In his 1989 article (The End of History?), Francis Fukuyama triumphally raised the possibility that western liberal democracy could possibly be the permanent winner of human evolution, thus ending history.
What an idiotic proposition!
1. Fukuyama’s 1989 article
Below is an excerpt from his 1989 article.
Too short-sighted!
Fukuyama did not seem to understand the big, complex, and plural nature of the human world and history, as highlighted by the image below.
2. Fukuyama’s 2014 article
In his 2014 article (At the ‘End of History’ Still Stands Democracy), Fukuyama writes:
“Twenty-five years after Tiananmen Square and the fall of the Berlin Wall, liberal democracy still has no real rivals on the world stage.”
Fukuyama further states: “The only system out there that would appear to be at all competitive with liberal democracy is the so-called ‘China model’.” But he followed with a list of challenges China faces, with the conclusion that “Yet if asked to bet whether, 50 years from now, America and Europe would look more like China politically or vice versa, I would pick the latter without hesitation.”
Too close-minded!
Fukuyama appears to be so obsessed with [liberal] democracy that he has simply failed to be open-minded about the new “China model” (aka “state capitalism”).
3. Discussion
Fukuyama appears to have three major problems:
- He treats [western liberal] democracy as if it were a new thing. Democracy has been a proven failure throughout human history, without a single example of lasting success (e.g., 200 years). It was largely for this reason that America was founded as a republic, specifically precluding democracy. For more, read America: What did the Founding Fathers do, actually?
- He seems to have mixed reality with potential.
- The reality is that over the past 200 years, China suffered hugely while America prospered hugely, primarily for the same reason: western colonialism. Besides, America is so naturally resourceful that it seems America just cannot screw up enough. In contrast, China is heavily populated, with its land being depleted, thanks to the cultivation over the past 5,000 years.
- For the potential of the China model, read the next section.
- He has an extremely limited view of a brand-new form of government like China’s, while hopelessly indulging in a 2000-year-old model called “democracy”.
Most troublesomely, Fukuyama appears to be dead-locked in his past, twisting the current affairs to fit back into his “short-sighted” view published in 1989. Because of that, by 2014, he was still (1) very bullish on the West, despite the fact that the West had almost gone from heaven in 1989 to hell in 2014, but (2) very bearish on China, in spite of China’s economic miracle.
Twenty-five years are a long time for a human being. Unfortunately, Fukuyama seemed unchanged over the 25 years from 1989 to 2014. But I did. For example, in 1989, I was full of sympathy for the students at Tiananmen Square. However, by 2004, let alone by 2014, I concluded that, overall, it was a good thing for China to put down the student-led pro-democracy demonstration in 1989.
Twenty-five years are an instant in human history.
Instead, keep an open mind and appreciate its significance and implication with a profound understanding of Chinese history as well as human history.
4. More discussion
What, then, is western liberal democracy, anyway?
It is a big and fat lie built on top of colonialism and imperialism! For more, read American democracy: what is it and what’s wrong with it?
What, then, is the China model, anyway?
Read the image below.
Obviously, my view is totally opposite to Fukuyama’s.
I am bullish on China and bearish on the West. Very importantly, I believe the world will continue to exist with multiple forms of government. Furthermore, while the world will continue to be led by several big countries, no country or ideology will dominate for very long, and any attempt to do so will fail. Instead, adaptation is the key!
5. Closing
Western [liberal] democracy is not the end of history – It is a big and fat western lie, built on top of colonialism and imperialism. For more, read Colonial America 1776-2030?
In contrast, China offers a significant, and the only, model of prosperity, without colonialism! For more, read History 2.0 – China’s Comeback vs. America’s Decline.
Fukuyama seems to have genuinely believed in his myopic assessment of history after the fall of the Soviet Union – the eternal triumph of Western liberal democracy over all competing worldviews and governing systems. Subsequent history makes a mockery of his analysis. As such, Fukayama serves as a case study in the delusory ideological bubble within which Western ‘intellectuals’ continue to function contrary to the overtly visible evidence of geopolitical reality.
An objective worldview builds up an understanding of reality based on evidence and logic. Policies based on this understanding will produce the outcomes they expect because the understanding is based on how reality actually works. If the expected outcomes fail to materialize the understanding is revised to conform to reality. This is the empirically grounded “scientific method” that the West purports to believe in and which China actually practices.
The West, however, has long since abandoned objective reality in favor of an ideological worldview in which reality must be made to conform to the worldview rather than vice versa. A century ago William James characterized this as conceptual realism vs perceptual realism. Perceptual realists try something and see what happens to learn from their experiments. Conceptual realists try something and see what they expect to see regardless of what actually happens.
Conceptual realism is a polite way of describing mass delusion. Conceptual realists deny the evidence because it doesn’t conform to their ideological certainties. This is a form of pervasive mental blindness, a darkening of the minds of people who religiously believe they are “Enlightened”. Mental walls built to preserve a fortress of ideological certainties that are objectively false and visibly false to anyone whose mind is not trapped inside the perverse worldview.
The tragedy is that such minds are totally immune to evidence and logic. Their minds are fixed, rigidly preformed. No evidence, no logic can change their minds. The more evidence you show them, the more they fortify the walls of their ideological dungeon to block out contradictions and prevent the disconcerting sensation of cognitive dissonance.
There is none so blind as he who will not see. This is an old phenomenon which is now understood in some more ‘modern’ psychological-epistemic-cognitive terminology. Its victims cannot see they are in it and so they cannot escape the Empire of Delusion that they are convinced is objective reality.
Good to her from you, Derryl! You are just as eloquent as before!!!