The End of History

[RebelDog]

Given that all pro-capitalist's are scum-bags and don't know what day it is,I would like them to explain the idiotic motherfucker's idea that history is at an end. What makes Francis Fukuyama any different from Tutankhamun in thinking that which he observed was all that was achievable by humans? How can evolution have punctuation?

[RGacky3]

It can't, question is, will it get better or worse?

[QUOTE]Given that all pro-capitalist's are scum-bags and don't know what day it is,I would like them to explain the idiotic motherfucker's idea that history is at an end.[QUOTE]

Id be careful throwing out insults and language that makes you sound like a 14 year old with an angry weasel up his ass, so people will take you a little more seriously.

[Publius]

I'm not saying I agree with him (I don't), but the idea is actually somewhat sensible, that humans have achieved what is, practically, the best method of governance.

I don't, for a second, believe this, but it is possible.

[RebelDog]

Id be careful throwing out insults and language that makes you sound like a 14 year old with an angry weasel up his ass, so people will take you a little more seriously.

What does age have to do with it? I hate cappies and I'm 32, will I one day have more reverence? Why would having a fellow mammal up ones arse make one more naive?

[RebelDog]

I'm not saying I agree with him (I don't), but the idea is actually somewhat sensible, that humans have achieved what is, practically, the best method of governance

Absolute arse-buscuits. Why would progress stand still just because a ruling class believes it should? Don't be fucking stupid.

[colonelguppy]

why should i have to explain it, its stupid as hell.

[RGacky3]

It has nothing to do with age, its attitude, and its silly.

I don't think Capitalists believe that history is at a standstill, they probably believe it will continue in Capitalism and become more Capitalist. One can believe in change and be anti-Socialist, Fascists were revolutionary and believed in change, obviously a very different change.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Well that's different, fascists weren't so much revolutionary as they were reactionary, they wanted to take society back to the way things used to be (more or less).

Anyway, this is the first I've heard of this claim, but it seems stupefyingly naive to me.

[Demogorgon]

Francis Fukayama is an embarrassment. How a man of his education can reach the conclusion he has reached is beyond me. He is supposed to be a polical philosopher but instead seems to want to be a fortunae teller, telling us that he knows the future and that no more political change is in order.

That is preposterous, and I would hope nobody here will defend him.

Now I cannot guarantee you the world will move on to what I want, nor indeed anything for that matter anything that I can envisage, history has taken plenty of unexpected turns, but I can guarantee you one thing, the world will continue to move the way it always has. Human society will continue to change, whether it be by people wanting to move to a new system or by some disaster forcing change or indeed something else entirely.

Fukayama reminds me of the guy in charge of the patents office in 1900 who said "I think all inventions that man will make, have been made".

[Dimentio]

I have a hard time forgiving his anti-transhumanism.

Technocracy and transhumanism are two very similar attitudes.

[La Comédie Noire]

explain the idiotic motherfucker's idea that history is at an end.

That concept is'nt exclusive to any one man,ideology ,or period. Everyone thinks their time is forever, that where they are now had no start and no end. He just happened to take it to the next level by trying to take it seriously, so thats what makes him a stupid mother fucker.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 01:30 pm
Well that's different, fascists weren't so much revolutionary as they were reactionary, they wanted to take society back to the way things used to be (more or less).

Anyway, this is the first I've heard of this claim, but it seems stupefyingly naive to me.
There has never been anything close to fascism in the past, nothing like it at all. Its pretty revolutionary, before that there were monarchies and liberal republics.

[Angry Young Man]

I can't go on in the same vein: England's fucking boring! Anywhere you go it's the same shops and isolationist people.
And programs on c4 constantly on about property! WHY IS BRITAIN OBSESSSED WITH PROPERTY??!!
And teens having so little to do that they start smoking to disguise the boredom.

FUCK YOU FUKUYAMA!

[Publius]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 13, 2007 04:46 am



Absolute arse-buscuits. Why would progress stand still just because a ruling class believes it should? Don't be fucking stupid.

Because you're a fucking idiot.

There, is that good enough?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

There has never been anything close to fascism in the past, nothing like it at all. Its pretty revolutionary, before that there were monarchies and liberal republics.
Untrue, much fascism is just a slightly altered form of the governmental methods and aspirations employed and harboured in many historical societies. Mussolini's Italy was very similar to the latter stages of the Roman empire in its emphasis on rigid discipline and unity; Hitler's Germany was similar to many past "Germanys" (couldn't find a better way to put it), especially in its foreign policy, and Franco's Spain sought a restoration of the Church as the dominant influence in Spanish society, just is it had been historically. Of course there are differences, but the driving aspirations and the essential principles of the doctrines of the Fascisms which took power in Italy, Germany and Spain (discipline, conquest and religion respectively) can also be found to have been of vital importance to many leaders of these respective nations throughout history.

That last sentence was really horribly composed, but I can't find a better way to put it and so I can only hope you get my point.

[chimx]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 13, 2007 04:46 am
Why would progress stand still just because a ruling class believes it should?

Ask Marx and Hegel.

[saint max]

Perhaps this obvious point as escaped the graps of our cyber-marxists and bored pro-capitalists but the tension here has little to do with "History"--as in time and space/event and location on earth--being over but rather a at least two competing ontological of time and space/event and location.

A marxist observation of history suggests that history is the history of class struggle (one might say "his-story" of class struggle), it will reach a conclussion but only when the proletariat seizes the means of production and procedes to produce their own new world. From the statist and pro-capitalist position, history is the his-story of progress and the enlightement ideals and ideologies. In this framework, with the collapse of ideology and general dissillusionment with politics and everything attachted to it, history is over--their's at least.

Baudrillard says similar things as that Fukuyama, but he's a freaky postmarxist, so it's cool.

If the enlightement ideals has collapsed, what does that mean for marxist concepts of class antagonisms? Why is the possibility of newer naratives of struggle against capitalsm and hierarchy so confusing and threatening to yall? The answer ofcourse is that most of yall "communists" are a part of tendencies within the mileu that are ideologically and morally based within the framework of progress and the enlightement. These will not, nor cannot acheive the dissolution of capitalism--much less all hierarchy. It has been said the left-wing of capitalism and the left-wing of the state. The communards in paris, gave a fuck about whether or not their freedom would fit into the frame-work of progress or would contribute to cybernetic forms to dissolve the human and reach enlightenment (for you creapy transhumanists out there.) They were motivated by class antagonism and an urge to dissolve alienation and find what new possibilites lay ahead.

"But wait, if Marx saw his writings as a contribution to the enlightenment and communism as the ultimate progressive and productive force, and the enligthenment has collapsed, what ever will we do with this sweet analysis of industrial capitalism? Is Marx dead too?"

Or perhaps I'm being too harsh. But honestly, is it too much to ask to let the most dreadful and borish parts of communism and anarchy to rest in peace? If there's still Stanlists, Maoists, Trots and syndicalists in this day and age, perhaps Fukuyama has a point...

kisses,
-max

[t_wolves_fan]

Given that all pro-capitalist's are scum-bags and don't know what day it is,

:lol:


I would like them to explain the idiotic motherfucker's idea that history is at an end. What makes Francis Fukuyama any different from Tutankhamun in thinking that which he observed was all that was achievable by humans? How can evolution have punctuation?

Don't know. Sounds about as realistic as Christ's imminent return or communism working.