1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The end of history?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Irish_Tom, Nov 8, 2019.

  1. stockhausen

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 30, 2006

    Posts: 9,997

    I think that you might want to define what exactly you mean by a "liberal democracy" and perhaps offer some examples of its existence in practice?

    You seem to suggest that Fukuyama doesn’t necessarily mean a UK-style or US-style democracy. Democracy like Communism is a nice idea in theory; I believe that in practice, both end up being subverted to serve a minority to a greater or lesser degree.

    Tacking "Liberal" on the front of Democracy has always struck me as being about as meaningful as saying "Nice democracy".
     
  2. String

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jan 6, 2013

    Posts: 12,355

    I don't see it as theory, society has evolved to this point and will continue to evolve beyond. I have no idea where things are going, which I accept doesn't offer a great deal to the conversation. I find the study of evolution far more interesting than any prediction I could make from it. Just look at how our means of communication has changed, and the impact it has had on social evolution. In fact, this very conversation would not be possible ten, maybe twenty years ago as I know practically no-one in "real life" that I would discuss such a subject with.

    The point I'm making, is that an evolution in one area can dramatically affect another, and who could have predicted any of that? A couple of students decide to make some money by creating a facility to help friends keep in touch, and the next thing you know we're all exposed to foreign state sponsored propaganda and it's a complete juggernaut. It feels out of control, but it never could be controlled. That's how it works.
     
  3. Irish_Tom

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 12,292

    The US, Canada, most of Western Europe including the UK, Australia, India, Japan, Mexico, Israel, Indonesia.

    They take different forms; there are Presidents, Chancellors and Prime Ministers; there are Senators, Councillors and Lords; there are Representatives, Congressmen and Members of Parliament; there are Electoral Colleges, FPTP and PR systems. Some are steeped in history and tradition, some embrace the latest technology. Some are more ‘liberal’ than others and they all have different Overton windows.

    However, they are all based on the foundation of free and fair elections, in which the populace decides who should govern the country for a set period of time, with the opportunity to replace those representatives if they fail to deliver the manifesto they were elected to enact.

    The point Fukuyama was making was that in order to satisfy ‘the end of history’, it doesn’t require every country to adhere to the same ‘version’ of liberal democracy but that there is a consensus that the founding principles are accepted as the ‘correct’ method of structuring society.

    It may well be the case that even the most ‘liberal’ liberal democracy is subverted to serve a minority, but that’s the point of the OP — is there a better system or do we accept that despite its failings, liberal democracy is the best option available?

    Was Churchill right?

     
  4. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 7,157

    The system in China is not perfect. For example, who defines where the technologies progress will go forwards. I mean do they research fossil fuels or do they research quantum energy?
    Probably neither :D Because photovoltaics and wind...

    Capitalism is bad because it requires unnatural and unsustainable exponential economic growth. When the growth slows or stalls, you get warnings of "crisis" incoming.
    Capitalism completely ignores the availability of the natural resources, if their exploitation is sustainable, when they will be depleted, etc.
    Also, capitalism takes wealth from the workers and redirects it in the hands of handful of wealthy.

    Why a footballer who doesn't contribute to the society will earn multiple times more than an engineer working on quantum energy?
     
  5. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 7,157

    I have some research on the Olympic games performance by countries before the capitalism and after the capitalism.
    Keep in mind that capitalism in these three countries brought the so called "shock therapy" and absolute restart of their economies, which dramatically worsened the cost of living.

    Yes, theoretically people can get away with it becoming super rich, but in practice some lose that wealth and end as homeless - the US being the prime example where some celebrities get bankrupt.

    I think capitalism in these countries acts very demotivating.

    Poland: before 1989 - 40 gold medals, after 1989 - 28 gold medals - in decline:

    [​IMG]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_at_the_Olympics

    Romania: before 1989 - 55 gold medals, after 1989 - 34 gold medals - in decline:

    [​IMG]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania_at_the_Olympics

    Bulgaria: before 1989 - 37 gold medals, after 1989 - 14 gold medals - in decline:

    [​IMG]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria_at_the_Olympics

    This, together with the demographic crisis, is a major assessment mark for the nations' wellness.
     
  6. The_Abyss

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 15, 2007

    Posts: 11,822

    Location: Ipswich / Bodham

    You're ignoring critically relevant factors. Such as widespread performance enhancing drug use being restricted, and the removal of certain events over time.

    You're also ignoring the thread topic, completely.
     
  7. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 7,157

    No, the problem is that today it's extremely expensive to practice different types of sports, and that there is no widely available sports infrastructure.
    Many important places such as swimming halls have been abandoned. Etc.

    People have no money - they fight for basic survival.

    Capitalism is like the law of the jungle. Only the strongest, the fittest and most adaptive survive and thrive. All the others struggle.
     
  8. kedge

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 5, 2010

    Posts: 3,681

    The upward beneficial increase of deception corruption greed money power exploitation, all observable testable repeatable irrefutable on a daily basis, clearly not random though. Nothing remarkable about that.
     
  9. The_Abyss

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 15, 2007

    Posts: 11,822

    Location: Ipswich / Bodham

    You’re not showing evidence to back up that argument though. You’re just showing a list of medals and then asking us to believe your view on why
     
  10. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 7,157

    You're not showing evidence for drug abuse.
    That "list of medals" is the highest possible proof of achievements and results. You can't prove results and achievements with something else.
     
  11. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,211

    Surely a footballer is a bad example to use? It is one industry where the person doing the work (the footballer) gets most of the money. It is almost as communist as it gets as far as means of production goes... :D
     
  12. The_Abyss

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 15, 2007

    Posts: 11,822

    Location: Ipswich / Bodham

    I’m not asking you to prove achievements. The discussion is about how those achievements were obtained. You suggested that capitalism was the cause of a decline in medal performance, but have offered no evidence to back up your assertion.
     
  13. Irish_Tom

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 12,292

    Despite the odd Olympic tangent — @4K8KW10 does raise an interesting point, in that he’s substituting ‘liberal democracy’ for ‘capitalism’.

    Is it a prerequisite that liberal democracies have to be capitalist in nature?

    Probably yes but, as with most things, it’s nuanced. You have the American-style free market and then you have Norway with more state-owned enterprises and state-ownership of publicly listed companies.

    So again, I would question whether the failure(s) of capitalism couldn’t be resolved within a framework of liberal democracy.
     
  14. BowdonUK

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 17, 2016

    Posts: 2,845

    I think there will always be conflict because its down to human nature. We're the biggest predator and can only really be killed by other humans. Factionalism seems to be a human trait.

    I've been involved with groups in the past that have been led by the committee idea, and the leader principle. The leadership principle is ok until the leader dies, then factionialism starts. But the committee principle is also flawed because there seems to be a natural temptation to split in to groups.

    I think one reaction to a weak society is to seek leadership, or a system built on hierarchy. The more disjointed a society becomes the more authoritarian its population wants to become. In Germany during the rise of Nazism, there was also a rise in support for Communism too.

    There does seem to be a split between the two parties. But I think the split plays on more than religion. As a society becomes more tolerant the more it seems to become intolerant. I think that is because people become more insecure. There would be ways to combat that insecurity. But those steps aren't being taken.

    I think society is being purposely de-volved and reset. It means eventually through natural law some kind of authoritarian ideology will rise up to bring some kind of order to society again. Unfortunately we know about this swinging to extremes in history, and we know extremes generally don't offer much progression.

    I'll have to check that podcast out. I think the thing with communism is a lot of it was built of paranoia and neighbour telling on neighbour. I remember the day that the USSR collapsed and watched the tv news reports. I remember it saying something like, "Russians lived in fear to challenge the system. But when it was challenged the system didnt respond". So in other words Communism probably lost its power many years before and people were going on assumptions. But when evolution kept moving forward the system vanished. I think something like that happened with the Berlin wall too. For many years people were being shot, killed (I think), captured, and the east Germans came to hate it more and more. So the amount of people defending it probably reduced in numbers until people just started pickaxing away on the wall until it cracked.
     
  15. Schlong&Stable

    Mobster

    Joined: Apr 27, 2013

    Posts: 4,054

    The reason for the decline in Olympic success in Eastern Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union is simple: the national governments stopped the massive subsidies poured into sports. Money that probably could have been better spent elsewhere. Look at the Rio Olympics and you'll see China came behind the UK in the medal table in part because we out spent them.

    The only thing this is proof of is that changing the fundamentals of your economy and government tends to lead to massive economic downturns, especially when your economy was mostly built on smoke and mirrors in the first place.
     
  16. MookJong

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Mar 20, 2006

    Posts: 7,601

    Now that atheism is more pervasive in the West and the right wing view of family and nation is also falling out of fashion we are going to see challenges ahead. As someone else said, previously you were expected to fit into society and now society is expected to accommodate you.

    A society that is so widely tolerant of almost anything actually has very little meaning or direction. In the face of this people will be drawn to identity politics as a way to give meaning to their lives.
    We are genetically predisposed to be tribal, to some degree this can be overridden by education but for the most part it is there as a driving force.

    Everyone thinks Trump and Brexit are a lurch to the right but compared to the society I grew up in the 80s and 90s things are far more left leaning than I ever remember them. My dad tells me about the first time he saw someone eating food while walking along the street when he was a boy. This was a taboo and something only a really common person would do. This shows you just how far we have traveled since the 60s. When I was a teenager nightclubs still had dress codes of dress trousers, shirts and shoes. As above, you had to fit in to the social norms and make an effort, it wasn't that anything goes.

    The hippies and counterculture won out wholesale, but now they have the power they don't seem to have a vision for it. Now they have broken down all the barriers really they have just fallen back on economics and capitalism as the guiding force. This is a race to the bottom as far as I can see, I liked some of the standards I remember from my childhood, you had a sense of time and place I think we have lost. But then I think we did hit the end of history in many ways and the future is very uncertain currently.

    Individualism and shopping just won't be enough to hold us together in my opinion and you will likely see a surveillance state rapidly grow in the absence of a moral authority. Depression and mental illness will also increase as people find less and less direction from society with individualism offering them an overwhelming but empty existence.

    Adam Curtis is my favorite commentator on this topic, if you haven't seen The Century of the Self or The Trap you should go and look them up.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2019
  17. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 7,157

    The USSR never collapsed. It was a conscious decision made by the Soviet leaders after their negotiations with the U.S. President.
    Remember when the U.S President said in Berlin: "I don't want this wall here."?

    The thing is that there is an Iron Curtain still present and it lies on the Western border of the Russian Federation.

    It was just that the U.S sought for more markets and the Soviet leaders voluntarily handed them over.