I used to think Fukuyama was moronic, then I actually bothered to read his book and realised that 90% of the people who criticise him haven't read him.
>but 9/11
>but Islamism
>but China
>but Russia-Ukraine war
>but trannies
He literally addresses all of these (not trannies directly but the idea that liberal democracy is creating a generation of Last Men). It's still the best book for understanding the post-Cold War global order, even if he didn't get everything 100% right.
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Welcome to IQfy. No one here reads.
Fukuyama himself has recently admitted that his book is obsolete.
https://www.newstatesman.com/encounter/2022/03/francis-fukuyama-on-the-end-of-the-end-of-history
Give me a quote because I read the whole thing and he never says that the book is obsolete, just that he didn't consider that democracies could backslide.
To add, he also thinks that Trump's failure to get re-elected proves that liberal democracy can self-correct and that Putin's inevitable failure in Ukraine will re-invigorate global liberal democracy.
Again, nothing about obsolescence.
>To add, he also thinks that Trump's failure to get re-elected proves that liberal democracy can self-correct
Has he missed the part where Trump has convinced half the country the election was stolen, and where the Republican Party seems to be becoming actively anti-democratic?
Democracy in America seems weaker, not stronger, in the aftermath of Trump's defeat, because a significant percentage of the American populace is no longer committed to accepting the results of elections.
>Has he missed the part where Trump has convinced half the country the election was stolen
I doubt more than 1% believes the election was stolen.
>where the Republican Party seems to be becoming actively anti-democratic?
That remains to be seen but if they are, then they'll be rejected at the ballot box.
>I doubt more than 1% believes the election was stolen.
Are you American?
Have you looked at any recent polls?
Have you paid attention, at all, to what the Republican Party has been up to since 2020?
>I doubt more than 1% believes the election was stolen.
Surely you're just insanely ignorant and not moronic right?
>I doubt more than 1% believes the election was stolen.
I know this is anecdotal but I know many people who openly believe the election was rigged, and many believe that every election in the last few decades has been rigged.
I hear a lot of b***hing but no actual evidence. Have you considered that you might be in a bubble and that far fewer people share your views than you think? Qtards aren't that prevalent in the real world.
>I hear a lot of b***hing but no actual evidence. Have you considered that you might be in a bubble and that far fewer people share your views than you think?
I could say the same about you.
https://www.businessinsider.com/nearly-half-of-americans-say-democracy-isnt-working-poll-2021-2?amp
https://hereistheevidence.com/
Have you seen this?
>1%
you have nooo idea I would say close to 30% of the American populace is somehow informed that the election was stollen all of them butthurt republicans that you don’t associate with.
Literally nobody likes Biden
Yeah but everybody likes him more than trump
Biden's approval rating is lower than Trump's.
I get that the protesters were unpopular but it's pretty funny to see a supposedly first-world government send cops to beat the shit out of peaceful protesters for simply for criticizing them. It's the kind of thing you'd expect China or Russia to do.
>"Yet at 69, Fukuyama is willing to admit mistakes. He said that when he wrote his thesis he perhaps didn’t fully appreciate the concept of “political decay: the idea that once you became a modern democracy, you could also go backwards”.
Has he never heard of Nazi Germany?
Weimar was not a modern democracy, it was a toothless joke and Germany never had an established democratic tradition prior to 1945. In any case, the 1930s pre-dates the End of History and communism and fascism were still viable contestants in the war of ideas.
He's completely right, liberal democracy looked fricked after Afghanistan. Putin's moronation will destroy Russia, destroyed the anti-EU and anti-NATO parties of Europe and showed that Western democracies can still fight and win.
Just read the book, I guarantee that your objections were already dealt with when it was published 30 years ago.
That doesn’t really make it obsolete at all
>Fukuyama has also been willing to, as he put it in a recent essay, “stick [his] neck out” over the likely geopolitical consequences of the war in Ukraine. Chief among his predictions: Russia will lose the war, perhaps spectacularly, and this defeat will help the West get out of “our funk about the declining state of global democracy. The spirit of 1989 will live on, thanks to a bunch of brave Ukrainians.”
Another take that doesn't appear to be aging well.
What? That's aged beautifully, Ukraine is destroying Russia. You watch this war will end in a return to the status quo if not an outright return of Crimea to Ukraine.
The sanctions against Russia have failed. The Russian economy is just as strong as it was before they invaded Ukraine. Ukraine was only able to fight because they had logistical support from the US and the EU and now that support is slowing. Russia is currently in a very strong position.
>The sanctions against Russia have failed. The Russian economy is just as strong as it was before they invaded Ukraine
Demonstrably false and the Russia economy was a piece of shit smaller than that of Italy even before the conflict.
>Ukraine was only able to fight because they had logistical support from the US and the EU
Irrelevant, if anything it proves that liberal democracies are willing to act against tyrants instead of just sitting back and doing nothing.
>now that support is slowing
I'm seeing the opposite, more high-tech equipment is coming.
>Russia is currently in a very strong position.
It has been humiliated internationally and is struggling to defeat one of the poorest countries in Europe. It has proven that it has nothing to offer anyone except violence and poverty. There's a reason that numerous non-EU and non-NATO countries in Europe are now scrambling to join the EU/NATO. Even Lukashenko in Belarus has started praising Ukraine for its resilience.
>Demonstrably false and the Russia economy was a piece of shit smaller than that of Italy even before the conflict.
Russia is selling their oil and natural gas for even more than they were during the invasion, and the Ruble is currently at a 7-year high.
>Irrelevant, if anything it proves that liberal democracies are willing to act against tyrants instead of just sitting back and doing nothing.
The US has shown that they are unwilling to directly fight in any more wars, both in Ukraine and in Taiwan.
>I'm seeing the opposite, more high-tech equipment is coming.
The US is on the verge of a recession, if not a depression, thsnks to inflation. They cannot print money forever.
>It has been humiliated internationally and is struggling to defeat one of the poorest countries in Europe.
This isn't a war between Russia and Ukraine, it is a war between Russia and US. This isn't David and Goliath, this is the third most powerful country in the world fighting the most powerful country in the world.
>Russia is selling their oil and natural gas for even more than they were during the invasion, and the Ruble is currently at a 7-year high.
None of that is off-setting the losses caused by the sanction and a high value currency is bad for an export-based economy, like the banana republic that is Russia.
>The US has shown that they are unwilling to directly fight in any more wars, both in Ukraine and in Taiwan.
Because they don't have to, Ukrainian peasants are enough to stop the "mighty" Russian army.
>The US is on the verge of a recession, if not a depression, thsnks to inflation. They cannot print money forever.
And liberal democracy will survive this, just like it survived the '08 Recession, the Great Depression and various other financial crises in between.
>This isn't David and Goliath, this is the third most powerful country in the world fighting the most powerful country in the world.
Again, none of this matters to whether liberal democracy is resilient. Russia is getting their shit pushed in. And if you're right, why did Russia decide to fight a war they couldn't win? Putin must be pretty incompetent.
>And liberal democracy will survive this, just like it survived the '08 Recession, the Great Depression and various other financial crises in between.
Anon, those are all extensions of the same financial crisis. America has been staving off financial collapse by printing money nonstop for over a century. We can't do this forever. And as soon as America quits throwing money at Ukraine Ukraine will lose.
I'll believe it when it happens. People have been predicting the collapse of liberal democracies (both commies and fascists) but it still persists.
Bad poll. Look at the date. Biden had been President for barely 2 weeks at that point. Most of the dissatisfaction was clearly a result of Trump and his lunacy (which was self-corrected by the system eventually). Show me something more recent.
>I'll believe it when it happens. People have been predicting the collapse of liberal democracies (both commies and fascists) but it still persists.
The US hasn't even existed for 300 years yet. That's nothing from a historical perspective.
>Most of the dissatisfaction was clearly a result of Trump and his lunacy (which was self-corrected by the system eventually).
How was it self-corrected? I seriously doubt anyone who considered the election to be rigged in 2020 has changed their minds in the last two years.
>The US hasn't even existed for 300 years yet
We aren't talking about the US. Liberal democracy can exist without the US.
>I seriously doubt anyone who considered the election to be rigged in 2020 has changed their minds in the last two years.
You're conflating two disparate groups. Most people who lost faith in democracy did so because of Trump. The Qtards who believe the election was rigged are a very small minority of those losing faith in democracy.
The book makes a better case than I do. Just read it.
Again, as above, that's because people are afraid of Trump and his right-wing coterie undermining democracy. Biden has the power to get us back on track and his strong stance against Russia and China has reinvigorated things.
>Biden has the power to get us back on track and his strong stance against Russia and China has reinvigorated things.
Biden is the least popular president in US history. His support of Ukraine is too early to be judged but he has made absolutely no public support of Taiwan, and mostly likely will not.
>Most people who lost faith in democracy did so because of Trump.
Just the opposite - Trump, and to a lesser extent the UK Brexiteers, emerged *because* a large enough bloc of people had lost faith in liberal democracy. Which, in turn, happened because liberal democracy failed to meet their economic needs in real terms.
I think this is correct. Trump is a symptom of the flaws of our two-party system.
And that backfired. No good has come from the Trump presidency or Brexit, in fact, things have escalated to a fever-pitch precisely because of morons online tilting political institutions
>mass shootings
>troonyism
>destructive protests
>unstable market prices
and so on. But the bubble just won't burst.
>And that backfired. No good has come from the Trump presidency or Brexit.
It hasn't even been a decade yet. Let's wait and see how liberal democracy holds up under scrutiny.
>No good has come from the Trump presidency or Brexit
No, of course not; but the underlying conditions that led to that 2016 moment of revolt haven't been alleviated, either. Realistically they can't be, in the current order - liberalism offers a very limited range of material things to be done, none of which can fix the central concerns (perceived loss of economic security/quality of life) that motivate a Trump/Brexit voter. At least the orange guy can pretend he's going to bring back everyone's factory job, even if he has no intention of actually doing it; liberalism can't even offer that.
I find it frankly insane that you can take a model that's hardly more than a century old and argue for some sort of post history steady state in the very same century that's been the most dramatically and constantly changing in all human history. Power to you I suppose.
>Show me something more recent.
Easy.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/587896-rampant-distrust-in-american-democracy-persists-in-2022/
holy shit, you must be another poland-tard, only poles are delusional enough to say this moronic propaganda shit
>and the Russia economy was a piece of shit smaller than that of Italy even before the conflict
So? The question is whether the sanctions have made it smaller, which they didn't.
>It has been humiliated internationally and is struggling to defeat one of the poorest countries in Europe
Strawman. What does being the poorest country have to do with defending capabilities? By your reasoning Italy would be able to conquer Russia because their economy is bigger.
>By your reasoning Italy would be able to conquer Russia because their economy is bigger.
What? No, that's not my logic at all. Russia has a bigger economy than Ukraine and can't conquer it. How did you even reach such a weird conclusion?
You brought up poorness of Ukraine as if it has anything to do with how difficult it is to defeat them. There are like 2 or so countries in Europe who were so well armed as Ukraine.
You also forget that Russia has roughly three times less soldiers then Ukraine, or if we believe Zelensky's 700k number, 4 times as less soldiers, yet Russia manages to have at least 4 times less losses, despite being on the offensive, while according to military science the offensive side must exceed enemy forces in availably manpower and losses.
Having fancy equipment doesn't mean they have a good army, Saudi Arabia has proved that in Yemen.
>You also forget that Russia has roughly three times less soldiers then Ukraine, or if we believe Zelensky's 700k number, 4 times as less soldiers, yet Russia manages to have at least 4 times less losses, despite being on the offensive, while according to military science the offensive side must exceed enemy forces in availably manpower and losses.
Again, for the 5th or 6th time, you're just highlighting that the Russians are incompetent morons who tried to recreate what they did in Czechoslovakia during the Cold War (and failing miserably) and apparently, in your view, this means they are doing well?
>Russians are incompetent morons who tried to recreate what they did in Czechoslovakia during the Cold War (and failing miserably)
Neither of us knows who is currently winning the war. It's not like a basketball game where there's a scoreboard. During the Napoleonic War the French burnt down Moscow and lost the war just three months later.
>Neither of us knows who is currently winning the war.
Russia made their operational goals clear early on. Kiev was a goal, so was Kharkov, so was Odessa. They all failed. Playing dumb is not an excuse for ignorance.
>During the Napoleonic War the French burnt down Moscow and lost the war just three months later.
Ignorance and wishful thinking is not a valid position. Ukraine is the one being invaded, not Russia. To continue the analogy, Russia's current position would be like Napoleon getting to Smolensk, then getting stuck.
>Kiev was a goal, so was Kharkov, so was Odessa. They all failed.
Have they failed? Ukraine is in shambles and entirely dependent on US aid to exist. Once the US stops supporting Ukraine Russia will win. It's just a question of if Russia can last that long.
>So? The question is whether the sanctions have made it smaller, which they didn't.
Yes they did. Entire sectors just totally vanished overnight. Sanctions aren't some magic wand that you wave and produce instant results.
Let me guess you also though the afghan war was a massive success with zero possibility to go wrong 4 months in?
>Yes they did. Entire sectors just totally vanished overnight. Sanctions aren't some magic wand that you wave and produce instant results.
The Ruble is healthier now than it was before Russia invaded. The sanctions didn't work because everyone still needs to buy natural gas, and Russia is the main seller.
Yes and what will they buy with this money? Soon russian roads will be full of trucks that don't run because of a lack of Western parts, data-centers will close because hardware is sanctioned.
And yes even their oil and gas industry is 100% dependent on Western made machines and software.
The chinks produce "stuff" the west produce the tools needed to produce "stuff".
As gas, food and electricity get more expensive America and Europe will have no choice but to start doing business with Russia again. Russia isn't some insignificant country like North Korea, they are actually produced vital resources.
Having a higher ruble isn't a sign their economy is doing well. You don't know what you're talking about
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ruble-currency-2022/
>Ukraine is destroying Russia. You watch this war will end in a return to the status quo if not an outright return of Crimea to Ukraine.
Why do you gays always claim this when it's blatantly untrue? Fukuyama has never abandoned the idea that Liberalism is the optimized state of modern political development and that no system will really replace it. He has only conceded the idea that it will easily dominate the world. According to all his interviews and books, he thinks that China invading Taiwan would be the nail in the coffin for a liberal world order
They aren't content with not actually reading the source material they are engaging with. They don't even read their own sources.
Fukuyama admitted that if China invades Taiwan (which seems guaranteed) then his book will be obsolete.
His hope for a liberal-led world order will be obsolete but he is still confident in the idea that Liberalism is still the last state of political development regardless of how strong illiberal opponents become. That's the main part that people do not acknowledge because they don't read his work. He thinks that most people naturally become liberal in developed societies no matter what. Even in illiberal countries like China and Saudi Arabia, urban centers really are becoming liberalized and degenerate.
>He thinks that most people naturally become liberal in developed societies no matter what.
And yet America and Europe are becoming increasingly illiberal.
Yeah, totally.
Look at all the espionage in the west, all the censorship, all the political propaganda. He'll, in Canada Trudeau let the cops beat the crap out of peaceful protesters simply because they were annoying.
That's liberalism. That's how it works. The West doing all that shit doesn't make it illiberal because that's literally how the West has always been.
In the past the governments kept the scummy stuff they did secret. Now they do it openly and no one cares.
Most Canadian's wanted the shit kicked out of them as well. The more civil a society the more they'l jump at the chance to brutalise the scrapegoat (I.e. really annoying protestors).
That's nonsense. Get out of your IQfy bubble.
I disagree and I think the comic failure of Russia's invasion and the West's united response to it has made it even more unlikely than before.
>comic failure
How is it comic failure? Russia controls 1/5th of Ukraine and once American quits funding Ukraine they will have a much easier time. All they have to do is wait for the next recession.
Russia expected to force a capitulation within 1 week. We're in the 4th month of the war now. They failed in Kiev, they failed in Kharkov. Or was that all a feint?
>Russia expected to force a capitulation within 1 week.
They didn't expect the US and EU to support Ukraine, but once the support dries up Ukraine will be helpless.
>They didn't expect the US and EU to support Ukraine
Correct, Putin was an incompetent moron and fricked up like he fricked up every aspect of the war. Why do you pro-Russia pussies always cry about it not being a fair fight?
>but once the support dries up Ukraine will be helpless
It's only gotten stronger as the West realises that Russia is a complete paper tiger and the cost of escalation is much less than they expected.
>Why do you pro-Russia pussies always cry about it not being a fair fight?
I'm not pro-Russia, I just think you are underestimating them. To me they seem to be in a pretty good position.
Your assessment is lazy then.
Why? It's all simple logistics. Can Russia continue attacking Ukraine until America becomes unwilling or unable to keep defending Ukraine? I think they can.
No, they cannot. Russian logistics are mind-bogglingly incompetent. America will (and have) only become more willing and able as Russian incompetence mounts.
I bet you would look at this map and think Germany was winning in WW1
>Oh my goodness, they captured all of Belgium and a lot of Northern France!
>No, they cannot. Russian logistics are mind-bogglingly incompetent.
And yet they've managed to keep fighting. Again, you are underestimating your enemy. If they are as weak and incompetent as you say then why can't Ukraine drive them out?
and none of this undermines anything Fukuyama says.
Yes it does. Liberal democracy is supposed to be superior to fascism and yet fascism is, at the very least, holding their own against the liberals, if not winning.
It doesn't have to be new. If America becomes a fascist dictatorship or a monarchy or something it would prove FF wrong.
Yeah, his theory would also be obsolete if a meteor came down and smashed the earth out of existence. What's your point? It hasn't happen and is unlikely to happen.
>It hasn't happen and is unlikely to happen.
You think it is unlikely that China will invade Taiwan? I think it is extremely likely.
China will not invade Taiwan. The options, in ranking of likelihood, are
1. Status quo.
2. Peaceful reunification
3. PRC recognizes Taiwan's independence
What makes you say that?
I think an invasion of Taiwan is unfeasible. It is made of mountainous terrain which has been preparing for an invasion for decades, has allies in the region and the US, etc. I also think the CCP is unwilling to turn Taiwan into rubble and would much prefer a reunification which doesn't ruin the island.
As for my predictions:
1. Status quo. Self-explanatory, and considering it has worked for decades, I see no reason it will stop, even with Xi's rumblings.
2. Peaceful reunification. China is Taiwan's biggest trade partner and cross-strait travel for business and personal reasons is not rare at all. In the case of the US support collapsing, I imagine Taiwan will enter some 1 Country, Two Systems agreement with China, ala Hong Kong. Eventually Taiwan will join China completely.
3. PRC recognizing an independent Taiwan. Very unlikely, still more likely than an invasion.
While I think liberalism is unbeatable, this is 100% true. The bulk of the human population is on Russia's side in this war.
>I think an invasion of Taiwan is unfeasible.
It's not about if China CAN invade Taiwan, it's about if they will TRY to invade Taiwan. From what I understand China is experiencing severe social and economic unrest as a result of Covid. They probably think a war is a good opportunity to help their economy and give the population someone foreign to hate.
>They probably think a war is a good opportunity to help their economy and give the population someone foreign to hate.
The Chinese don't see the Taiwanese as foreign.
By "someone foreign I mean Australia, Japan and the UK, who have all pledged to defend Taiwan.
I think China's internal unrest is not as bad as people would have us believe. Of course, I could be wrong, but still. I also believe that they have internal things like their billionaire class which they could go after instead of risking war, if sating their populace was the goal. War is a far risker prospect and there is no need for it.
if PRC invaded Taiwan west would do nothing as we are to integrated with PRC, it would be disastrous economically for all involved
he is wrong in saying he was wrong
That's good on him.
I do agree that people’s critique of his is superficial, for their not reading him, but he is a flyweight compared to Mearsheimer
I'm not saying that Mearsheimer is a Kremlin asset but I'm not sure what he'd say different if he was one.
Are you a nazi?
God no, why do you ask?
The “kremlin asset” thing is a little weird. Putin is just acting rationally and Mearsheimer is just right for noticing.
US goals are always to rape and pillage, and they’re understandably not interested after having gone through a period of it
That's Woodrow Wilson's fault
>They hated Mearsheimer because he told them the truth
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20045622
ywnbarw
I actually haven't read that book. I have a different one I read for my political science class.
Russia has more support in the developing world (including China and India) which is the real audience for Russian media. Something to keep in mind when someone says "the international community has turned against Russia." The Western countries like to speak for the world.
I don't know if liberalism is doomed but the universal claim that liberalism's destiny is to dominate the world has come under serious challenge, and it's an open question whether that will be a fatal blow to liberalism or not, or whether liberalism will adapt.
In a way, liberalism is kinda like Christianity in that there must be one all-mighty universal God. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." If you're illiberal, you're automatically illegitimate because the existence of other "gods" would call into question this self-claimed universalism. I don't know if liberal ideologues were like this prior to the collapse of the USSR but I think that has become a credo for liberals in the post-Cold War era, and so liberalism is also legitimate just 'cuz it's liberal.
If the Russians can't take all of Ukraine, and if the Ukrainians can't drive the Russians out, then you have a "frozen conflict" develop. And if the Ukrainians start using heavier artillery supplied by NATO to cause damage to the Russians, then the Russians will escalate in kind and being using heavier artillery themselves and you'll start seeing Ukrainian cities getting turned into rubble. The Russian army has that firepower. Big rockets they could lob into Kiev from a hundred miles away and it'd just destroy the country.
The real question is about logistics, in my opinion. Can Russia hold out until the US stops providing support to Ukraine? If they can then they'll win. If they can't then they'll lose. That's how I see it.
Liberal democracy as we know it it synonymous with American hegemony. If something happens to the United States as a liberal democracy, liberalism dies.
If the United States breaks up, or it becomes a monarchy or a dictatorship, liberalism is dead. If the most powerful nation on Earth, the reigning imperial power, ceases to be a liberal democracy, what becomes of liberal democracy then? Who will be its champion? No one strong enough to challenge an illiberal United States, or strong enough to fill the void that a broken-up United States would create. All the most powerful nations directly below America are illiberal. Russia, China, India, Brazil, they're not going to be championing liberal democracy. Do you really think the weak and decaying nations of Europe could save liberalism on a global scale?
It's America or bust, and that's not a good prospect for liberal democracy at this moment.
If you can't realistically posit something new that comes after liberal democracy, then Fukuyama is still right.
>something new
Authoritarian technocracy
Not new, Fukuyama literally discusses it in the introduction of the book.
>It doesn't have to be new
You've just proven that you never read the book. Thank you.
>fascism is, at the very least, holding their own against the liberals
KEK
>You've just proven that you never read the book. Thank you.
Fukuyama himself said it doesn't have to be a new form of government.
>KEK
I stand by my statement. China, Russia and the various Middle-Eastern countries are doing fine.
>Fukuyama himself said it doesn't have to be a new form of government.
This. We could have a new age of monarchy. It wouldn't be a "new" system of government, but it would be a restart of history.
>Fukuyama himself said it doesn't have to be a new form of government.
It's the exact opposite and he never said that. You haven't read the texts.
>It's the exact opposite and he never said that.
He just gave an interview where he acknowledged the possibility that Russia and China could prove him wrong. Are Russia and China new governments?
Let's see this interview. You people have a history of lying about these things (see
), so I'd like to see it for myself.
It's literally the link you just referenced. Stop being obstinate.
>He may be tired of being incorrectly accused of being wrong, but does Fukuyama ever worry about being proved wrong? Of course, he said, but not out of interest for his work. Instead, because of what the implications would be for the world. His “ultimate nightmare”, he said, is a world in which China and Russia work in harness with one another, perhaps with China bolstering Russia’s war and Beijing launching its own invasion – of Taiwan. If that were to happen, and be successful, Fukuyama said, “then you would really be living in a world that was being dominated by these non-democratic powers. If the United States and the rest of the West couldn’t stop that from happening, then that really is the end of the end of history.”
From your own article:
>Chief among his predictions: Russia will lose the war, perhaps spectacularly, and this defeat will help the West get out of “our funk about the declining state of global democracy. The spirit of 1989 will live on, thanks to a bunch of brave Ukrainians.” For those interested in the stability of the international order, it’s an optimistic, even reassuring, vision of the war’s potential outcome.
So the Russia part is a dud. As for China, see (
). Not my comment but it's correct.
"Mafia state" (Russia) is not a new system, nor is China's authoritarian capitalism. Once again, Fukuyama addresses this in the book.
>From your own article:
>Chief among his predictions: Russia will lose the war, perhaps spectacularly, and this defeat will help the West get out of “our funk about the declining state of global democracy. The spirit of 1989 will live on, thanks to a bunch of brave Ukrainians.” For those interested in the stability of the international order, it’s an optimistic, even reassuring, vision of the war’s potential outcome.
FF expects liberal democracy to prevail over Russia and China, but he concedes that if Russia and China win then he was wrong.
>Are Russia and China new governments?
Not that anon, but Russia's current government only dates from 1991, and Xi's China is structurally very different from Mao's or Deng's, so they could both be considered "new" in that sense.
I wouldn't consider fascism to be "new."
For which, Russia or China?
Fascism isn't a new form of government. Putin and Xi aren't really any different than Benito Mussolini or Francisco Franco.
Techno feudalism
I am of the belief that liberalism is a cancer that simultaneously spreads around the world and infects the average person but is still a disease that internally dismantles any society where the tumors begin growing. Fukuyama is correct that the process of liberalization is a natural phenomenon that occurs in developed societies. He’s just wrong that it will succeed in the long term. At some point every developed society will become decadent (most already are) the populace will realize how evil and redundant liberalism is.
90% of the people criticising any given book have never read it. Generally speaking, the common impression of a controversial book is just the screeching of a couple of morons who didn't understand it, amplified by the screeching of thousands of others who never read it, but who identified ideologically with the original screechers.
There's no way to know what a book actually says without reading it yourself.
>90% of the people criticising any given book have never read it.
I've read it. It's arrogant and naive.
>90% of the people who criticise him haven't read him
Where do you think you are?
Also just because it's in a book, don't make it IQfy
Thinking is hard, we know, we understand
Now please fricking die
It's pure technical worship
Has anyone read his new book Liberalism and its Discontents?
why can't we all just make peace together and kick all the illegal immigrants, gays, trannies and whorish women out of the West? Imagine how nice it would be
I'll ignore the weird double post.
>Ukraine is in shambles and entirely dependent on US aid to exist
So was most of Western Europe after WW2, it doesn't invalidate anything. Weird point to bring up.
>Once the US stops supporting Ukraine Russia will win
There's no evidence that this is going to happen.
In any case, we're going in circles and I don't think there's any reason to keep making the same comments against the narratives you're picking up in /chug/ or whatever hole the pro-Russia vermin gather these days.