all. So even if the claims that underlie the call to follow the common values are false, they are necessary.

And so, the last thing political philosophy would claim is that it is relativistic.
posted by BigSky at 8:56 PM on April 4, 2007

Ultimately the West must triumph... There is both a respect for the individual that underlies the Western tradition which is qualitatively different than any other society and an economic efficiency which is unmatched.

If your metrics are individualism and economic efficiency, this may or may not be true (what is more important, individual respect or economic efficiency? answers on a postcard please).

However these are not the only possible metrics for a society.
posted by unSane at 9:00 PM on April 4, 2007

The thing about Fukuyama's rhetoric that bothers, no really irritates me, is that he sets right out in his first paragraph of the "History at the End of History" article saying that if we (anyone, any nation, etc) want to be "modern" than we must subscribe to his idea of what modernity means. Thus anyone who does not believe in his mind set cannot actually be modern. He places an argument on his own definition. Doesn’t that kind of negate that argument? Isn’t that circular logic? I believe X, X is correct, if you don’t believe X than how can you even contribute an opinion? He then goes on in his second paragraph to acknowledge this argument, by negating it, basically saying it is not relevant. OK. He links a market economy with democracy without ever noting what it might take to make a fair and efficient market economy not to mention what democracy entails. I find it amazing and depressing to think that this is one of the nation’s top “thinkers.” To me it appears that there is no thinking involved in his opinions beyond finding ways to justify the behaviors of the corporate/political apparatus. His final paragraph speaks volumes to me:

"Outside powers like the US can often help in this process by the example they set as politically and economically successful societies. They can also provide funding, advice, technical assistance, and yes, occasionally military force to help the process along. But coercive regime change was never the key to democratic transition."

In what way has the U. S. actually made this case in Iraq, by our undemocratic use of no-bid vendors, or any of the other myriad of non-free market behaviors that we have exhibited? And if coercive regime was never the key to democratic transition, why was he endorsing it in the past. He uses the words "universal desire." Now I am not a big proponent of relativism in regard to culture, but what does that mean? Again, not defined in any real way. Is it interesting to anyone else that the rats, even the biggest most esteemed rats, seem to be leaving the sinking ship?

Is there anyway that we can make him shut his worthless cakehole? And also, how long do we have to suffer liars as emissaries of the truth?
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 9:07 PM on April 4, 2007

Ultimately the West must triumph. I don't mean this as nationalism, it isn't. There is both a respect for the individual that underlies the Western tradition which is qualitatively different than any other society and an economic efficiency which is unmatched.

No--those things are not true any more for the vast majority of citizens of those societies. And that economic efficiency only operates for and benefits the wealthy and connected, not for all (and it's not efficient at all--we pay more for everything because we have to pay for everything). Respect for the individual is also supposed to be a universal thing applied to all--inalienable rights and stuff--says Western society, so explain our official policy of torture, rendition, spying on all, and no habeas corpus, not to mention the idea of invading and occupying countries that have done nothing to deserve it.
posted by amberglow at 9:09 PM on April 4, 2007

Ultimately the West must triumph...

You might consider, BigSky, that this is an extremely anti-Western notion. I very much doubt our friendly neighborhood Enlightenment philosophers were so convinced of Western (really Statist) authority that they would ever utter such a statement. The Western tradition is built on individualism, skepticism, and experimentation and this sort of religious talk is anathema to those who truly value the West. But then this is the point: there's nothing Western or even American about the neocons, particularly Fukuyama. Serious advocates of the Enlightenment would never shame themselves by promoting any sort of divine right of kings and making serious statements about the 'End of History.'

(Though the only thing that really bothers me is that Strauss is termed a philosopher when he was really just a sociologist. It's an awful case of uninvited and unwanted company.)
posted by nixerman at 9:12 PM on April 4, 2007

The comment about a managerial elite in the Comment is Free thread is right.

Something like socialism is far more beneficial for far more people than Democracy is. Something that would meet basic needs like food and shelter for all citizens, for a start.
posted by amberglow at 9:19 PM on April 4, 2007

a conversation between Henri-Lévy and Fukuyama
posted by amberglow at 9:28 PM on April 4, 2007

More important is individual respect. However, it needs to be said that respect for the individual consists in allowing him choice in work and objectives.

These metrics are not isolated.

I am not claiming these are the only metrics. The claim is that these metrics are the most pragmatic. Pragmatic with what aim in mind? Freedom for those who are philosophically inclined to contemplate.

Yeah, it's a bit self-referential.

On preview.

amberglow,

I doubt we will see eye to eye on this. To me the economic efficiency of the West is blindingly obvious. I see it in technological development, healthcare, and the difference in living standards between the poor in this country and those in, say, Bangladesh or Cambodia.

Respect for the individual as universal for all? No country or program of values can ever be free of all contradictions. There is a certain reality of brute power that comes to play in politics and that can't be escaped by looking to absolutes or universals. The Straussians read Thucydides and Machiavelli carefully. Respect for the individual doesn't mean you turn into a sucker. There is a difference between what you can work for those in your country and those outside of it.

nixerman,

I understand why you have an issue with Strauss being considered a philosopher. And my answer to your first paragraph would be that those who do consider him to be one have a rather different understanding of the West and of the Enlightenment than the conventional. The relativism which they so despised in the Weimar Republic and 60s U.S. was attributed in part to the Enlightenment. Skepticism is a philosophic virtue, but they would argue that silence has its place. This goes right to the heart of why there is a need for esoteric writing.
posted by BigSky at 9:28 PM on April 4, 2007

I am not claiming these are the only metrics. The claim is that these metrics are the most pragmatic. Pragmatic with what aim in mind? Freedom for those who are philosophically inclined to contemplate. Yeah, it's a bit self-referential.

No, it's completely self-referential.

What you think is good, is good. That's not an argument.
posted by unSane at 9:38 PM on April 4, 2007

Fukuyama ... still trying to talk his way out of the end of his story.
posted by taosbat at 9:46 PM on April 4, 2007 [1 favorite]

"everything changed:"
Religion or philosophy?
posted by acro at 9:47 PM on April 4, 2007

"No, it's completely self-referential.

What you think is good, is good. That's not an argument."

unSane,

This is a quixotic attempt to briefly present the view expressed in the lifework of a number of people who are all much smarter than I. That needs to be understood.

If I remember correctly, they have a certain cynicism, which I share, about whether it is possible to really 'prove' anything with certainty. After all you have to get your assumptions somewhere. And what validates those?

So you default to poetry or myth. Perhaps in the story of the country or of the faith, occasionally a philosophical myth.

You will consistently see mention in their work of eros and the erotic desire for truth. If you've read Plato, you know this is a central subject in his work. In their view, it is love for truth and in striving towards it where humanity engages most deeply. A totalizing philosophical truth is not possible. But the attempt, the movement towards it, is, and that is where value is placed. Hence, the above.
posted by BigSky at 9:54 PM on April 4, 2007

love your comments BigSky. My claim earlier that political philosophy seems utterly relativistic - well I meant to say the output of political philosophy seems that way. Not so much in the sense that there are more than one theories that "explain to describe the world as it really is" - but rather any one particular philosophy can be made to map more than sequence/collection/pattern of events. And so historical interpretations, rather than growing into a sophisticated science, are devolving into a question of personal interest. That is if somebody like Fukuyama is using his discipline as a means for gratuitous self-promotion. Like, I can't believe I'm lumping these two people together - Cornel West.
posted by phaedon at 9:58 PM on April 4, 2007

Well, this thread took a turn for the boring.

Hundreds of thousands of people are dying, and this man is in part responsible. He should be fired from his university post and his reputation lowered so he never writes for newspapers, etc again.

I also really wish we lived in a world where his house and assets could be seized and distributed to ordinary Iraqis. Same goes for Bush, Cheney, etc.
posted by dydecker at 10:10 PM on April 4, 2007

BigSky, that is exactly why Fukuyama's books are hubristic.

I have a bunch of opinions about what is 'good', probably rather similar to yours.

Some of them I would be willing to die for.

I think many of them are self-evidently good.

I know that many of them are not shared by other people of good faith who work from different metaphysical axioms.

My willingness to (potentially) die for certain things I believe in is not hubristic.

My insistence that, because the things I believe in seem right to me and, according to metrics I endorse, seem likely to prevail, those things necessarily represent the end of history, would be hubristic.

I guess what I am saying is that, to claim that one's own POV necessarily represents the End of History is just idiotic. One hopes that. One might even believe that. But only a fool would claim that as a necessary truth.

A sensible person, having written Fukuyama's book, would have taken a step back and realised that he was almost certainly wrong, for reasons that he could not yet even imagine.
posted by unSane at 10:11 PM on April 4, 2007

and you are expressing a deep-rooted epistemological problem that has been internalized by philosophy... well, since descartes, at least. that conversation is not without merit, even though the political and methodological divide in schools between "those who think philosophy is worth a damn" and those who don't could not be greater.

this is one of strange asynchronicities in academia, which, in retrospect, makes me happy i spent so much time neck-high in analytic inanity. i cannot help but look at political philosophy (and behavioral sciences, for that matter) without putting epistemological questions first and foremost. as for fukuyama, you're right, this is a fall from celebrity, and little else.
posted by phaedon at 10:11 PM on April 4, 2007

nixerman, you're right that Fukuyama has a habit of, well—let's call it intellectual opportunism (eg. End of History didn't come out before the USSR was no longer much of an issue.)

(Sidenote to the socialism vs economic efficiency arguments, not only are they tired but I don't think they're particularly relevant here—I don't think the USA and Sweden are all that different by the way. Liberalism is a paradigm; complete deregulation vs. socialism is just a variable input.)

BigSky, you're literally the first person I've ever seen claim that "fool the people" is an ok thing to do. WTF? Also, your thoughts on political philosophy are not as universal as you're presenting them ("Political philosophy developed out of the desire to protect society from a relativism that rejects the values of the state, and sees those values as unnecessary.") You're probably just as aware as anyone that most of the time it's been just as concerned as protecting individual relativism from the harassment of societal values. My specific question is what you're referring to with this statement—what event do you mark as the development of political philosophy? Pardon my hostility, it's sort of ticked off by this:

Ultimately the West must triumph

What a berserkly inane statement.

I daresay that both Christian and Islamic theocrats believe that Christian and Islamic theocracies respectively represent the End of History, as do Libertarians, Marxists, Seventh-Day Adventists, the Aum Shinrikyon sect and so on.

unSane, I'd guess this is the crux of our contention. I'm positing that liberal democracy is objectively better than eg. Christian or Muslim theocracy and this shall be borne out by the way human societies evolve.
posted by Firas at 10:21 PM on April 4, 2007

Hundreds of thousands of people are dying, and this man is in part responsible. He should be fired from his university post and his reputation lowered so he never writes for newspapers, etc again.

See, this is the juvenile knee-jerk hatred I was referring to. An attempt to ferret out a scapegoat. I got list hundreds—literally, hundreds—of people who're more to blame for the deaths in Iraq before Fukuyama is. Everyone from Moqtada Al-Sadr to George Bush.

Here's my objective question: do you think Fukuyama is more to blame than Sam Huntington or Bernard Lewis? Why?
posted by Firas at 10:25 PM on April 4, 2007

Here's my objective question: do you think Fukuyama is more to blame than Sam Huntington

That's a good question. The immediate answer is no.
posted by phaedon at 10:27 PM on April 4, 2007

I'm positing that liberal democracy is objectively better than eg. Christian or Muslim theocracy and this shall be borne out by the way human societies evolve.

What the hell does 'objectively better' mean?

I suspect all it means is "I think it's likely to be better according to the measures I use to judge human society"

That is hardly 'objective'.



The only objective requirement of a human society is that it propogate itself.
posted by unSane at 10:31 PM on April 4, 2007

Well, if you want me to stick a flag in the ground, I'd say one measure is what type of society most people will end up choosing. I think it's borne out by human development. I'm at a loss about what you want me to write here. I'll need at least 300 pages and a few years to explain why I think history bears this out.

(Sidenote: Also on re-reading my previous comment, I retract my claim BigSky is literally the first person I've seen claiming that fooling the masses in favor of the general order is ok, I can think of at least a dozen philosophers/thinkers off the top of my head who've done it, just ignore that part.)
posted by Firas at 10:40 PM on April 4, 2007

unSane
While it's true that there are differing measures of what makes a good society, I think Fukuyama still has a point. Liberal democracies will ultimately be the dominant political-economic form because, aside from arguments about intrinsic qualitative merits, they offer the most flexible and stable systems. Liberal democracies offer the greatest range of choices for the greatest numbers of types of people.
A theocracy, monarchy, fascist state, etc, will greatly help one group, but not the others, which will lead to social tension and violence. Incarnations of Communist states as seen in the 20th century suffer from this problem too, with one group controlling the others, and it seems from history that the creation of a truly classless state as Marx described is unworkable at least on a large scale.
To use an analogy from physics, I think of political history as the second law of thermodynamics, or entropy, in action. Entropy is the evening out of extremes towards a stable middle state. On the political side, we have the extremes of totalitarianism and anarchy, and on the economic system we have the extremes of state control and laissez-faire. History has been a series of systems within this spectrum. Like liquids of different temperatures all mixed together, they have mingled with each other, moving towards a stable state, which is liberal democracy.
The advantage of a democracy is it allows all groups in society to share power, thus reducing tension, thus making it more stable than other systems. Competing systems can only respond to tension with violence, while a democracy has the ability to adapt in response to changes in society or the world without violence. Individual groups within a democracy may not be completely happy with the situation (like the fundamentalists you mention), but the democratic process provides an outlet for them, and means of dealing and working with them to reach compromises.
Similarly, the "liberal" aspect allows the greatest flexibility of economic systems compared to controlled economies. Having said that, I also think a laissez-faire policy is an extreme that is unstable as well. A liberal democracy can, like Europe, have socialist safety systems and still be a free market.
I think that it is clear that the liberal democracy is the most stable and workable form of government. The task now is to figure out the best expressions of it. What ratio of free-market to social safety nets should we have? What form of democracy should be used? What voting methods? Etc. Currently there are many different systems that fall under the liberal democratic umbrella, which gives us an opportunity to see what works best, though I think Fukuyama may be right about the ultimate end being something akin to the EU.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:42 PM on April 4, 2007 [1 favorite]

Firas: however, for an administration which needed philosophical basis for action, Fukuyama and others came willingly unarmed with facts, and optimistic for transformative programs, 'democratization' being no. 1.
posted by acro at 10:42 PM on April 4, 2007

Here's my objective question: do you think Fukuyama is more to blame than Sam Huntington or Bernard Lewis? Why?

My statement is not juvenile at all. Was Huntington or Lewis part of the PANC, went to meetings, beat on the thinktank drums to get the Iraq war rolling? No. Lewis has years of absolutely shameful writing on the Middle East to live down, and let that be on his conscience, but if the American govt. even gets put on trial in a Nuremburg style war crimes trial (which is what would happen in a just world, and yes, it never will happen because the world is not just), the architects of your war should also be academically discredited. Okay, maybe not put in prison like the politicians, but thoroughly academically discredited.
posted by dydecker at 10:43 PM on April 4, 2007

In terms of a general sense of what's a 'good' thing for society in general I tend to lean towards utilitarian thinking. But like I said I'm not going to sit here at 2AM and try to write an airtight tract in defense of liberalism and/or democracy, especially considering that it's semantics all the way down.
posted by Firas at 10:44 PM on April 4, 2007

Well, if I had to pick one of the three to hang, it'd be Lewis. And that's because I don't think academia would miss him one lick.
posted by phaedon at 10:46 PM on April 4, 2007

(Re: utilitarianism, that was in further reply to unSane.

And acro, like I said much earlier in the thread, I think it's easy to overemphasize the neocon "let's change the world!" philosophy while overlooking more nationalistic/militaristic active causative factors. The war was sold on weapons of mass destruction/Saddam = teh evil!1/let's kick some raghead ass much more than it ever was on the 'let's bring democracy to dem peoples' aspect.

Beyond that, I don't have much personal affection for the man or too strenous a belief in his End of History book.)
posted by Firas at 10:50 PM on April 4, 2007

Gah, one last snipe-style comment for now. To say that: I don't think it's at all possible to write an airtight political tract.

I have never seen any major book in political philosophy (off the top of my head, in terms of texts I have more than a passing familiarity with, I'm thinking of Plato's The Republic, Locke's Two Treatises, Burke's Reflections on the Revolution, Machiavelli's The Prince, Rousseau's The Social Contract, Various authors' Federalist Papers) that don't contain stupid assertions, shockingly lame hypotheses, false dichotomies, etc. etc. All works in political theory (at least ones I know of) are frustratingly vague. I'm not sure what to pin that particular failing on.

While I'm at it I might as well say that in terms of quality of political theory, libertarianism is the ideology that I think has the most amount of internal consistency (I'm personally more socialistic.)
posted by Firas at 10:58 PM on April 4, 2007

Firas: 2 a.m. here too -- my last link didn't exactly support my claim -- I'll try to find the correct link...

Fukuyama: “You cannot get economic development unless you have some strong institutions from a state. You do not need a democracy, but you need some state institutions.”
posted by acro at 11:01 PM on April 4, 2007

unSane,

"I guess what I am saying is that, to claim that one's own POV necessarily represents the End of History is just idiotic. One hopes that. One might even believe that. But only a fool would claim that as a necessary truth."

Two points. First, Hegel and I believe most proponents of 'progress', do believe that. Perhaps with some moderation, but still. I mention Hegel because Kojeve's reading of Hegel is key to Fukuyama. Second, there may be a rhetorical strategy at work here as well. I don't know that there is but it seems to be a possibility. A major concern with this group of writers is how their works can be read. Nietzsche is often criticized not so much for being wrong, but 'careless' and 'public'. Nothing obscures and confuses quite so much as the boring.

phaedon,

"i cannot help but look at political philosophy (and behavioral sciences, for that matter) without putting epistemological questions first and foremost."

If some of the writers (Lampert) on Strauss are right and there is a deep atheist relativism at the heart of political philosophy then the epistemological issues wash out. It reminds me of that quotation from Zen, "You have to say something". From the perspective of these philosophers though, there are some grave pragmatic concerns as well. How will the masses, or more pointedly, the mob, respond? What is the danger to the philosopher in bringing up notions that subvert the commands used to train the youth? And still the desire to speak out is there because for them that is what matters.

Firas,

"BigSky, you're literally the first person I've ever seen claim that "fool the people" is an ok thing to do."

Really?!

Plato, noble lie? Machiavelli?

---Yeah, OK. I see it in preview.

"what event do you mark as the development of political philosophy?"

Publication of one of Leo Strauss' early works, perhaps Persecution and the Art of Writing, or the one on Xenophanes. The Straussians would claim that this has always been the mode of communication between philosophers, and necessarily so. But it is with Strauss and his students, Bloom, Rosen, Bernardete and the rest that the term 'Political Philosophy' is associated. I understand that there are many writings on philosophy that deal with politics outside of this school. But because we are talking about Fukuyama who is a follower of this school, that's how I have been using the term.

"Ultimately the West must triumph"

I said this because I support Fukuyama's view to some degree. I'm pretty skeptical about teleological views of man or the possibility of progress, but there is a categorical difference with the West. What we have here is precious. I do think Fukuyama and this whole school of thought is on to something greater than a rhetorical ploy to justify imperial ambition. When I said the above I meant it two ways. That it is an ideal which is superior, and worth championing, first, and also inevitable, in the sense Hegel wrote about with the dialectic bringing it forward through the march of time.

"What a berserkly inane statement."

I get that a lot. And for me, that is good night.
posted by BigSky at 11:13 PM on April 4, 2007

Yeah, I think we both agree with Hegel and suchlike (here's a previous thread in which I tried to defend some vague notion of linear progress through time), it's just that "the West" and "triumph" are loaded terms, reminiscent of 'The White Man's Burden' and 'Manifest Destiny' if not—you know—of the Crusades. For example, I'm an Indian Muslim who's a big fan of Voltaire and Locke but see red at the supposition that this means I've been triumphed upon by the Western man or whatever. I don't think regions have a proprietary claim on ideas.
posted by Firas at 11:23 PM on April 4, 2007

The biggest problem I have always had with Fukuyama is that he's always felt like the kid in the back of the class who goes through particular pains to make an outrageous assertion just to revel in all the attention from the class. Unfortunately for the profession, it's hard to make a name for yourself as a Historian unless you pull these kinds of stunts.

I see a lot of people responding who've clearly never read The End of History, nor understand the basic principles. That Fukuyama decided to personally support the Iraq Adventure (and get his name in the papers again, and get invited to all the fun conferences, and "Be Relevant" once again) was despite his theory, not necessarily because of it. But you know... when so many of your ideas need personality behind them for momentum, it should be no surprise how people will form their basis of criticism. In conclusion, suck it, Fukuyama. You fucking asked for it.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:36 PM on April 4, 2007

To come to this late, I don't believe that the West must triumph, but I do believe that WestBrand® liberal Enlightenment values must triumph, whether in China, Africa or the West (and after Abu Ghraib, you guys are on a warning).

I can't agree with amberglow that socialism is better for most people than democracy. Socialism - democracy = corruption and inefficiency. Indeed, pretty much any system - democracy = corruption and inefficiency.

I take a broadly optimistic view of history, that sort of goes along with Fukuyama's idea of how things have developed, and I'm pro-European for some of the same reasons that he is. However, there's a long way from that to the triumph of post-national liberalism being inevitable.
posted by athenian at 12:21 AM on April 5, 2007

"Nietzche & Darwin are to blame for Auschwitz"

Ahem ...

Actually Darwin inspired ideas like Social Darwinism, which Europeans and Americans alike used to explain their superiority over non-whites.

These ideas led to a very big Eugenics movement also both in Europe and the US.

It was this so called race science that led to the Nazi concentration camps and therefore Auschwitz.

So Darwin is certainly not personally to blame for the Death camps ...
posted by homodigitalis at 12:54 AM on April 5, 2007

Just because you make a claim about how a cake in an oven will end up after three hours doesn't mean you have to take the blame for idiots who triple the heat to get it done in one.

Well, you could say the same thing about Marx.

Yes, but in the Marx::cake analogy there isn't an oven in the world that would stay on longer than 45 minutes.
posted by Mick at 4:30 AM on April 5, 2007

My favorite thing about this thread is how there's no way it's going to become a discussion on the pros and cons of neoliberalism.
posted by Deathalicious at 4:46 AM on April 5, 2007

The great thing about predictions such as "Liberal democracy is the necessary end-state of human society" is that they allow you to spout off (as BigSky does here endlessly) without ever risking having your assertions tested by reality.

If you simply phrased it as "Liberal democracy is the desirable end-state of human society" then at least we can have an argument.

I do not believe it is possible to predict the end-state of human society. I'm pretty sure the pharaohs had it all wrapped up.
posted by unSane at 5:23 AM on April 5, 2007

*thought they had it all wrapped up.

Typed before coffee
posted by unSane at 5:25 AM on April 5, 2007

Sangermaine: Liberal democracies will ultimately be the dominant political-economic form because ... they offer the most flexible and stable systems. Liberal democracies offer the greatest range of choices for the greatest numbers of types of people.
A theocracy, monarchy, fascist state, etc, will greatly help one group, but not the others, which will lead to social tension and violence.

If you subsitute 'may' or 'may well' for 'will', we have no argument. However there is powerful and developing evidence that liberal democracies contain within them the seeds of their own downfall.

1. They expressly permit non-democratic political movements (for example, fundamentalist religions of whatever flavour) which can potentially challenge the democratic state. It is quite possible, for example, that a liberal democracy in which fundamentalist religion took hold could vote to become a religious state.

2. Liberal democracy as currently constituted relies on the economic dominance of the democracies, and a model of economic growth which may well be completely unsustainable.

3. There is no evidence whatsoever that liberal democracy can survive a global catastrophic event (for example, an epidemic which wiped out 75% of the human population, or a long-term disruption to the food distribution system, or a total collapse of the fiat currencies).
posted by unSane at 6:09 AM on April 5, 2007 [2 favorites]

homodigitalis, I'm not sure if you missed my point or I'm missing yours… I didn't pull Darwin & Nietzche out of thin air, I cited them as two intellectuals whose works or ideas could be pretty easily molded with some others to defend Fascism but can't really be held accountable for Fascism's excesses.

unSane, well, obviously it's impossible to predict the future. Heck, post-WWII it's been fairly unfashionable to even have a model of the past. But I don't think human beings will outevolve human ideas.
posted by Firas at 6:28 AM on April 5, 2007

Unsane said:


'I do not believe it is possible to predict the end-state of human society.'

Well said. This is a pointless exercise, really. Spurious.
posted by chuckdarwin at 6:57 AM on April 5, 2007

The only "necessary end state" of human history is extinction, something that all species experience.

Short of that, I truly, profoundly, and to the soles of my feet believe that any deterministic or teleological view of societal evolution is breadheadness and the worst sort of wishful (and generally self-justificatory) thinking.

To see people arguing about which flavor of teleology is more likely to be correct is especially painful. If nothing else, "democratic socialism" and "the welfare state" are intimately conditioned on circumstances of technosocial and economic production that were local to the 20th century. I suppose they're not such a bad way of doing things if you've got mid-20th-century technology and a population with a mid-20th-century mindset; I, too, would rather live in Sweden than Rwanda, and I don't know anyone who'd choose otherwise. But nothing lasts forever.

All is flux, Frank. Always and everywhere. We may well be beginning our descent, but there is no final destination.
posted by adamgreenfield at 7:32 AM on April 5, 2007

unSane,
You're right, a liberal democracy does contain by nature mechanisms to destroy itself. However, if viewed in the long term, I think the system still comes out on top. If a liberal democracy were to vote itself into a theocratic state, or a fascist state as Germany did in the 40s, the inherent instability of those systems still holds, and I think they will ultimately end up collapsing back into a democratic system as internal (and possibly external in the German case ) pressures mount. I also think that as time wears on, that type of internal corrosion of democratic systems will actually strengthen the system overall, as it gives examples to learn from. I realize that this statement is easily open to argument, but I think the Weimar example has at least alerted us to dangers that we may have intellectually been aware of before, but never seriously considered. Perhaps the rise of a theocracy in a formerly democratic state would serve to warn future democratic governments of that danger too. Then again, people are pretty bad at learning from the past, so maybe we're doomed to an endless cycle of democratic rule, that are eventually subsumed and converted by the rise of extremists internally, and that ultimately fall back into democracy to repeat.

As for the economic model, we do have problems now. As I said, it seems like the task that lies ahead is finding the best make-up of the liberal democratic system, which we obviously have not found yet. And as to the point about survival in a disaster, I suppose we'll never know till it happens, which would be an unfortunate way to test it.

Civil_Disobedient,
I'm well aware of the what The End of History and the Last Man said. I just think that the nature of the claim naturally leads to misconceptions, things like people thinking Fukuyama claimed that American-style democratic capitalism is the end-all of history, or that liberal democracies are perfect, or that the future will literally be frozen and free from any new events. And while his claims may sometimes be outlandish, there does seem to be good historical evidence showing that there's something to the idea of an eventual, long-term ascension of liberal democracy as the dominant government in the world.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:35 AM on April 5, 2007

No big thing in and of itself...in three hundred years, they'll be talking about Fukuyama in the same breath with Oswald Spengler in survey courses. But to the extent that anybody saw his views as justification for launching an op that wound up getting lotsa people killed without improving anything, sure, I'll join in the pile-on.
posted by pax digita at 7:50 AM on April 5, 2007

unSane,

I think you misunderstand what the consequences of him making his statements about the the end of history are. He isn't promising that > 90% of future human experience from now to extinction will be under a liberal democracy. As he has stated, and it has been said in this thread as well, events continue to happen. A number of them will be extreme. Some of the comments in the thread, sound like he's giving a guarantee. He isn't. His work is partially a statement of values, in that human nature will struggle to find its "fit". It's not just historical evidence that promotes the liberal democracy, there is a vision of man there as well.

You might reject that claim. But to not make any teleological claim at all because you might be wrong, or because others with different views had the same strong feelings that you do now, leaves you with the worst sort of passive relativisim.

-----

And those who keep criticizing him in relation to the war in Iraq, look at what he said in 2003. It's in the links of the OP. He isn't coming out against it right now, all of a sudden.
posted by BigSky at 8:16 AM on April 5, 2007

Fukuyama is right about one thing, which is that the USA can no longer be considered a liberal democracy in any coherent meaning of the word. It seems to be a mishmash of theocracy, empire, martial state, hereditary monarchy, electoral dictatorship, oligarchy and kleptocracy.

I know, I know, I say that like it's a bad thing.
posted by unSane at 8:18 AM on April 5, 2007 [3 favorites]

Does anyone seriously think that if the invasion of Iraq had turned out just like the Neocons expected, Fukuyama would be singing this tune now?
posted by unSane at 8:20 AM on April 5, 2007 [2 favorites]

BigSky, whether you like it or not, Fukuyama's teleology was recruited into the service of the neocon project, and he signed the letters.

In 2001 he advocated the overthrow of Saddam by military means. The fact that in 2003 he got the collywobbles doesn't change that.
posted by unSane at 8:22 AM on April 5, 2007

adamgreenfield, sure, if you remove the scarcity assumption from economics then a welfare state becomes archaic; but you still have to negotiate power diffferentials somehow. I don't really have a stubbornly closed mind here, something can definitely change that makes the whole nature of society (or even a definition of the individual) different, but I wouldn't count on that. We've been having these particular arguments at least as long as written history.

deathalicious: My favorite thing about this thread is how there's no way it's going to become a discussion on the pros and cons of neoliberalism.

In opposition to what—socialism? Like I said I don't think the USA and Sweden are all that different when it comes to this particular model of analysis. Although, when it comes to it, I don't think any country is all that different. Most people anywhere in the world tend to worry about the same things when they wake up in the morning, you know? Paying their bills. Educating their children. Caring for their sick relatives.

I don't have much to add besides I just remembered that I'd articulated my notion of a sort of Pax Liberalis in these comments: [1, 2]. I do think liberal systems are stable in a way that non-egalitarian ones are not.

From my research into democratic peace theory, I'm aware that the two main counter-arguments against liberal stability type arguments are (a) semantic ones where people say you're cherry-picking 'democratic' to fit the definition of entities that fit your data and (b) bitching that it's mainly a cover for American hegemony. I think (a) is an interesting problem but I wish we had less (b) going on. But I guess you can't separate political ideas from political actions which use them as cover.
posted by Firas at 8:50 AM on April 5, 2007

Then again, people are pretty bad at learning from the past, so maybe we're doomed to an endless cycle of democratic rule, that are eventually subsumed and converted by the rise of extremists internally, and that ultimately fall back into democracy to repeat.

Interpret the whole shebang you describe here in economic terms rather than in terms of political ideology and aren't you basically just rehashing Marx's idea of perpetual revolution?

In fact, substitute Communism for Liberal Democracy, and it seems to me you've got the same basic system of thought, just dressed up a little differently.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:57 AM on April 5, 2007

@Firas: Sorry, I guess some misunderstanding on my part.
posted by homodigitalis at 8:59 AM on April 5, 2007

Paying their bills. Educating their children. Caring for their sick relatives.

Some people have devised systems where they only have to worry about the financial burdens of one of these things. I know, crazy, but that's the way they do it. Funny foreigners.
posted by dglynn at 9:18 AM on April 5, 2007

The End of History: A Short Play

Right Hand: "History is the struggle between the forces of chaos and superstition on the left and the forces of progress and modernity on the right. Obviously, the right hand path is the superior of the two, and eventually, right-handedness will triumph forever over the forces of ignorance and inhumanity on the left."

Left Hand: "History is the struggle between the forces of imperialism and morally bankrupt materialism on the right and the forces of humanism and compassion on the left. Obviously, the left hand path is the superior of the two, and eventually, left-handedness will triumph forever over the forces of ignorance and inhumanity on the right."

(Meanwhile the poor guy whose own hands are, for reasons he can't even begin to fathom, seemingly locked in a perpetual life or death struggle just sits at his kitchen table,
and lets out a weary sigh. Exhausted as he lies down in bed later that night, he reaches out with his right hand to pull the chain to switch off the lamp on his nightstand. As usual, his left hand leaps up vigorously of its own volition and switches it back on, accidentally knocking the lamp to the floor in the process. The bulb shatters and sparks a small electrical fire. By now, the man doesn't even care enough to try to put it out. He just lets out another sigh and closes his eyes. As he drifts off to sleep, he feels the right hand slowly creep up and begin to tighten its grip around his throat...)
posted by saulgoodman at 9:52 AM on April 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

saulgoodman,
Oh, I certainly would agree with you. I don't think Marx had it all right but I don't think he had it all wrong, either. There is definitely a cyclical element to history. The example of Weimar shows empirically that it is possible, at least in the right conditions, for a democracy to break down into another system, and even more stable forms of democracy, as unSane contain the same mechanisms for self-defeat. So it seems undeniable that there's no such thing as a permanent state, that the best we can hope for is an extremely stable one. I'm just saying that cycle is driven by changes in stability rather than class struggle, that different, less stable systems arise but that ultimately the entire system tends toward stability, which is the liberal democracy.

And I'd also agree with adamgreenfield that the development of the stable liberal democratic system is tied to economic conditions, but that's not a refutation of the idea if viewed in stability terms. The economic condition of an era may favor a non-democratic system, but once established the society is not static. It tends to increase in complexity, in social, economic, and technological terms. Even if you found a really successful empire, internal development still occurs, as we've seen in every empire in history. These changes give rise to new pressures that the old system eventually can't deal with, because it lacks the flexibility to accommodate them. That's why I think the liberal democracy has the advantage, because it has built-in measures to accommodate those kinds of societal, economic, and technological changes without breaking down.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:00 AM on April 5, 2007

Also, I'd like to point out that I'm making a utilitarian argument, not a moral one. Whether or not the liberal democracy is a "better" system than any other, it allows the greatest flexibility which is the key to a stable form of government.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:02 AM on April 5, 2007

BigSky: here are some of your statements in this thread:

1. There is [in the west] both a respect for the individual that underlies the Western tradition which is qualitatively different than any other society...
2. More important is individual respect. However, it needs to be said that respect for the individual consists in allowing him choice in work and objectives.
3. Some claim, and they seem to have a good argument, that Strauss and those he would label philosophers are relativists and that they know their is no ultimate 'cosmological' meaning. But that this same knowledge when told to people without emotional restraint, who are running wild with the passions of the moment, leads to a breakdown in social mores. The value of a stable social structure is easily overlooked and the philosophers realize it needs to be maintained for the good and safety of all. So even if the claims that underlie the call to follow the common values are false, they are necessary.
4. How will the masses, or more pointedly, the mob, respond[to revelation of "philosophical truths"]?

In your first two quotes -- and in your other statements in your thread -- you espouse your esteem for the "Western respect for the individual", which for you consists of "choice in work and objectives". In your second two quotes -- and also, in your other statements in this thread -- you agree with statements that are expressly concerned that "the mob" or "the masses" might make the wrong choices were they told of particular "philosophical truths".

So some questions:

1. Do you truly hold both of these positions at the same time:
   • A respect for the individual that translates into at least a respect for their choices of work and objective
   • A belief that most individuals (aka the mob or the masses) will use that autonomy poorly unless active effort is made to obscure certain truths -- and, ergo, to deny them certain choices?
2. If you hold both at the same time, how do you, personally, reconcile the apparent contradiction?
3. If you do not actually hold both beliefs, why do make statements as if you do?

posted by little miss manners at 10:06 AM on April 5, 2007

Stable form of government? I'm not certain that many of the inhabitants of the civilization of ancient Egypt would agree with you, at least not for the bulk of its 3,000 odd years.

Please understand: I'm not trying to be willfully obtuse or instigatory. But the blandly stated criteria here seems highly suspect. Surely, the white linen-clad priests of Nile-nourished Karnak (= educated class of technocrats) felt theirs was a social contract with pros and cons, but with an astonishing consistency and endurance to its credit.

And as for their peasants, they were no more considered than our own invisible Western poor.
posted by Haruspex at 10:27 AM on April 5, 2007

>Deathalicious
Va.: Any comments on the neo-liberalism?
Francis Fukuyama: I'm not sure what neo-liberalism is...
Post, March 28, 2006

'Empty discourse' -- definitions:
[neoconservative = pro globalization, supports democratization;
neoliberal = pro globalization, supports human rights]
posted by acro at 10:31 AM on April 5, 2007

Haruspex,
You have a point. I don't have time right now to muster a full response, but I'll just say that Egyptian history was not one long, unbroken period. I think that democracy is the most stable in that it provides an outlet for any and all tensions, which even Egypt succumbed to....but I realize that's kind of weak. Thank you for bringing that up.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:32 AM on April 5, 2007

Wow, is he ever late.
posted by ikkyu2 at 10:35 AM on April 5, 2007

To me the economic efficiency of the West is blindingly obvious. I see it in technological development, healthcare, and the difference in living standards between the poor in this country and those in, say, Bangladesh or Cambodia.

paging Mr KISSENGER, MR NIXON, MR HALDEMAN.
Cambodia may be poor and not develped like the west but they have pulled off a miracle, they are reforming thier cultre after we and the KR ruined to almost the point of extinction. They do not need all the "development" you speak of.

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
John Perkins describes himself as a former economic hit man - a highly paid professional who cheated countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars.
20 years ago Perkins began writing a book with the working title, "Conscience of an Economic Hit Men."
from democracy now
posted by clavdivs at 10:43 AM on April 5, 2007

dglynn, you have got to be fucking kidding me. Why did you suddenly decide to be a twerp? I referenced socialism in the same fucking paragraph. You can't have read everything I've said here and assume that I'm unfamiliar with "foreigners" (I am one!) I really don't get why you have to fake the wilfull ignorance of pretending that people in countries where education and healthcare is paid for don't have to "worry" about those things. Have you looked at economic distribution curves for socialist coutries? They're way flatter. *Somebody*'s paying for socialized services. Have you never read any discourse from eg. the UK criticising the quality of care of the NHS? Also, the vast majority of people in the world *don't* live under disgustingly rich welfare states where top-notch education and healthcare is provided for free. Come the fuck on dude. I have no idea what your comment was trying to get across but I'm not going to sit here and be caricatured as thinking of people as "funny foreigners." What the fuck?

My point was to put together a quick vignette to the effect of "people are people, wherever you go." Trust me, mate, those foreigners don't have much different internal lives than you do.
posted by Firas at 10:46 AM on April 5, 2007

And, at the risk of being obvious, let me state that spending 20-odd years of a meager adult lifespan painting khol onto bronze statuary wouldn't have been my idea of a good time, but neither would be defending Western democracy at the Battle of Belleau Woods, either.
posted by Haruspex at 10:57 AM on April 5, 2007

Haruspex,
But all the kohl kids are doing it...
posted by Sangermaine at 11:19 AM on April 5, 2007

Okay.
My head hurts.
You can talk about cake all you want.
posted by Dizzy at 11:23 AM on April 5, 2007

In 2001 he advocated the overthrow of Saddam by military means. The fact that in 2003 he got the collywobbles doesn't change that.

They actually advocated it to Clinton in 96-97 first. This is not some post-9/11 thing he was pushing.
posted by amberglow at 11:52 AM on April 5, 2007

He just used 9/11 to catapult his theories into willing, oil-hungry ears.
posted by amberglow at 11:56 AM on April 5, 2007

little miss manners,

This is a late response; it's been a hectic day.

Yes, there is tension, perhaps even contradiction in those four statements. Still, I think they hold together.

What do people need for a fulfiling life? Is it the same for all? Straussians I think would answer no to the second question.

Along with a level of autonomy in selecting material goals (housing, choice of food, etc.) and freedom in whom they associate with, most people need, or at least want at a deep level, a sense of certainty, an idea of how the world is, some sort of standard by which they can measure experience and consider it worthy or wanting. The desire for an answer is strong enough to where an answer that is wrong or doubtful is better than no answer. A few are more interested in the answer being correct than to any benefits that may or may not come from having an answer. Call the second group 'philosophers'.

If the answer to the question of a standard is that there is none that can be validated and that no way of life can be proven superior, what are the consequences of speaking like that? After all, if there is no grand metaphysical truth then pragmatic concerns are the focus. Not everyone emphasizes virtues like reverence, moderation and sobriety. Some are drunk on their passions, greedy and vengeful. If someone preaches that the standards, communal, religious, whatever, have no inherent value, will those who have their desires thwarted by them continue to obey? For some of the listeners it would change nothing, others would respond like Raskolnikov (_Crime and Punishment_). More importantly, it would make the community easy prey for the leader of any mass movement who came through and did offer certainty. And the new conventions might be more destructive than the previous. In addition, if the philosophers spoke openly, those who are attached to their standards would be offended, perhaps violently so. This is why there is such a focus on 'esoteric' writing.

So what about the concern for the individual? First as others have mentioned, in liberal democracies there is less tension between classes because there is the freedom for some desires to be met. A more stable society for everyone results. More importantly, there is a recognition that another person is capable of recognizing and responding to truth just as you are (assuming you're philosophically inclined), and if that is your great love, then that matters. Even if there is no great ultimate truth. A shared conversation without agenda that is individually grounded is its own kind of intimacy. Without a recognition of this then there would be little motivation for anyone to move beyond a self-interested tribalism. It's what makes a cosmopolitan outlook possible.

The Meno by Plato is a key text here. When I read it in school my teacher commented that this was the first declaration of the 'ontological parity of the soul'. In other words, a recognition of equality, not in ability, but of worth. You could make an argument, and in my opinion a strong one, that doing this created a path for the reduction of slavery, the emancipation of women, and the general notion of civil and individual rights.

Finally economic efficiency frees up time for leisure. Sure, not for everyone and not equally, but still. And why is leisure important? You can't philosophize without it. Self referential? Sure, but you knew that.

On a personal note, there are a few comments that assume I agree with all that I've written in this thread. My motivation has been to put forward what I understand of the Straussian position. I don't claim that it's accurate, these are tricky sophisticated writers. Do I agree with it? I don't know, I'm still thinking it over. I certainly find their ideas compelling and worth considering. It's a bit disturbing, a bit presumptuous, and very elitist. If I bought in fully though, writing Reader's Digest summaries of this material isn't what I would be doing.

I hope this overly long post spoke to your questions.
posted by BigSky at 7:45 PM on April 5, 2007

First as others have mentioned, in liberal democracies there is less tension between classes because there is the freedom for some desires to be met. A more stable society for everyone results.

There's more tension between classes and less stability in society because those classes are purported to be easier to move up in, and we're brought up to always strive to move up. In fact, the barriers to entry create the tensions, and leave people never satisfied and always expecting more and frustrated when they can't get it. It's one of those big lies people like to speak of. We can't all move up, and meanwhile, our basic needs aren't met either, let alone the trappings of a higher class level. Keeping up with the Jones means most won't make it. Freedom to satisfy those unmet desires with material goods is not the best solution for those individuals or for the society they live in. (especially when the factories making those material goods have moved overseas with the jobs they used to provide.) Unmet desires which are fomented daily, and indoctrinated since schooldays, do not result in a stable society, nor do they really provide any sort of freedom.
posted by amberglow at 4:24 PM on April 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

We had a sort of stability when the factories producing the goods to meet those desires were in the very communities full of people that purchased those goods. There was a stable and ever growing crop of people able to afford those goods, and more. Now that's not so.
posted by amberglow at 4:26 PM on April 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

Survey after survey shows this now: Economic conditions for workers are deteriorating so dramatically in the new American economy that an overwhelming majority, nearly 70 percent, now say that basic security – not opportunity – is their number one concern, ...

Opportunity (and that freedom) is always pushed as the big fabulous feature of democracy as opposed to other systems, but what happens when the avenues to opportunity are closed? When the economy doesn't allow even basic needs to be met for more and more citizens, even those who work?
posted by amberglow at 4:53 PM on April 6, 2007

I still don't see any evidence of economic efficiency.
posted by amberglow at 4:54 PM on April 6, 2007

amberglow, I'm sorry but your arguments are all over the map, to put it charitably.

For example, "we had a sort of stability when the factories producing the goods to meet those desires were in the very communities full of people that purchased those goods" is called Say's Law and is a supply-sider argument, not a pro-worker one. And it's not been a very good argument either, since changing technology and tastes means that this is a really brittle way of doing things and eventually the factory will have to shut down.

Saying that capitalism doesn't produce economic efficiency is a jaw-droppingly odd notion. Compared to what? Communism? Feudalism? What the hell does "we pay more for everything because we have to pay for everything" mean? A theoretical efficient competitive market is supposed to reflect the cost of a product or service in its price. Whether that price is paid for by taxes or out-of-pocket has nothing to do with whether it was created by a capitalistic producer or by centrally-controlled economies. Please show me data that shows that the USSR was more economically efficient than the UK.

Liberal capitalistic systems do create less class antagonism than eg. Communism or feudalism or what-have-you. You just have to look at wealth distribution curves in non-market economies to see that in a place like North Korea there's a huge starving underclass and a handful of spots where all the wealth and power is concentrated. You have to be blind to not see that the politics of starvation is more rampant in, say, Zambia than in Canada.

I'm getting the sense that you're arguing for regulated capitalism or socialism but are doing it in arguments trying to refute liberal democracy. The former happens to be compatible with the latter. To put it clearly, what exactly are you against?

[x] Liberalism (ie. "all human beings are born equal" and the attendant philosophical conclusions)
[x] Democracy (ie. representative republics)
[x] Capitalism (ie. production based on demand, etc. etc.—sorry, I can't think of a single phrase to boil the essense of capitalism down to right now.)

Would you rather live in today's China or in Mao's China? The iron rice bowl wasn't available to *everyone* under Mao either. Do you really want to live in a place where you have to beg the government to let you leave for the city and switch jobs, or would you rather pick your own work?
posted by Firas at 6:00 PM on April 6, 2007

And lest you say that pitting 'first-world' economies against underdeveloped ones is unfair because they started off wealther due to earlier industrialization or being colonial powers, thus giving them aggregate cumulative advantage, feel free to substitute India for the UK & Canada above.
posted by Firas at 6:13 PM on April 6, 2007

Development as Freedom, Amartya Sen (renowned welfare economist.) Welfare economics is all well and good, but not when there's nothing to distribute.
posted by Firas at 6:19 PM on April 6, 2007

BigSky: thank you for taking the time to answer. I had interpreted your comments in a fashion that made you out to be a rare bird indeed--a living, breathing, and honest Straussian--hence the questions. I find the Straussian outlook particularly noxious--but noxious in a subtle fashion, and for reasons difficult to state concisely--and was hoping to receive some insight into the thought process of someone who held that outlook; as you haven't yet adopted that outlook your answer isn't quite whgat I was looking for, but still sincerely appreciated.
posted by little miss manners at 6:47 PM on April 6, 2007

of course i'm all over the map--i'm not an economist nor theorist. I see broken capitalist systems all over the world, yet i continue to hear cheerleading for them. I see them called "liberal democracies" and "republics" and whatever, yet in all of them a very small elite both benefits most and has the most power and biggest voice. Yet people still speak of freedom and choices when there really aren't. Yet people go on about markets and pricing but never consider what a system where everything was free would be like, or refuse to consider it. Even for basic survival needs.

Where should i be? I'm not buying what you're saying--it's not evident for most citizens in democracies.

I do know some things--that what we have is neither efficient nor particularly healthy or stable at all. Nor does it benefit large members of its populations. Nor does it maintain any sort of healthy nor freeing (mentally, socially, optimistically, movementwise, ability to take advantage, etc) environment for the societies to actually live in. Citizens in capitalism, democracies, etc, don't have the freedom they're said to have at all. And comparing it to USSR or Maoist China doesn't make it freer. They didn't have it either. Maybe we're not capable of it, but i think we are, and to continue to insist that we have it good prevents better things from happening--always. I'm not happy with our lot, and most citizens in democracies aren't either.
posted by amberglow at 6:50 PM on April 6, 2007

I recently posted about a UN study of developed nations and whether children were happy and where and why. Even that kind of primary focus would create a better system than exists now. For all the talk of individuals and freedoms, individuals get mostly a shitty deal in developed nations.
posted by amberglow at 6:54 PM on April 6, 2007

Well, you made one particularly weird empirical claim (no efficiency.) That's just wrong.

Besides that, there are systems where essential survival needs are free. They're called socialism. They're market economies where the wealth distribution curve is really flat (ie. there's no obnoxiously rich and small elite populace) because heavy progressive taxation is in place.

Keep in mind that empirically, the flatter you try to make the curve, the less total money there is (ie. if people can't get rich doing enterprise and selling stuff, then they stop being enterprising, and thus there's less wealth creation and less jobs etc.)

As you can see in eg. France, gauranteeing people that they'll never be fired from jobs means that there's massive unemployment.

So it's a balance. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You're just randomly sniping at things and then refusing to mention alternatives. Of course things can get better. That's what we should spend our lives worrying about. But there's no magic answer.
posted by Firas at 7:00 PM on April 6, 2007

Saying that capitalism doesn't produce economic efficiency is a jaw-droppingly odd notion. Compared to what? Communism? Feudalism? What the hell does "we pay more for everything because we have to pay for everything" mean?

How about not having to pay for anything? Or not having to pay for the basics of life? Or how about ...?

The sky's the limit--it's not about this compared to that. It's about the many and blatant (and often life-threatening) shortcomings of this.
posted by amberglow at 7:00 PM on April 6, 2007

How about not having to pay for anything?

I still don't get it. Would your colleagues be working on a magazine if it means the time they spend on it means they starve because they're not hunting?

Incidentally, I do agree that we need to change the emphasis in economics from just 'material wealth' to more quality of life issues. Human beings don't spend their money 'rationally', not is a lot of money the key to happiness.
posted by Firas at 7:04 PM on April 6, 2007

Also, i really don't think markets and capitalism should be the focus of a political system or society--I think citizens of that society should be. Many if not all current democracies and capitalist societies have completely the wrong focus and devote most if not all of their energy and laws into promulgating specific systems that don't benefit their citizens. America is supposed to be about people first. The EU should exist for the benefit of its citizens first. Canada too. ...
posted by amberglow at 7:08 PM on April 6, 2007

I still don't get it. Would your colleagues be working on a magazine if it means the time they spend on it means they starve because they're not hunting?

I don't know. Maybe we could try it? Maybe we're not locked into what we have now, and what we have now is not great? Maybe having to work for money so you can eat and live because you'll be on the street starving otherwise is not a great system? (that's kinda obvious, no?) Maybe it's not efficient either? Maybe capitalism is not great? Maybe it fails way too many people who are stuck living it? Maybe some of those other focuses beyond money=life, money=success, money=power, money=education, money=advancement and access, etc, might lead people to tailor a better system, since it's clear capitalism ain't it?
posted by amberglow at 7:13 PM on April 6, 2007

I think capitalism actually corrupts and twists systems to serve and maintain and enhance itself beyond all else. Maybe all systems do.
posted by amberglow at 7:15 PM on April 6, 2007