11–20 of 134 posts
Quoted post unavailable.
This is so bizarre I can only assume I'm reading it wrong.
Quoted post unavailable.
He gives a summary of 20th century politics that doesn't include fascism, and makes the Cold War sound like it was a battle between "small government" and "worker's rights". He says outright that nationalism on the political right is a "redefinition". This is so bizarre I can only assume I'm reading it wrong.
Also Francis Fukuyama: history ended in 1992.
In comparison to the scale of ideological, political, economic, and social changes for the 19th and 20th centuries, essentially nothing has happened since 1992. No major nation has had a revolution. There have been no major wars between nation-states. No ideologies of note have arisen or been cast down. Nothing historical has happened -- so the end of history.
From what I've read, a lot of people felt similarly in the late era of the Pax Britannia. (Which is a big part of why I think it's just "on pause".)
Also Francis Fukuyama: history ended in 1992.
Well, it kinda did though, didn't it? Being charitable for a second, I suspect it's more that history is "on pause" than ended, but I do get a feeling of almost timeless stasis. In comparison to the scale of ideological, political, economic, and social changes for the 19th and 20th centuries, essentially nothing has happened since 1992. No major nation has had a revolution. There have been no major wars between natio…
I have no earthly idea how "identity politics" is related to the demise of the arab spring. In as far as it may relate to the rise of authoritarianism in Eastern Europe (Poland and Hungary), it is by being easy foil for Victor Orban and his ilk (cf. "LGBTQ-free zones"). Even if one were to believe these neo-fascists wouldn't just find some other scapegoat, I don't see how it would morally justify a return to 1950s so…
Also Francis Fukuyama: history ended in 1992.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it kinda did though, didn't it? Being charitable for a second, I suspect it's more that history is "on pause" than ended, but I do get a feeling of almost timeless stasis. In comparison to the scale of ideological, political, economic, and social changes for the 19th and 20th centuries, essentially nothing has happened since 1992. No major nation has had a revolution. There have been no major wars between natio…
Are you aware that he admitted that he was wrong? I believe he wrote a book on it.
Quoted post unavailable.
He gives a summary of 20th century politics that doesn't include fascism, and makes the Cold War sound like it was a battle between "small government" and "worker's rights". He says outright that nationalism on the political right is a "redefinition". This is so bizarre I can only assume I'm reading it wrong.
Also Francis Fukuyama: history ended in 1992.
Well, it kinda did though, didn't it? Being charitable for a second, I suspect it's more that history is "on pause" than ended, but I do get a feeling of almost timeless stasis. In comparison to the scale of ideological, political, economic, and social changes for the 19th and 20th centuries, essentially nothing has happened since 1992. No major nation has had a revolution. There have been no major wars between natio…
The period since 1992 was relatively peaceful, that's right. But that's not what Fukuyama's thesis was about, especially since he couldn't know in 1992 what would happen in the next 30 years.
Fukuyama's theory was that mankind has reached its optimal, stable state and that that the further historical changes are very unlikely, because why would people want to mess with perfection :) It was basically very naive optimism, I guess he was still in euphoria after Soviet Union collapse...
Since then we had "war on terrorism" and PATRIOT act, big financial crisis of 2008, rise of social media and surveillance state, and now COVID pandemic. Plenty of historical changes, most of them for worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He gives a summary of 20th century politics that doesn't include fascism, and makes the Cold War sound like it was a battle between "small government" and "worker's rights". He says outright that nationalism on the political right is a "redefinition". This is so bizarre I can only assume I'm reading it wrong.
He also ignores all the material demands of the groups involved in identity politics, as if they don't intersect (A LOT!) This is inane.