Political Development and Political Decay: Overview
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 чер 2024
- Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Location: Kenney Auditoriu, The Nitze Building, SAIS
Francis Fukuyama, director of the International Development Program, discussed "Political Development and Political Decay" on Wednesday, September 16, as part of his four-part lecture series entitled, "Getting to Denmark: Where the State, Rule of Law and Accountable Government Come From."
I really respect you as you are awesome political science professor and researcher. How you ignore The Ethiopian state and government before the time frame you have mentioned?
Awesome
"its like the bloods and the crips there is no other way to describe it." I can think of at least one other way. 2009 moment lol
Very stimulating
whats with the break at 41:39 ??
I've only been able to find 2 of the 4 lectures in this series. Does anyone know where to find the others?
There are other criticisms that could be made, e.g. that slavery doesn't arise with the state, but in fact is in many stateless societies, reaching an extreme degree in Northwest Coast Amerindian societies. But I'm mostly glad that his theorizing is more solidly based on empirical research instead of on theoretical philosophizing.
Hello there, Frank talks about presenting four lectures. I could find two lectures at your channel. If he presented four, could you possibly post other two lectures please. It is very useful and interesting lectures.
Any luck?
Can the rest of the missing talks be uploaded please. They are very interesting. Thanks!
2nd lecture: ua-cam.com/video/Gc_EZWUHBkg/v-deo.html
The mind reels.
OK, let's say the good things first.
Overwhelmingly good is that he has abandoned Hegel's ridiculous claim that the post-slave trade kingdoms of West Africa were the starting point of human political evolution. He didn't say that directly in The End of History of course, but it is implicit in his scheme, where the search for recognition and the slave nature of the state is the starting point of human political evolution. Now he's going to be empirical about human political evolution.
Several more minor things are wrong. He assumes that human kinship began as patrilineal clans. There's really no evidence of that, in fact social scientists going back not only to L. H. Morgan but to ibn Khaldun have shown how there is a tendency to move from matrilineal to patrilineal societies. Remember, these societies have been evolving as long as our own. He should read some real paleoanthropology, not the pop stuff. e.g. Early Human Kinship ed. by James et. al.
In NZ where I'm from the white colonists got round this collective ownership by the indigenes was to introduce individualised ownership in which a small number of people were granted ownership of traditional collective lands and then Crown purchasers would pick off one individual owner at a time. It's really very simple. Collective owners shouldn't be able to hold out against modern individual property ownership because the modern peoples are not honest or moral players. He is on to something with this collective ownership but it needs teasing out due to inherent complexities. I would say capitalism and all the rest was thoroughly based on the concept of private ownership. Collective ownership stifles if not downright prevents innovation and invention. China is a prime example of this.