Fukuyama says he is pessimistic about the future of liberalism because Russia invaded Ukraine, but he is optimistic about liberalism when America invades countries. Fukuyama was a leading supporter of the invasion and destruction of Iraq. Genocide and destruction is liberalism? In his philosophy liberalism includes the right to invade by certain powers. Both speakers claim that Judo Christian tradition gave birth to liberalism. Russia too is Judo Christian but it gave birth to Bolshevism. Philosopher Bertrand Russell associates communism with Judo Christianity. So which is it: liberalism or communism? Russell was a true liberal with a brain power of a thousand Fukuyamas and Grays. Fukuyama says end history means people want to live in western Europe and America. That is not true. Most people want to live in their own countries. That is why imperialists bomb countries to force people leave their countries. Fukuyama and Gray talk as if they are politicians running for office. I wasted 20 minutes on this video.
You literally hit the nail on incompetent and hypocritical Francis on his head which has no brain to think everyone wants to be like the WEST it's totally the opposite. The global South looks to China who advocates on non interference, independence...win win and shared prosperity not like the COLONIAL WEST who wants domination, zero sum game you lose i win. Long live the global south
Just to clarify, communism is liberalism taken to its peak consequences. Its liberalism forced to see itself to the mirror and face its contradictions in order to take its own demands and ideals (maximum individual freedom) seriously. They both, liberalism and communism, are the Enlightenment's children, the second one being the radical and rebellious one. If not mistaken, this is also clarify in the video. Other than that, yeah.
Both "opponents" are largely the same. Both are very keen at pointing out the flaws of "autocracies", but are blind to the same the flaws in "liberal democracies".
I couldn't believe at first that Francis would hold to such outdated perceptions of Ukraine, so I checked the video description and turns out this was recorded back in March '22. Now it all makes sense. You should have stated that in the title.
I still agree with Patrick Deneen's assessment that liberalism fails when it succeeds because it cannot tolerate any dissent from their brand of individualism. When liberal individualism is fully implemented, it isolates individuals at the expense of the human reality of community bonds. To prove this, I can provide thousands of examples where school communities' norms and commitments are destroyed to accommodate, one or two solipsistic individuals who expect maximally diversified utilitarian individualism, each with their own self-actualizing synthetic one-person-culture acquired from a marketplace of trends - the government were supposed to protect the community, not the solipsist. These trends are presented and sold as if it is more optimal, but in fact, they result in a pull toward non-human, amoral, mechanistic optimization, similar to the interactions of single-celled organisms. This leaves individuals acting like mechanistically optimized organisms, such as bacteria only able to replicate genetic syntax, rather than consciousness, meaning-perceiving and meaning-creating human beings. (Being conscious and perceiving and creating meaning are all equally important and liberalism therefore can be either fundamentally solipsistic in its individualism or be fundamentally part of a community of other minds.) Additionally, I caution against Fukuyama's notion of individualism and its universality. It has never been a reality outside of individual holistic socialised experience, which inherently considers the life-giving community that practically and always sustains humane existence - except if you want to implement Huxley's "Brave New World".
i think the analogies to single-celled organisms and to huxley's novel demonstrate a slight failure of imagination, which is to say, there is no stark set of clearly distinct alternatives. rather, what we have is a highly speculative calculus of social and moral priorities, and we have also the difficult-to-parse consequences of various methods/policies used in that calculus. in some ways, i believe that 'humanity will out' -- though i'm unable to define humanity, i believe that we are in some ways fundamentally immutable, at least when viewed more closely than at an evolutionary scale. the point of that being, i wouldn't worry so much about long term dystopian futures. i agree that liberalism fails, but perhaps for different reasons. in any case, there are certainly many kinds of practiced liberalism and no clear stasis even within specific examples. what the government is supposed to do, what constitutes an individual, and what rights we assign them--these are all always in flux, if sometimes only subtly. i haven't finished the video, so perhaps replying was premature, still i felt compelled...
@@fontforward rights are not "assigned" they are recocnized, this is key to understanding classical liberalism and individualism, human right preceed the state, the state serves the people and should defend such rights , when the state is violating these rights what you have is collectivism, socialism ore whatever name it wears currently
@@Derek_H_360 i suppose i would agree that the state doesn't assign people rights, but neither are rights inherent to being. rights, just like any concept, only exist insofar as humans enact them edit: i should have also pointed out that every state, no matter the ideological underpinning, has in some degree or other violated the "rights" of its citizens, of course depending on how those rights are conceived
If people understood "postmodernism" (which has deconstructed everything social, especially liberalism), then what liberalism is today would become clearer.
What's sad is that most disciplines overcame the linguistic turn and began a course correction, but it looks to be permanently stuck in our culture now, dissolving the cultures that made liberalism happen in the first place, allowing totalitarianism and barbaric violence to flourish in its place.
I’m curious about your reading of postmodernism here. Remember that the defining characteristic that Lyotard used in “The Postmodern Condition,” which brought the term postmodernism from art criticism to the social sphere, is “incredulity toward metanarratives” or the grand narratives that were so important to modernism. I think, if we take both these speakers’ point of agreement that liberalism is about a society of individuals who can’t necessarily agree completely on first principles and how to manage that, then an incredulity toward metanarratives could easily be a great helper to that project because it could liberate us from the tribal, conflicting grand narratives about the world from different traditions through skepticism regarding all of them. As a bit of evidence, I would posit that an incredulity toward some of the Abrahamic faiths’ metanarratives that suggest homosexuality is wrong/should be legally/societally disallowed has led to an increase in the liberal rights of gay people in many liberal nations, and all this occurred in the post-modern era.
@@dylanwright4094The OP’s comment is misguided or ironic because post-modernism is deeply inscribed into the speakers’ worldviews. They championed the Civil Rights movement not just for its virtues, but as an example of a post-modern liberal state correcting itself in-line to its core values: a specific type of universality. Their critique of the fascist right and ultra-progressives was they’ve thrown away universality AND post-modernism in favor of a ridged view of history and social change - they’ve shed skepticism of their own narratives, which is antithetical to postmodernist thought itself. Their prescriptions were basically begging those groups to readopt postmodernism. I think OP is just saying s**t
The fact that nowadays someone still invites and questions Francis Fukuyama, author of the irrational concept of the "end of history", shows how worthless social science is. His ideas and predictions have turned out to be total nonsense and he still comments on events and some twats listen to it.
One can’t help but think he is a CIA asset or something. It is that obviously unconsidered, and his interviews are even worse. But if that’s true, then that’s why he’s paraded around as an intellectual. People should probably ask themselves what Francis Fukuyama is doing in Ukraine “training young elites” and who is paying for that. My guess is that it’s the same people that helped him write his book.
This channel isn't social science and Fukuyama has never been a social scientist, but rather an intellectual whose only fame comes from the fact the West loves his political views. And this channel almost never talks to anyone who isn't already a Westernized Liberal (I think we call that an 'echo chamber'?). Otherwise they'd show Fukuyama debate some of the developing world political scholars who have so often pointed out just how utterly wrong he has been in so many occasions.
This is a purely "intellectual" exercise, dealing purely in abstract ideas and ideals. The whole premise of the debate is so childish. We here have these two gentlemen, who instead of talking about the actual concrete processes and actions in the actual living breathing world, instead talk about high ideals and purely metaphysical arguments and counter arguments. The burden of history and ideas is bending the spines of these "intellectuals". Dude! Talk about the real actual problems and issues and then talk about what is your idea and ideals for ACTION to deal about them. Liberalism didn't emerge because locke or mill or some intellectual came up with "ideas", liberalism emerged as a set of solutions to actual real world problems and they did work at that time. I unfortunately don't know how to put it, but this debate is so useless. Political philosophy can't arise as mere abstract ideas that chart out a course for a better or utopian society, mere ideas are actually not that powerful. Political philosophy should arise as a set of coherent proposed actions, which are empirical and pragmatic, in order to accomplish some sort of handling of real world problems. It is so surreal to watch these "intellectuals" being so chained to centuries old abstractions and conceptions, it is quite religious in its nature, they do worship the ideas proposed centuries ago as sacrosanct, as THE truth and something devine. Break free from the shackles of tradition, think pragmatically and only pragmatically, think over and beyond "liberalism". Idealistic philosophy grow out of pragmatic decisions that work in the actual world. Just mere ideas with theoretical clarity and precision of Euclidean geometry doesn't necessarily work, world is not a theoretical enterprise, people are motivated by real world concrete changes not mere ideas.
Yup. This is what happens when intellectuals are too busy breathing in their own farts inside a university classroom. Very removed from and blind to reality
I think you are drawing a false dichotomy based upon the mistaken premise that abstract ideas/ideals somehow take away from dealing with practical concerns. On the most basic level, theories usually do one of two things. The first is try to explain how something works by ascertaining the abstract processes or principles that take place. Science, in this capacity, does a lot of theorizing of this kind but philosophy often does the same thing (science was born out of philosophy and is in many ways a subfield of it). Another kind of theorizing aims to develop principles and ideals we would want to live by or how society ought to live by. That usually concerns ethics and moral philosophy, and the latter often concerns political philosophy. The constitution of the USA is a codification of many abstract ideas and principles upon which the whole practical concerns of government is constrained by. One can also argue that practical concerns need to be reined in by moral and political principles for them to be legitimate. Abstract ideals are the metrics we use to judge practical solutions. When we say some policy is "good" we usually have some intuitive abstract ideal that we appeal to like this policy increases economic equality or this policy increased "positive liberty" for poorer people. Many people do not realize they appeal to a set of abstract values and do not know how to critically evaluate them, yet they nonetheless use them to evaluate whether something is good or successful. Everyone appeals to these abstract ideals whenever they make a moral or political judgement (even if they do not explicitly do so). Someone who does not like liberalism is someone who critiques the values/principles they hold to be dear, which in turn shapes the kind of practical solutions we should promote since we use those values to judge and consider different practical solutions. We do these kinds of appeal to abstract principles in our judgements all the time on practical concerns.
John gray has mentioned multiple times that liberalism is a historical accident that emerged due to problems of the time, especially religious wars of Europe. He literally said this in his opening statement. Another low IQ kashmiri.
@@philosonic Yes but to solve a problem, you have to start by assessing the problem, and the processes involved in creating that problem. You don't just stick a label on it and say, that is because they believe this or that. It is also what they don't believe, that is good, that there forefathers believed. The problem as i see it is open borders, justified by " Diversity, Equality and Inclusion. and Lies. Or as Trump would put it, fake news. Fake politicians, who say they have the interests of the people at heart, but don't.
It;s also two ultra liberals talking about Liberalism, pretending that they disagree. I listened to it while cooking dinner and it was all just waffle. Put a communist up there, put someone from the dissadent Right up there. Have an actual argument or disacussion. Instead John Grey takes a position one milimeter to the right of Francis and than they talk about things they are comfortable with. And the solution, more Liberalism. I hope the entrance fee wasen't too high.
Fukuyama should talk with dugin but that'd never happen cause the "liberal" world isn't liberal at all. The fundamental assumptions of liberalism lead to its downfall. It's inevitable. It's not the only example of this sort either, in fact, often the end of a thing is built into its very being.
Yeah would have thought the same myself. Appearing at an event with a fascist like Peter Thiel made me wonder about him. Also ro hear him saying support for the Palestinians is is a manifestation of liberal delusion and that the Israelis are waging war within the bounds of international law. Whatever he has to say about barbarism rings a bit hollow.
@@numbersix8919Of course it is. Ukraine has consistently outperformed every prediction made about it and is holding its own against a full onslaught of the second most powerful army in the world for a third year straight. It has shown itself to be a highly creative and intelligent force, with considerable bravery. There is no other way it could have faced and held its own against a force that is far greater than it and has far more resources.
Everytime Gray starts making a compelling point against the neo-liberal orthodoxy the moderator interrupts him to change the topic. Don't know why anyone would listen to Fukuyama anymore after he's been proven emphatically wrong but the moderator still drinks the koolaid. Also she kept trying to drag social media into the debate for some reason.
Politics isn't really about what is morally right or wrong. It's about who has the most money, power, and the ability to unalive anyone. That is the very sad human condition we find ourselves in.🙄 They know the people know that the decent and benevolent public image they portray to the public is just a big laughable charade. So people in power want us to know who has the monopoly of force and violence.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
You don't understand the world pre-1945 if you think that something like Amazon paying $15.00 an hour without benefits is the "predation" they are talking about. This is a quote from Charles Trevelyan, the Assistant Secretary to the British Treasury during the Irish Potato Famine: "The only way to prevent the [Irish] from becoming habitually dependent on Government is to bring the operation of natural causes to bear upon them. The great evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people." He saw the famine as a "corrective measure" in the market that would lead to economic improvement through "natural causes." That's the kind of "predation" they're talking about a return to.
@@KendraAndTheLaw unproductive labor, the labor that facilitates the process of value production, has always been a primary job of the predatory class: landholders, slavers and so on.
I don't trust Fukuyama to predict whether the Sun will rise tomorrow. He's been so consistently wrong about events the last 20 years, it's actually impressive. Rule of thumb: Whatever F. Fukuyama says, the opposite will likely happen.
I wouldn't blame liberalism itself for today's problems, the real culprit is neoliberalism. When peoples basic needs are taken care of they tend to avoid ideologies like religion, nationalism, and facism. It's honestly not that complicated.
I think neolibralism is the cause of the culture wars, because its core ideology is to promote competition rather than encouraging people to group together.
If a conversation like this is anything to go by, liberal discourse is alive and well. What a pleasure to hear these veteran intellectuals articulate their viewpoints with such clarity and level-headedness.
A knowledge of history is very illuminating and helps us understand the situation we find ourselves in today. In the 1930s, there was a widespread belief that capitalism had failed, and people were looking to alternatives like fascism and communism. This is end stage liberalism. Before the new liberal order (neoliberalism) there was an old liberal order. We stepped onto an old path that still leads to the same place. 1920s/2000s - neoclassical economics, high inequality, high banker pay, low regulation, low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons (CEOs), reckless bankers, globalisation phase 1929/2008 - Wall Street crash 1930s/2010s - Global recession, currency wars, trade wars, austerity, rising nationalism and extremism 1940s - World war. We forgot we had been down that path before. Everything is progressing nicely and we are approaching the final destination. This is what it's supposed to be like. Right wing populist leaders are what we should be expecting at this stage and it keeps on getting worse. I remember now, it was Keynesian capitalism that won the battle of ideas against Russian Communism. These liberal phases never end well. It sounds so good, but ends so badly. WWIII next stop. The newly developed mythology about liberalism wasn’t based on past experience. This is what it’s like. Everything is falling apart at the seams and we are descending into chaos. This is end stage liberalism.
He had no other choice after the 1990s, when the U.S. administration and its 'poodles' chose to pick over the carcass of Russia's remains and rejected any overtures of a mutually beneficial economic future for all of Europe. They wanted, and still want, to be the unilateral ruler of the global world order. It's all there in Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard. But it's important to see the analysis and dissection of that book in, 'Ukraine: Zbig's Grand Chessboard & How The West Was Checkmated' by Natylie Baldwin & Kermit Heartstrong (2016), which shows how deeply misled we have all been on the real reasons for the current conflict: Some, like the 'Neo-Cons' in the U.S. wanted it this way.
@@StephenSeabird That is absolutely not the reason why he chose Putin lol. It's not even in the top 3. There was a power struggle between the oligarchs and the so called "Elzin's family" and Putin was a good pick for everyone's interests. Or so they thought lol, didn't turn out quite the way they anticipated.
I have to say, he's pretty much bang on everything, in this discussion. For some reason people tie being wrong to the title of his book "end of history" which only relates to the phrase that Marx used, and of course it was no such thing. Bang on about neo-liberalism, also the intolerance of wokeness etc. As far as the most desirable political state, it still is a democratic liberal society with independent judiciary, free speech, and transparency in government. Its also demonstrated by the way people vote with their feet, these are the places they go.
@@peterkratoska4524people vote with their feet even when their country is subjugated by a stronger one? I started to read his famous book and it was one of the stupidest pieces of writing I ever engaged with.
I'm pretty sure that happened during roughly the same time liberalism thrived. But it may well be society pays them too much respect, whereas we used to have other role models.
Thank you ❤ I appreciate that you did not present liberalism as synonymous with democracy, along an erroneous continuum from left-liberalism-democracy to right-conservatism-authoritarianism/fascism. We need liberalism and conservatism in a democracy. Neither should be a dirty word. We need fair, reasonable, good faith definitions of conservatism too. Tolerance of meaningful liberal change and meaningful conservative preservation, in balance, nourishes democracy. What is meaningful? To decide that, we need to debate in good faith and find middle ground to guard against extremes. The US Constitution was designed to preserve what is meaningful in a democracy while also being open to meaningful change through amendment. One last thought. Children need decision making by their parents with a gradual move toward autonomy. Conservative or liberal parents may do a disservice to their children by enforcing their ideology and looking down their noses at children who dissent. William Penn wrote: Obedience without liberty is slavery. Liberty without obedience is confusion. Our democracy and children are vulnerable to both.
To describe the influx of immigrants as a "positive vote for liberal democracy" then you have to explain why the first thing "these voters with their feet" do when they get access to material benefits within liberal democracies, is to consume and implement a non-liberal regime in all their immigrant communities.
Nope. Your argument is still siding with their's. Try this...To describe the influx of immigrants as a "positive vote for liberal democracy" then you are basically turning your cheek at the reasons why they are fleeing their own countries. I don't even want to go into why they couldn't or wouldn't dig deeper at this sort of argument but this entire talk was lacking any 'real' substance. Also, poor countries don't have free and fair elections because of corruption influenced by Western governments in order to implement hegemony and Western corporations in order to extract resources. Western countries also don't have free elections because the people lack political analysis and are easily swayed by smooth talkers who are bought and paid for by the same corporations who corrupt poorer countries. What happens everywhere else happens in the West except we get a softer version of it.
Such a pleasure to listen to this debate. I hope that Fukuyama is right, but I have to be honest and say that I find Gray’s views and arguments to be more persuasive and fundamentally true
Liberalism never survived Romanticism with its divided literatures, and patriotism of the 18th century. It sustains a goal but has been transformed routinely. The latest assaults of social media take discussion to the depths of tribalism.
26:00 On that point, "tactical nukes" seem to serve a similar purpose to strategic nuclear weapons: that is, they're political rather than practical. First, Russian war infrastructure has depended on capturing existing Ukrainian infrastructure to advance, and then it digs in, and so it can't effectively advance and defend territory that it hits so hard as to evaporate the infrastructure. But second, the relatively small yield of tactical nuclear weapons is such that, if the Russians really wanted to do that job, conventional weapons would seem sufficient, without locally irradiating the area so that in the first 48 hours after striking, their own troops can't advance on that zone without getting sick, and without the political consequence of escalating the entire conflict and likely bringing NATO directly in with a conventional response. That does not mean that Russia may never use them, only that their real purpose is to make threats about no-fly zones, and it would be a very bad idea to actually hit anything with them that the Russians plan to take.
Like too many people, Fukuyama is confused between liberalism and what people actually do in its name. Few people oppose liberal values (freedom, democracy, rule of law) but most people - especially in developing countries - oppose efforts to expand US/ Western dominance in the name of liberalism. Nobody want their countries be bombed, attacked, sanctioned on the pretext that there is lack of freedom, however true it may be. Historical record does not support the claim that the US and the West adhere to liberal values, just look at their relations with Pinochet, Marcos, Saudi family etc. or how the US defies the UN Law on Sea, the Int' Criminal Court etc. or how the US imposed anti-WTO tariffs on China (and even Canada). Liberalism is not wrong, but people who think the West is acting out of liberalism are wrong.
none of which is what Fukuyama is talking about. He does point out issues with the neo-liberal economic policies (Freidman and the Chicago school) and implemented by Reagan and Thatcher which led to huge inequalities which could be addressed by policy. And its not just US centric. Fukuyama's is talking about liberal democratic governments, with independent judiciary, freedom of speech and market based economy. Any alternative is essentially authoritative. And plenty of those societies have much higher inequality.
You are mixing things. U.S. sovereignty, U.S. Security, Western security, international security, neo-liberalism and capital expansion, corporatism, etc etc. It's not just one thing. If only it were that simple.
@@peterkratoska4524Agree neoliberalism has been a disaster but you’re both wrong the issue is Western imperialism. Most of the non Western world hates the US/West due to imperialism not liberalism. Just listen to these clowns talking about how people don’t want to move to China or Russia but to liberal societies (US/West) without mention of all the coups/ assassinations /wars (causing refugees) the West has caused. All the expats I know livening in China & Russia are screaming to get the hell out of the West and move over to those countries. Almost no homeless/ both 90%+ homeownership rates/ lower taxes and higher growth than in the West.
@@cocosocialistrat8979 imperialism is how the west got rich and took over the world but it also led (inadvertently to the spread of democracy, the industrial and scientific revolution). And btw Rusia was also a colonial power, it was a land empire rather than naval. As was China, as Im sure Buryats, Dagestanis, Georgians, Siberians, and Tibetans, Uighurs etc know. Yes, Im sure everyone is flocking to China to their surveiillance state, and to Russia where half the country side have no flush toilets. Homeless? That is the least of their problems as the murderers and rapists who were accepted into the army and are now pardoned and returning back (with even violence). You forgot the millions of young and capable Russians who left in the first 2 yrs. Your comment is risible.
11:21 Also that "nationalism" as a reason for liberalism solving the problem frames the issue incorrectly. Nationalism only occured in the two states which had not been a nation state before. But devided city- annex regional states. Germany and Italy. The unification made the people feel stronger. Especially because they had been occupied by Napoleon in the 18th century. Preventing a new loss was the main motivation for it. After loosing the second world war, obviously the nationalist fire was smuthered. So 'liberalism' was not the choice of any rational decission. But a default outcome. Then supported by growing wealth thanks to economic innovation and thus delivering more equality to be satisfied with. Nothing of that was the product of a smart decission or philosophy.
Beloved remember thy shared "i" AM, came with sincere conversations given just for thee! And remember thy FEET is shared Feet! Shared "i" AM come forth!
Liberalism wasn't default in Germany post 1945. East Germany became communist. And there was a real worry that without the Marshall Plan West Germans would have voted for a Socialist government.
@jonathanphillips5794 No, that's right. But it always depends on worldconditions when such a relaxed state exists or not. In fact both became liberal. Wait and see. In fact the fear west Germans would have voted communist (which they would not have done, since the industry (car, machines, chemistry and steel) was on their side), gave them Marshall help. And they were not against it. They could quickly earn it back and were given a headstart.Thank you very much. The east Germans were just as well 'forced' a condition they could not refuse. Because they had lost the war just as well. They stoicly accepted communism. * Remember a worker class revolt had already been struck down in 1919 in Berlin. The liberal state they were in (and still are), meant you officially accept the rules (like any German would) but amongst friends and family you make up and speak out your own mind. To evade problems one waits for an opportunity. Which for them came in 1989. Yes it took a long wait. But Germans are patient people. They were both liberal.
@novinceinhosic3531 Something goes missing here. I am afraid you are confusing patriotism with nationalism. Of course after the war the country could not vote for 'pro German' (meaning potentially speaking) provinces. Whether they were pro monarchy or not does not make any difference. The country wanted the Gaule. He was their military leader they trusted in. And militaries (like Frederick the Great and Napoleon) always respect the people. Think like they think. It was patriotism that drove them. Not nationalism.
Through a simple lens, liberalism is freedom aka the set of negative rights we understand such as freedom from enslavement, freedom from violence, freedom from unfair trials. Thereafter some people (we know who) dreamt up some positive rights (freedom to have an iphone, freedom to not work, freedom to take other peoples stuff under the guise of redistrubutive taxes). They could have used another new word to describe their ideology but they instead chose to hijack a word that was already clearly understood. We know that side of the political spectrum specialise in the manipulation of language. Orwell taught us that. We now find ourselves in the difficult situation of having logomachic debates because of the dishonesty of those that want to claim to be liberals but are not.
I have one simple question for Mr Fukuyama: How much real money is required per capita from tax payers, not from printing money, in order his ideas to be implemented? In my calculations its 80% tax levy is required
@@ziyu8061 Consider the nonsense they're repeating about Russia, Putin and Ukraine. The US set Ukraine up as a patsy in proxy war to weaken Russia and overthrow Putin -- a brilliant and successful leader, who has beat the crap out of NATO and Russia's economy is doing great. But since Putin stood up to America, they have the population believing he's Hitler, as they do anyone who stands up to them. Now listen again to what the two establishment hacks here are saying and predicting about the war.
Russia has 16 cities with more than 1million people, and Moscow with 13million. Their nuclear arsenal may be larger but I don't see much utility in comparing the numbers if 1 would decimate an entire city. Their large arsenal tells you how many enemies it thinks it has.
Oh man, Foreigners commenting on US culture war issues is often so cringe. This woman almost undoubtedly has a one-sided and/or goofy view of things like police shootings and school curriculum in the US.
Two mythical statistical beasts were mentioned, one after the other. For eg, alleged liberals believe a massively disproportionate number of black men are shot by police. Journalists and intellectuals often believe this without question. Questioning such myths and producing evidence to poke such 'liberals' inevitably leads to being attacked by the 'liberal society and those 'liberal' journalists and intellectuals will not come to your aid. . We continue to ignore this cowardice and we continue not to challenge the likes of the boob who's hosting this talk.
Well, back in 1990s the leading thought was that the global market without borders (when socialist block cracked down) meant a kind of the ideal state. No wars, no conflicts. Paradise and happy "exchange of goods" for pure satisfaction. Ooops, it has not lasted forever, dear sirs. And probably that "old", and surely outdated, daddy Karl Marx was a bit on the right side, saying that "the market cannot spread forever, there are the limits, indeed". And now we can see it.
@@Derek_H_360 privatisation, deregulation, austerity, individualism and the craziness of 'homoeconomicus' or economic man an awful one dimensional view of human beings as greedy, self interested, maximisers of personal gain and this is something to be celebrated and encouraged at every opportunity - it all grew out of the work of Mises and Hayek and was well supported and promoted by the powerful for obvious reasons but they managed to sell it as trickle down or as I see it piss on economics. Useful new book by Monbiot and Hutchison called the invisible doctrine - really useful book
Liberalism always was the philosophy of the bourgeoisie, not the working class. Now that wealth inequality in the world’s liberal democracies, especially the USA, has progressed to such a profound extent it’s become clear how artificial the concept of “economic middle class” has always been. It’s become clear too how very distinct the difference is between the vast numerically enormous the masses of working class people are compared to the numerically tiny minority of the ultra wealthy ruling class capitalist bourgeoisie, whose philosophy “liberalism” really is. The radical individualist “freedom” of the liberal capitalist is just not a realistic ideology for a nation of hundreds of millions of increasingly poor wage laborer, working class people; the conflict between the ideology of the nation’s ruling bourgeoisie capitalist class and its ruled working class labor has produced the internal contradictions that have provoked the rise of the fascism of the Republican Party we’ve seen over the last decade in response to the empty social justice rhetoric meant as a band-aid and camouflage for the economic needs of the left and working class in the country.
How can people with their full wits about them, not believe in perspectivism? And how can ´perspectivists’ not believe in the possibilities of human progress?
Some good quotes on liberalism: "Liberalism is the politics of getting rid of politics" - Carl Schmitt. "Liberalism is an edifice behind which there is no building" - Benito Mussolini. "Liberalism regards as sacred the right of everyone, however humble, odd, or inarticulate, to criticize the government, including the man at the top" - Leo Strauss.
The flaw in Fukuyama's thought is the assumption that economic growth can be managed so 'EVERYONE' gets a little richer. That is not the case in the American economy. The 'RICH' don't pay any reasonable share of taxes, and the larger the corporations the less they pay with quite a few paying nothing. Meanwhile, Repubs bust unions, the same corporations paying no taxes are protected by Repubs with rRump promising more cuts, while the workers and everyone else in the lower 80% of the population get negligible shares of the 'economy growth'. That is why the Repubs don't want anything about Karl Marx's economic theory taught in American schools!
“Conflicts of toleration” and concern for illiberalism within small communities with raising children denied information hence ability to think freely… maybe we need to look at levels of war with tactical, operational, strategic. While Dave Snowden believes such to be fractal, I think this grossly wrong. Only a few things may be fractal in this sense. You can be liberal at a national level tolerant of multiple groups within the nation while inside the groups can be illiberal. And we’re ok as the fundamental goal of avoiding the violence on a grand scale is met. Yes, there may be a ‘violence’ imposed in the denials of raising the child, but such really cannot be avoided while such is a small cost to avoiding the violence between either state and group or group to group.
I see where the publication date of this upload suggested a recency that is not warranted -- no wonder some of the interviewer's and Fukayama's statements come off as ridiculous
This is way too west centric ... No counter point at all. If you put Israel in place of Russia ... You can say the same about democracy, except if there is a problem, you will hear a shitload of rhetoric ... Thats why they skipped all that in the iraq war ... So come on, west had a good run ...
21:19 Russian culture has always been dominated by tribal warfare and living in an on average unfriendly climate leading to poor food resources. This results in maffia type oligarchs (something like the types invading Cuba for its sugar cane, producing alcohol back at the time when alcohol was prohibited in the US) when all brakes go loose. Liberalism under those circumstances derails.
Why can't people see that there is value in conservativism as well as liberalism? Like, it's not one or the other. One relies on scarcity of resources while the other abundance. So in a complex societal system where there is scarcity in some sectors and abundance in others, there will always be some mix of liberalism and conservativism. Perhaps there should be a sliding scale created by our AI overlords that allows us to think critically about which direction we need to be going in. But that requires a far more intellectually honest society.
@@jasongray4517 Writing at my cellphone, didn't help. Not checking what I wrote made it worst. English is not my first language. I wanted to write Fukuyama. He made a comment about the succesful liberal societies linking with the emigration. In his opinion the direction of their feet tells you about their opinion about the liberalism. It is so shallow though. He is talking more about materialism and less or nothing about the values it the virtue's. That why I said ...he is thinking with his feet. Thank you.
Clarity and coherence concerning all thy shared "i" AM, came with sincere conversations given just for thee, and thy shared Feet resting upon the Footstool all dry grounds nor the world. Creation come HERE in front and remind! LORD without thy shared "i" AM none exist in front of thee!
FF made a great splash with "the End" and now it's going into that great dustbin of great ideas that people forgot. I'm sure it's not a great feeling to see your lifes' seminal work begin to dissolve before your eyes, so I can sympathize with FF, and I understand that he might be a bit off-kilter because of it. This might explain how he can promote a scenario where a Ukraine victory might lead to a favourable outcome. Ignoring the obvious catastrophe of engaging with nuclear weapons he supposes that the Russians will simply depose Putin and carry on in a recalcitrant fashion. Oh the incredible hubris !!! Yes, just as we've predicted the natural outcomes of our former endeavors to effect regime changes, we should trust our good judgement and give Russian society a good shake and expect it to settle down to playing ball with us. I am humbled by the deconstruction of what I had assumed to be an intelligent social critic.
Please define liberalism! Is neoliberalism liberalism? Is capitalism liberalism? What if neoliberalism and capitalism appear to be at odds with democracy, as is turning out to be the case more and more?
The Secular Political State is the death of wisdom. When man tries to replace the guidance of Spirit-God, received as wisdom, with his own (limited) egoistic perception of what constitutes right or wrong action, he has no certainty that justice and truth will prevail in all human decisions. When wisdom is absent, ignorant man is playing God. It's like throwing dice and expecting the right combination or result everytime. You might as well prepare to expect misery as your reward as well. There is no alternative to wisdom. And if we wish to make sound judgements everytime, communion with God is essential. May wisdom prevail.🙏
14:50 Again not totally correct. People tolerate things as long they are in a position enabling them not to care. When this changes they stop tolerating everything. By the way, referring to revolutions, the fall of the Berlin wall has been a so called silent revoltion. Leading to the end of the USSR. Because they understood the democratic vote for a better economy very well. They had failed to deliver. So again, living in interesting times does not mean it is a bad omen. But problems to solve nicely.
As a citizen of the “ The greatest purveyor of violence in the world“, the US empire, and the greatest promoter of so-called liberalism I call BS on this self-serving discussion.
Left-liberalism is the relevant transformation that reflects the comprehensive cultural term of those forces that used to push for socialist state economics. It is the liberalism of the post-economic Left and has fused easily with neoconservatism in all things foreign policy, which is where corporatism has been reintroduced as the modern expression of neoliberalism.
I'd like you to invite Prof. Dan Schueftan chairman of the National Security Studies Center at the University of Haifa, Israel. A brilliant mind and with a great sense of humour!
Students shared "i" AM command all the Gods of Men in front? Students shared "i" AM will say, Lord can't exist! Why? Same with all our names! Well said!
Angels who persevere and heard the WORD will say, What is Fear? Fear HIM! Who love with patience? Yes, likewise if denied. Love thee enough to DEPART FROM thee!
Beloved some will say, there's a New Table made from a hand without blood stains upon HIS hand. Resting upon SUSTAINED! For all the RENOWNED can put upon the NEW Table! Together! Likewise the NEW Table knows? Can be kept nor needed to be reminded and comes with comfort! Never will hearkened their shared Hearts!
Sorry....had to stop listening after 10 mins....so naive .....so many blindspots...so shallow concerning economic realities for the people on the ground. Does FF believe in the Easter bunny?
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
It seems to me like its all a balance. Take any idea and stretch it out without any tempering influences and you end up in a bad place. The problem is things are always changing and the balance point is always shifting. So how do we create institutions and social norms that do that better. Maybe humanity isn't up to that challenge and its humanity that needs the upgrade, as scary as that project might be.
1:20:12 the problem is who define what hate speech is? In the UK a lot of people have been put in prison for sharing a meme that someone else felt it was hate speech. So,
Mr. Fukushima unawareness to decouple linking immigration with resource plunder/ brain drain is just hilariously phenomenal. And yea he's mr Fukushima 😂😅
Fukuyama says he is pessimistic about the future of liberalism because Russia invaded Ukraine, but he is optimistic about liberalism when America invades countries. Fukuyama was a leading supporter of the invasion and destruction of Iraq. Genocide and destruction is liberalism? In his philosophy liberalism includes the right to invade by certain powers.
Both speakers claim that Judo Christian tradition gave birth to liberalism. Russia too is Judo Christian but it gave birth to Bolshevism. Philosopher Bertrand Russell associates communism with Judo Christianity. So which is it: liberalism or communism? Russell was a true liberal with a brain power of a thousand Fukuyamas and Grays.
Fukuyama says end history means people want to live in western Europe and America. That is not true. Most people want to live in their own countries. That is why imperialists bomb countries to force people leave their countries.
Fukuyama and Gray talk as if they are politicians running for office. I wasted 20 minutes on this video.
London as Das Kapital was written there
Well said!
thanks, you just saved my time, I was at 20min also !
You literally hit the nail on incompetent and hypocritical Francis on his head which has no brain to think everyone wants to be like the WEST it's totally the opposite. The global South looks to China who advocates on non interference, independence...win win and shared prosperity not like the COLONIAL WEST who wants domination, zero sum game you lose i win. Long live the global south
Just to clarify, communism is liberalism taken to its peak consequences. Its liberalism forced to see itself to the mirror and face its contradictions in order to take its own demands and ideals (maximum individual freedom) seriously. They both, liberalism and communism, are the Enlightenment's children, the second one being the radical and rebellious one. If not mistaken, this is also clarify in the video. Other than that, yeah.
Both "opponents" are largely the same. Both are very keen at pointing out the flaws of "autocracies", but are blind to the same the flaws in "liberal democracies".
Cause you could not have freedom of speech like this forum in an authoritarian regime.
I couldn't believe at first that Francis would hold to such outdated perceptions of Ukraine, so I checked the video description and turns out this was recorded back in March '22. Now it all makes sense. You should have stated that in the title.
Sadly Fukuyama was lying back there, he is a fanatycal of international liberalism, and made a life about predicting a deilsional uthopy
There's nothing wrong with what he said?
@sshen
The date, as is after the case, is given in the description of the video.
I still agree with Patrick Deneen's assessment that liberalism fails when it succeeds because it cannot tolerate any dissent from their brand of individualism. When liberal individualism is fully implemented, it isolates individuals at the expense of the human reality of community bonds. To prove this, I can provide thousands of examples where school communities' norms and commitments are destroyed to accommodate, one or two solipsistic individuals who expect maximally diversified utilitarian individualism, each with their own self-actualizing synthetic one-person-culture acquired from a marketplace of trends - the government were supposed to protect the community, not the solipsist. These trends are presented and sold as if it is more optimal, but in fact, they result in a pull toward non-human, amoral, mechanistic optimization, similar to the interactions of single-celled organisms. This leaves individuals acting like mechanistically optimized organisms, such as bacteria only able to replicate genetic syntax, rather than consciousness, meaning-perceiving and meaning-creating human beings. (Being conscious and perceiving and creating meaning are all equally important and liberalism therefore can be either fundamentally solipsistic in its individualism or be fundamentally part of a community of other minds.) Additionally, I caution against Fukuyama's notion of individualism and its universality. It has never been a reality outside of individual holistic socialised experience, which inherently considers the life-giving community that practically and always sustains humane existence - except if you want to implement Huxley's "Brave New World".
individualism is not isolotianism, its based on voluntary interactions vs collectivism where asotiations are designated and not chosen.
Yes, they want Brave New World
i think the analogies to single-celled organisms and to huxley's novel demonstrate a slight failure of imagination, which is to say, there is no stark set of clearly distinct alternatives. rather, what we have is a highly speculative calculus of social and moral priorities, and we have also the difficult-to-parse consequences of various methods/policies used in that calculus.
in some ways, i believe that 'humanity will out' -- though i'm unable to define humanity, i believe that we are in some ways fundamentally immutable, at least when viewed more closely than at an evolutionary scale. the point of that being, i wouldn't worry so much about long term dystopian futures.
i agree that liberalism fails, but perhaps for different reasons. in any case, there are certainly many kinds of practiced liberalism and no clear stasis even within specific examples. what the government is supposed to do, what constitutes an individual, and what rights we assign them--these are all always in flux, if sometimes only subtly.
i haven't finished the video, so perhaps replying was premature, still i felt compelled...
@@fontforward rights are not "assigned" they are recocnized, this is key to understanding classical liberalism and individualism, human right preceed the state, the state serves the people and should defend such rights , when the state is violating these rights what you have is collectivism, socialism ore whatever name it wears currently
@@Derek_H_360 i suppose i would agree that the state doesn't assign people rights, but neither are rights inherent to being. rights, just like any concept, only exist insofar as humans enact them
edit: i should have also pointed out that every state, no matter the ideological underpinning, has in some degree or other violated the "rights" of its citizens, of course depending on how those rights are conceived
If people understood "postmodernism" (which has deconstructed everything social, especially liberalism), then what liberalism is today would become clearer.
What's sad is that most disciplines overcame the linguistic turn and began a course correction, but it looks to be permanently stuck in our culture now, dissolving the cultures that made liberalism happen in the first place, allowing totalitarianism and barbaric violence to flourish in its place.
Post modernism is a cancer that is slowly destroying civilization.
I’m curious about your reading of postmodernism here. Remember that the defining characteristic that Lyotard used in “The Postmodern Condition,” which brought the term postmodernism from art criticism to the social sphere, is “incredulity toward metanarratives” or the grand narratives that were so important to modernism. I think, if we take both these speakers’ point of agreement that liberalism is about a society of individuals who can’t necessarily agree completely on first principles and how to manage that, then an incredulity toward metanarratives could easily be a great helper to that project because it could liberate us from the tribal, conflicting grand narratives about the world from different traditions through skepticism regarding all of them. As a bit of evidence, I would posit that an incredulity toward some of the Abrahamic faiths’ metanarratives that suggest homosexuality is wrong/should be legally/societally disallowed has led to an increase in the liberal rights of gay people in many liberal nations, and all this occurred in the post-modern era.
@@dylanwright4094The OP’s comment is misguided or ironic because post-modernism is deeply inscribed into the speakers’ worldviews. They championed the Civil Rights movement not just for its virtues, but as an example of a post-modern liberal state correcting itself in-line to its core values: a specific type of universality. Their critique of the fascist right and ultra-progressives was they’ve thrown away universality AND post-modernism in favor of a ridged view of history and social change - they’ve shed skepticism of their own narratives, which is antithetical to postmodernist thought itself. Their prescriptions were basically begging those groups to readopt postmodernism.
I think OP is just saying s**t
@@Existential8Ball @dylanwright4904 2 brilliant comments
The fact that nowadays someone still invites and questions Francis Fukuyama, author of the irrational concept of the "end of history", shows how worthless social science is. His ideas and predictions have turned out to be total nonsense and he still comments on events and some twats listen to it.
Yes!!
One can’t help but think he is a CIA asset or something. It is that obviously unconsidered, and his interviews are even worse. But if that’s true, then that’s why he’s paraded around as an intellectual.
People should probably ask themselves what Francis Fukuyama is doing in Ukraine “training young elites” and who is paying for that. My guess is that it’s the same people that helped him write his book.
@@JC-qh6wlSure, Mr. Moscow troll.
This channel isn't social science and Fukuyama has never been a social scientist, but rather an intellectual whose only fame comes from the fact the West loves his political views. And this channel almost never talks to anyone who isn't already a Westernized Liberal (I think we call that an 'echo chamber'?).
Otherwise they'd show Fukuyama debate some of the developing world political scholars who have so often pointed out just how utterly wrong he has been in so many occasions.
@@day2148 Would you like to mention some of these ”developing world political scholars”?
This is a purely "intellectual" exercise, dealing purely in abstract ideas and ideals. The whole premise of the debate is so childish. We here have these two gentlemen, who instead of talking about the actual concrete processes and actions in the actual living breathing world, instead talk about high ideals and purely metaphysical arguments and counter arguments. The burden of history and ideas is bending the spines of these "intellectuals". Dude! Talk about the real actual problems and issues and then talk about what is your idea and ideals for ACTION to deal about them.
Liberalism didn't emerge because locke or mill or some intellectual came up with "ideas", liberalism emerged as a set of solutions to actual real world problems and they did work at that time.
I unfortunately don't know how to put it, but this debate is so useless. Political philosophy can't arise as mere abstract ideas that chart out a course for a better or utopian society, mere ideas are actually not that powerful. Political philosophy should arise as a set of coherent proposed actions, which are empirical and pragmatic, in order to accomplish some sort of handling of real world problems.
It is so surreal to watch these "intellectuals" being so chained to centuries old abstractions and conceptions, it is quite religious in its nature, they do worship the ideas proposed centuries ago as sacrosanct, as THE truth and something devine.
Break free from the shackles of tradition, think pragmatically and only pragmatically, think over and beyond "liberalism". Idealistic philosophy grow out of pragmatic decisions that work in the actual world. Just mere ideas with theoretical clarity and precision of Euclidean geometry doesn't necessarily work, world is not a theoretical enterprise, people are motivated by real world concrete changes not mere ideas.
Yup. This is what happens when intellectuals are too busy breathing in their own farts inside a university classroom. Very removed from and blind to reality
I think you are drawing a false dichotomy based upon the mistaken premise that abstract ideas/ideals somehow take away from dealing with practical concerns. On the most basic level, theories usually do one of two things. The first is try to explain how something works by ascertaining the abstract processes or principles that take place. Science, in this capacity, does a lot of theorizing of this kind but philosophy often does the same thing (science was born out of philosophy and is in many ways a subfield of it). Another kind of theorizing aims to develop principles and ideals we would want to live by or how society ought to live by. That usually concerns ethics and moral philosophy, and the latter often concerns political philosophy. The constitution of the USA is a codification of many abstract ideas and principles upon which the whole practical concerns of government is constrained by. One can also argue that practical concerns need to be reined in by moral and political principles for them to be legitimate. Abstract ideals are the metrics we use to judge practical solutions. When we say some policy is "good" we usually have some intuitive abstract ideal that we appeal to like this policy increases economic equality or this policy increased "positive liberty" for poorer people. Many people do not realize they appeal to a set of abstract values and do not know how to critically evaluate them, yet they nonetheless use them to evaluate whether something is good or successful. Everyone appeals to these abstract ideals whenever they make a moral or political judgement (even if they do not explicitly do so). Someone who does not like liberalism is someone who critiques the values/principles they hold to be dear, which in turn shapes the kind of practical solutions we should promote since we use those values to judge and consider different practical solutions. We do these kinds of appeal to abstract principles in our judgements all the time on practical concerns.
John gray has mentioned multiple times that liberalism is a historical accident that emerged due to problems of the time, especially religious wars of Europe. He literally said this in his opening statement. Another low IQ kashmiri.
@@philosonic Yes but to solve a problem, you have to start by assessing the problem, and the processes involved in creating that problem. You don't just stick a label on it and say, that is because they believe this or that. It is also what they don't believe, that is good, that there forefathers believed. The problem as i see it is open borders, justified by " Diversity, Equality and Inclusion. and Lies. Or as Trump would put it, fake news. Fake politicians, who say they have the interests of the people at heart, but don't.
It;s also two ultra liberals talking about Liberalism, pretending that they disagree. I listened to it while cooking dinner and it was all just waffle. Put a communist up there, put someone from the dissadent Right up there. Have an actual argument or disacussion. Instead John Grey takes a position one milimeter to the right of Francis and than they talk about things they are comfortable with. And the solution, more Liberalism. I hope the entrance fee wasen't too high.
Just dropping by to say history is yet well unfinished, sir
Fukuyama should talk with dugin but that'd never happen cause the "liberal" world isn't liberal at all.
The fundamental assumptions of liberalism lead to its downfall. It's inevitable. It's not the only example of this sort either, in fact, often the end of a thing is built into its very being.
That would be an interesting clash to watch!
@@raphaelreichmannrolim25 ikr
🎯
There is a tvo discussion between Dugin, Fukuyama and Ivan Krastev moderated by Steve Paikin. It's on youtube just google it.
@@zolandia5262 3mins in and it's already a blast! Let's see how it goes, this thing needs to be more famous
The Liberalism that Fukuyama described is rotting.
At least in Germany
@@marctwain8273 definitely here in London. It looks like Mogadishu now.
Fukuyama never said that liberalism would not suffer setbacks.
You see a new generation of politicians beginning to walk away from it. Though I think we got neoliberalism instead of classic liberalism.
@@trogdortpennypacker6160 what is the difference between
Neoliberalism and classic liberalism?
Prof John Gray’s wisdom rarely disappoints, many insightful points here
Evident-free accusation of China's mistreatment of minorities is not wisdom.
Yeah would have thought the same myself. Appearing at an event with a fascist like Peter Thiel made me wonder about him. Also ro hear him saying support for the Palestinians is is a manifestation of liberal delusion and that the Israelis are waging war within the bounds of international law. Whatever he has to say about barbarism rings a bit hollow.
Ukraine is winning? Really?
"many insightful points here". Really? Any points which are different from MSM?
@@numbersix8919Of course it is. Ukraine has consistently outperformed every prediction made about it and is holding its own against a full onslaught of the second most powerful army in the world for a third year straight. It has shown itself to be a highly creative and intelligent force, with considerable bravery. There is no other way it could have faced and held its own against a force that is far greater than it and has far more resources.
Everytime Gray starts making a compelling point against the neo-liberal orthodoxy the moderator interrupts him to change the topic. Don't know why anyone would listen to Fukuyama anymore after he's been proven emphatically wrong but the moderator still drinks the koolaid. Also she kept trying to drag social media into the debate for some reason.
Fukuyama is so wrong on so many things, it's sad. It comes from living in a bubble too long.
Politics isn't really about what is morally right or wrong. It's about who has the most money, power, and the ability to unalive anyone. That is the very sad human condition we find ourselves in.🙄 They know the people know that the decent and benevolent public image they portray to the public is just a big laughable charade. So people in power want us to know who has the monopoly of force and violence.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs.
The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues.
The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many.
The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to.
The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests.
It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
"Unalive"?
43:17 -> we already are living in a society where predation is the primary means of amassing wealth
You don't understand the world pre-1945 if you think that something like Amazon paying $15.00 an hour without benefits is the "predation" they are talking about.
This is a quote from Charles Trevelyan, the Assistant Secretary to the British Treasury during the Irish Potato Famine: "The only way to prevent the [Irish] from becoming habitually dependent on Government is to bring the operation of natural causes to bear upon them. The great evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people."
He saw the famine as a "corrective measure" in the market that would lead to economic improvement through "natural causes." That's the kind of "predation" they're talking about a return to.
You primarily acquired your wealth through predation?
No. Value creation is the primary means of amassing wealth.
@@KendraAndTheLaw unproductive labor, the labor that facilitates the process of value production, has always been a primary job of the predatory class: landholders, slavers and so on.
You are mixing your country up with russia lol
I don't trust Fukuyama to predict whether the Sun will rise tomorrow.
He's been so consistently wrong about events the last 20 years, it's actually impressive.
Rule of thumb: Whatever F. Fukuyama says, the opposite will likely happen.
I wouldn't blame liberalism itself for today's problems, the real culprit is neoliberalism. When peoples basic needs are taken care of they tend to avoid ideologies like religion, nationalism, and facism. It's honestly not that complicated.
I think neolibralism is the cause of the culture wars, because its core ideology is to promote competition rather than encouraging people to group together.
Bro they are the same thing
What exactly is neoliberalism?
You reason like a child.
Lol religion won't vanish if basic things are taken care of , in India for example everyone is religious including extremely rich people.
Fukuyama lives in an echo chamber typical of American establishment "Intellectuals".
Russia paying a heavy price? Last I heard Ukraine had heavier losses and less troops to call up
If a conversation like this is anything to go by, liberal discourse is alive and well. What a pleasure to hear these veteran intellectuals articulate their viewpoints with such clarity and level-headedness.
A knowledge of history is very illuminating and helps us understand the situation we find ourselves in today.
In the 1930s, there was a widespread belief that capitalism had failed, and people were looking to alternatives like fascism and communism.
This is end stage liberalism.
Before the new liberal order (neoliberalism) there was an old liberal order.
We stepped onto an old path that still leads to the same place.
1920s/2000s - neoclassical economics, high inequality, high banker pay, low regulation, low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons (CEOs), reckless bankers, globalisation phase
1929/2008 - Wall Street crash
1930s/2010s - Global recession, currency wars, trade wars, austerity, rising nationalism and extremism
1940s - World war.
We forgot we had been down that path before.
Everything is progressing nicely and we are approaching the final destination.
This is what it's supposed to be like.
Right wing populist leaders are what we should be expecting at this stage and it keeps on getting worse.
I remember now, it was Keynesian capitalism that won the battle of ideas against Russian Communism.
These liberal phases never end well.
It sounds so good, but ends so badly.
WWIII next stop.
The newly developed mythology about liberalism wasn’t based on past experience.
This is what it’s like.
Everything is falling apart at the seams and we are descending into chaos.
This is end stage liberalism.
It is shocking how wrong both of these heavyweights were on the Russia/Ukraine conflict. Embarrassing really.
So true
They are already part of propaganda machine
How wrong were they ? The conflict continues as of today and it’s not clear Russia can win.
@@arxdeath773 They're winning, consult any channel that covers or read it in Le Monde. Only question how deep they will go.
@@arxdeath773 read news!!!!!
"if Jelzin hadn't nominated a young KGB officer ..." how two elderly gentlemen chat away at the pub.
He had no other choice after the 1990s, when the U.S. administration and its 'poodles' chose to pick over the carcass of Russia's remains and rejected any overtures of a mutually beneficial economic future for all of Europe. They wanted, and still want, to be the unilateral ruler of the global world order. It's all there in Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard. But it's important to see the analysis and dissection of that book in, 'Ukraine: Zbig's Grand Chessboard & How The West Was Checkmated' by Natylie Baldwin & Kermit Heartstrong (2016), which shows how deeply misled we have all been on the real reasons for the current conflict: Some, like the 'Neo-Cons' in the U.S. wanted it this way.
@@StephenSeabird That is absolutely not the reason why he chose Putin lol. It's not even in the top 3. There was a power struggle between the oligarchs and the so called "Elzin's family" and Putin was a good pick for everyone's interests. Or so they thought lol, didn't turn out quite the way they anticipated.
If only Gorbachev was not elected... What are you talking about!!
@@StephenSeabirdYeltsin appointed pootin purely for the promise that pootin would protect his family from investigation and reprisals.
Ahhh yes, Fukuyama, one of the wrongest intellectuals alive
Wrong according to who, you ?
I have to say, he's pretty much bang on everything, in this discussion. For some reason people tie being wrong to the title of his book "end of history" which only relates to the phrase that Marx used, and of course it was no such thing. Bang on about neo-liberalism, also the intolerance of wokeness etc.
As far as the most desirable political state, it still is a democratic liberal society with independent judiciary, free speech, and transparency in government. Its also demonstrated by the way people vote with their feet, these are the places they go.
@@peterkratoska4524people vote with their feet even when their country is subjugated by a stronger one? I started to read his famous book and it was one of the stupidest pieces of writing I ever engaged with.
@@lalaboards Accordding to facts; where's my life of boredom and opulence ?
Liberalism died the day corporates had equal rights as individuals.
nice point
"Corporations might be people, but they aren't Americans." -Jon Stewart
I'm pretty sure that happened during roughly the same time liberalism thrived. But it may well be society pays them too much respect, whereas we used to have other role models.
@tylert9875 that late you think? I think there's probably alot of things you can argue that happened 40 years before that.
@@tylert9875 corruption at its peak? You must have a rosy view of the past
Thank you ❤ I appreciate that you did not present liberalism as synonymous with democracy, along an erroneous continuum from left-liberalism-democracy to right-conservatism-authoritarianism/fascism. We need liberalism and conservatism in a democracy. Neither should be a dirty word. We need fair, reasonable, good faith definitions of conservatism too. Tolerance of meaningful liberal change and meaningful conservative preservation, in balance, nourishes democracy. What is meaningful? To decide that, we need to debate in good faith and find middle ground to guard against extremes. The US Constitution was designed to preserve what is meaningful in a democracy while also being open to meaningful change through amendment. One last thought. Children need decision making by their parents with a gradual move toward autonomy. Conservative or liberal parents may do a disservice to their children by enforcing their ideology and looking down their noses at children who dissent. William Penn wrote: Obedience without liberty is slavery. Liberty without obedience is confusion. Our democracy and children are vulnerable to both.
Really, really great discussion. Thank you.
To describe the influx of immigrants as a "positive vote for liberal democracy" then you have to explain why the first thing "these voters with their feet" do when they get access to material benefits within liberal democracies, is to consume and implement a non-liberal regime in all their immigrant communities.
Nope. Your argument is still siding with their's. Try this...To describe the influx of immigrants as a "positive vote for liberal democracy" then you are basically turning your cheek at the reasons why they are fleeing their own countries. I don't even want to go into why they couldn't or wouldn't dig deeper at this sort of argument but this entire talk was lacking any 'real' substance. Also, poor countries don't have free and fair elections because of corruption influenced by Western governments in order to implement hegemony and Western corporations in order to extract resources. Western countries also don't have free elections because the people lack political analysis and are easily swayed by smooth talkers who are bought and paid for by the same corporations who corrupt poorer countries. What happens everywhere else happens in the West except we get a softer version of it.
Because people want their cake and to eat it
Citation needed. Isn't the first thing most immigrant families do find employment?
Wonderful conversation
Such a pleasure to listen to this debate. I hope that Fukuyama is right, but I have to be honest and say that I find Gray’s views and arguments to be more persuasive and fundamentally true
Liberalism never survived Romanticism with its divided literatures, and patriotism of the 18th century. It sustains a goal but has been transformed routinely. The latest assaults of social media take discussion to the depths of tribalism.
Because Israel is so wonderful an example of liberal democracy!
26:00 On that point, "tactical nukes" seem to serve a similar purpose to strategic nuclear weapons: that is, they're political rather than practical. First, Russian war infrastructure has depended on capturing existing Ukrainian infrastructure to advance, and then it digs in, and so it can't effectively advance and defend territory that it hits so hard as to evaporate the infrastructure. But second, the relatively small yield of tactical nuclear weapons is such that, if the Russians really wanted to do that job, conventional weapons would seem sufficient, without locally irradiating the area so that in the first 48 hours after striking, their own troops can't advance on that zone without getting sick, and without the political consequence of escalating the entire conflict and likely bringing NATO directly in with a conventional response. That does not mean that Russia may never use them, only that their real purpose is to make threats about no-fly zones, and it would be a very bad idea to actually hit anything with them that the Russians plan to take.
Like too many people, Fukuyama is confused between liberalism and what people actually do in its name. Few people oppose liberal values (freedom, democracy, rule of law) but most people - especially in developing countries - oppose efforts to expand US/ Western dominance in the name of liberalism. Nobody want their countries be bombed, attacked, sanctioned on the pretext that there is lack of freedom, however true it may be. Historical record does not support the claim that the US and the West adhere to liberal values, just look at their relations with Pinochet, Marcos, Saudi family etc. or how the US defies the UN Law on Sea, the Int' Criminal Court etc. or how the US imposed anti-WTO tariffs on China (and even Canada). Liberalism is not wrong, but people who think the West is acting out of liberalism are wrong.
none of which is what Fukuyama is talking about. He does point out issues with the neo-liberal economic policies (Freidman and the Chicago school) and implemented by Reagan and Thatcher which led to huge inequalities which could be addressed by policy. And its not just US centric. Fukuyama's is talking about liberal democratic governments, with independent judiciary, freedom of speech and market based economy. Any alternative is essentially authoritative. And plenty of those societies have much higher inequality.
You are mixing things. U.S. sovereignty, U.S. Security, Western security, international security, neo-liberalism and capital expansion, corporatism, etc etc.
It's not just one thing. If only it were that simple.
@@peterkratoska4524Agree neoliberalism has been a disaster but you’re both wrong the issue is Western imperialism. Most of the non Western world hates the US/West due to imperialism not liberalism.
Just listen to these clowns talking about how people don’t want to move to China or Russia but to liberal societies (US/West) without mention of all the coups/ assassinations /wars (causing refugees) the West has caused.
All the expats I know livening in China & Russia are screaming to get the hell out of the West and move over to those countries. Almost no homeless/ both 90%+ homeownership rates/ lower taxes and higher growth than in the West.
@@cocosocialistrat8979 imperialism is how the west got rich and took over the world but it also led (inadvertently to the spread of democracy, the industrial and scientific revolution). And btw Rusia was also a colonial power, it was a land empire rather than naval. As was China, as Im sure Buryats, Dagestanis, Georgians, Siberians, and Tibetans, Uighurs etc know.
Yes, Im sure everyone is flocking to China to their surveiillance state, and to Russia where half the country side have no flush toilets.
Homeless? That is the least of their problems as the murderers and rapists who were accepted into the army and are now pardoned and returning back (with even violence).
You forgot the millions of young and capable Russians who left in the first 2 yrs.
Your comment is risible.
Another Ruski User. A failed state temporarily surviving on barter of discounted oil
11:21 Also that "nationalism" as a reason for liberalism solving the problem frames the issue incorrectly. Nationalism only occured in the two states which had not been a nation state before. But devided city- annex regional states. Germany and Italy.
The unification made the people feel stronger. Especially because they had been occupied by Napoleon in the 18th century. Preventing a new loss was the main motivation for it.
After loosing the second world war, obviously the nationalist fire was smuthered. So 'liberalism' was not the choice of any rational decission. But a default outcome. Then supported by growing wealth thanks to economic innovation and thus delivering more equality to be satisfied with. Nothing of that was the product of a smart decission or philosophy.
A student shared "i" AM will say, longing to LEARN. What is decision and philosophy?
Beloved remember thy shared "i" AM, came with sincere conversations given just for thee! And remember thy FEET is shared Feet! Shared "i" AM come forth!
Liberalism wasn't default in Germany post 1945. East Germany became communist. And there was a real worry that without the Marshall Plan West Germans would have voted for a Socialist government.
@jonathanphillips5794
No, that's right. But it always depends on worldconditions when such a relaxed state exists or not.
In fact both became liberal. Wait and see.
In fact the fear west Germans would have voted communist (which they would not have done, since the industry (car, machines, chemistry and steel) was on their side), gave them Marshall help. And they were not against it.
They could quickly earn it back and were given a headstart.Thank you very much.
The east Germans were just as well 'forced' a condition they could not refuse. Because they had lost the war just as well.
They stoicly accepted communism.
* Remember a worker class revolt had already been struck down in 1919 in Berlin.
The liberal state they were in (and still are), meant you officially accept the rules (like any German would) but amongst friends and family you make up and speak out your own mind.
To evade problems one waits for an opportunity. Which for them came in 1989. Yes it took a long wait. But Germans are patient people.
They were both liberal.
@novinceinhosic3531
Something goes missing here. I am afraid you are confusing patriotism with nationalism.
Of course after the war the country could not vote for 'pro German' (meaning potentially speaking) provinces.
Whether they were pro monarchy or not does not make any difference.
The country wanted the Gaule. He was their military leader they trusted in. And militaries (like Frederick the Great and Napoleon) always respect the people.
Think like they think. It was patriotism that drove them. Not nationalism.
Through a simple lens, liberalism is freedom aka the set of negative rights we understand such as freedom from enslavement, freedom from violence, freedom from unfair trials.
Thereafter some people (we know who) dreamt up some positive rights (freedom to have an iphone, freedom to not work, freedom to take other peoples stuff under the guise of redistrubutive taxes). They could have used another new word to describe their ideology but they instead chose to hijack a word that was already clearly understood. We know that side of the political spectrum specialise in the manipulation of language. Orwell taught us that.
We now find ourselves in the difficult situation of having logomachic debates because of the dishonesty of those that want to claim to be liberals but are not.
I have one simple question for Mr Fukuyama:
How much real money is required per capita from tax payers, not from printing money, in order his ideas to be implemented?
In my calculations its 80% tax levy is required
If geopolitics is poker,
Fukuyama is a bluffer
Gray is not
Does not liberalism lead to anarchy or a kind of permissivness ? The concept is not relevant in 21st century.
Yes it is. Progressivism destroys liberalism that’s why everything’s E ffed up right now.
We are living in post-liberal democracy.
A more important question is = does liberalism solve problems?
Can liberalism do anything about climate change.
Fascinating topic!
A lot of right-wing political foundational assumptions shared by the speakers -- much repeting of Western propaganda and Western cheerleading.
Could you explain it?
if you think this is mostly right wing, you must have some pretty skewed politics.
@@ziyu8061 Consider the nonsense they're repeating about Russia, Putin and Ukraine. The US set Ukraine up as a patsy in proxy war to weaken Russia and overthrow Putin -- a brilliant and successful leader, who has beat the crap out of NATO and Russia's economy is doing great. But since Putin stood up to America, they have the population believing he's Hitler, as they do anyone who stands up to them. Now listen again to what the two establishment hacks here are saying and predicting about the war.
most western propaganda are from the left wing, btw
What free election? Donors decide results. What free speech? Universities are targetted for their analysis and media serve arms manufacturers.
When ordinary expsenses become unaffordable for most people, self-interest will vote against the system thats protects self-interest.
Russia has 16 cities with more than 1million people, and Moscow with 13million. Their nuclear arsenal may be larger but I don't see much utility in comparing the numbers if 1 would decimate an entire city. Their large arsenal tells you how many enemies it thinks it has.
Oh man, Foreigners commenting on US culture war issues is often so cringe. This woman almost undoubtedly has a one-sided and/or goofy view of things like police shootings and school curriculum in the US.
Two mythical statistical beasts were mentioned, one after the other. For eg, alleged liberals believe a massively disproportionate number of black men are shot by police. Journalists and intellectuals often believe this without question. Questioning such myths and producing evidence to poke such 'liberals' inevitably leads to being attacked by the 'liberal society and those 'liberal' journalists and intellectuals will not come to your aid. . We continue to ignore this cowardice and we continue not to challenge the likes of the boob who's hosting this talk.
Well, back in 1990s the leading thought was that the global market without borders (when socialist block cracked down) meant a kind of the ideal state. No wars, no conflicts. Paradise and happy "exchange of goods" for pure satisfaction. Ooops, it has not lasted forever, dear sirs. And probably that "old", and surely outdated, daddy Karl Marx was a bit on the right side, saying that "the market cannot spread forever, there are the limits, indeed". And now we can see it.
Why all the dissing of Fukoyama in the comments? I think he's taking a common-sense, moderate, long-term perspective.
weird discussion on something that doesn't exist - we have neoliberalism not liberalism.
...
This is why liberalism will end. The best it has to offer is people like you whereas other ideologies attract competence.
@@futures2247 define neoliberalism
@@Derek_H_360 privatisation, deregulation, austerity, individualism and the craziness of 'homoeconomicus' or economic man an awful one dimensional view of human beings as greedy, self interested, maximisers of personal gain and this is something to be celebrated and encouraged at every opportunity - it all grew out of the work of Mises and Hayek and was well supported and promoted by the powerful for obvious reasons but they managed to sell it as trickle down or as I see it piss on economics. Useful new book by Monbiot and Hutchison called the invisible doctrine - really useful book
You need some education. I bet you are a Trump supporter.
This discussion is beyond your comprehension
Liberalism always was the philosophy of the bourgeoisie, not the working class. Now that wealth inequality in the world’s liberal democracies, especially the USA, has progressed to such a profound extent it’s become clear how artificial the concept of “economic middle class” has always been. It’s become clear too how very distinct the difference is between the vast numerically enormous the masses of working class people are compared to the numerically tiny minority of the ultra wealthy ruling class capitalist bourgeoisie, whose philosophy “liberalism” really is. The radical individualist “freedom” of the liberal capitalist is just not a realistic ideology for a nation of hundreds of millions of increasingly poor wage laborer, working class people; the conflict between the ideology of the nation’s ruling bourgeoisie capitalist class and its ruled working class labor has produced the internal contradictions that have provoked the rise of the fascism of the Republican Party we’ve seen over the last decade in response to the empty social justice rhetoric meant as a band-aid and camouflage for the economic needs of the left and working class in the country.
How can people with their full wits about them, not believe in perspectivism? And how can ´perspectivists’ not believe in the possibilities of human progress?
Fukuyama is not a deep thinker, but a simplifying thinker.
He's an apologist for the 'unipolar moment' of 1989. That moment has now ended.
very inspiring and of course quite frightening. Thank you
Why frightening?
Some good quotes on liberalism: "Liberalism is the politics of getting rid of politics" - Carl Schmitt. "Liberalism is an edifice behind which there is no building" - Benito Mussolini. "Liberalism regards as sacred the right of everyone, however humble, odd, or inarticulate, to criticize the government, including the man at the top" - Leo Strauss.
based
The interviewer's faith in the Western alliance vis a vis Ukraine is touching, if rather naive.
Don’t repost an old discussion, have them both come back and let’s hear what they have to say two years on!
The flaw in Fukuyama's thought is the assumption that economic growth can be managed so 'EVERYONE' gets a little richer. That is not the case in the American economy. The 'RICH' don't pay any reasonable share of taxes, and the larger the corporations the less they pay with quite a few paying nothing. Meanwhile, Repubs bust unions, the same corporations paying no taxes are protected by Repubs with rRump promising more cuts, while the workers and everyone else in the lower 80% of the population get negligible shares of the 'economy growth'. That is why the Repubs don't want anything about Karl Marx's economic theory taught in American schools!
“Conflicts of toleration” and concern for illiberalism within small communities with raising children denied information hence ability to think freely… maybe we need to look at levels of war with tactical, operational, strategic. While Dave Snowden believes such to be fractal, I think this grossly wrong. Only a few things may be fractal in this sense. You can be liberal at a national level tolerant of multiple groups within the nation while inside the groups can be illiberal. And we’re ok as the fundamental goal of avoiding the violence on a grand scale is met. Yes, there may be a ‘violence’ imposed in the denials of raising the child, but such really cannot be avoided while such is a small cost to avoiding the violence between either state and group or group to group.
I see where the publication date of this upload suggested a recency that is not warranted -- no wonder some of the interviewer's and Fukayama's statements come off as ridiculous
Now ye are all in front! Remember thy shared "i" AM, came with sincere conversations given just for thee, and thy shared Feet. From here!
This is way too west centric ... No counter point at all. If you put Israel in place of Russia ... You can say the same about democracy, except if there is a problem, you will hear a shitload of rhetoric ... Thats why they skipped all that in the iraq war ... So come on, west had a good run ...
sure it had a good run, its still where people want to go. I don't see immigrants wanting to go to China, Russia, Saudi, etc
This is such a pedestrian comment but I'm going to leave it anyway: Fukuyama looks like an Asian Putin. 😂
Very pedestrian but hilarious
Well done, you couldn't have made a worse insult on putin than that. Cnn has taught you well.
21:19 Russian culture has always been dominated by tribal warfare and living in an on average unfriendly climate leading to poor food resources. This results in maffia type oligarchs (something like the types invading Cuba for its sugar cane, producing alcohol back at the time when alcohol was prohibited in the US) when all brakes go loose. Liberalism under those circumstances derails.
Why can't people see that there is value in conservativism as well as liberalism? Like, it's not one or the other. One relies on scarcity of resources while the other abundance. So in a complex societal system where there is scarcity in some sectors and abundance in others, there will always be some mix of liberalism and conservativism. Perhaps there should be a sliding scale created by our AI overlords that allows us to think critically about which direction we need to be going in. But that requires a far more intellectually honest society.
It's really nice to watch this at the end of 2024 and see that Fukuyama was completely wrong about the Ukraine. 🇨🇳[Z]🇷🇺
Gives me the impression that Fukushima is thanking with his feet...
Who exactly is Fukushima? And what exactly does "thanking with his feet" mean?
@@jasongray4517
Writing at my cellphone, didn't help. Not checking what I wrote made it worst. English is not my first language.
I wanted to write Fukuyama. He made a comment about the succesful liberal societies linking with the emigration. In his opinion the direction of their feet tells you about their opinion about the liberalism. It is so shallow though. He is talking more about materialism and less or nothing about the values it the virtue's. That why I said ...he is thinking with his feet.
Thank you.
Clarity and coherence concerning all thy shared "i" AM, came with sincere conversations given just for thee, and thy shared Feet resting upon the Footstool all dry grounds nor the world. Creation come HERE in front and remind! LORD without thy shared "i" AM none exist in front of thee!
FF made a great splash with "the End" and now it's going into that great dustbin of great ideas that people forgot. I'm sure it's not a great feeling to see your lifes' seminal work begin to dissolve before your eyes, so I can sympathize with FF, and I understand that he might be a bit off-kilter because of it. This might explain how he can promote a scenario where a Ukraine victory might lead to a favourable outcome. Ignoring the obvious catastrophe of engaging with nuclear weapons he supposes that the Russians will simply depose Putin and carry on in a recalcitrant fashion. Oh the incredible hubris !!! Yes, just as we've predicted the natural outcomes of our former endeavors to effect regime changes, we should trust our good judgement and give Russian society a good shake and expect it to settle down to playing ball with us. I am humbled by the deconstruction of what I had assumed to be an intelligent social critic.
Please define liberalism! Is neoliberalism liberalism? Is capitalism liberalism? What if neoliberalism and capitalism appear to be at odds with democracy, as is turning out to be the case more and more?
Why is fukuyama still relevant? He showed himself as a fool.
The establishment is deeply devoted to their fools.
Come in front of the SON OF MAN. Remind and comes with comfort. Without being offended unto one another. Together!
The Secular Political State is the death of wisdom. When man tries to replace the guidance of Spirit-God, received as wisdom, with his own (limited) egoistic perception of what constitutes right or wrong action, he has no certainty that justice and truth will prevail in all human decisions. When wisdom is absent, ignorant man is playing God. It's like throwing dice and expecting the right combination or result everytime. You might as well prepare to expect misery as your reward as well.
There is no alternative to wisdom. And if we wish to make sound judgements everytime, communion with God is essential.
May wisdom prevail.🙏
14:50 Again not totally correct. People tolerate things as long they are in a position enabling them not to care. When this changes they stop tolerating everything.
By the way, referring to revolutions, the fall of the Berlin wall has been a so called silent revoltion. Leading to the end of the USSR. Because they understood the democratic vote for a better economy very well. They had failed to deliver. So again, living in interesting times does not mean it is a bad omen. But problems to solve nicely.
Dá um joinha se você tá aqui depois de ver o vídeo do professor Ricardo Almeida comentando sobre esse debate! ⬛️🟨⬜️
Seems like fukuyama joined Harvard through the DEI quota haha
Is Gray ready for the rematch he invited?
As a citizen of the “ The greatest purveyor of violence in the world“, the US empire, and the greatest promoter of so-called liberalism I call BS on this self-serving discussion.
Introducing unfamiliar ways of speaking unto many but yet is clear as water unto Whom BELONGS? Gratitude and Honor will find as commanded belongs.
Left-liberalism is the relevant transformation that reflects the comprehensive cultural term of those forces that used to push for socialist state economics. It is the liberalism of the post-economic Left and has fused easily with neoconservatism in all things foreign policy, which is where corporatism has been reintroduced as the modern expression of neoliberalism.
_"Left-liberalism"_
Doesn't exist. Liberalism is a Far-Right ideology.
Beloved imagine thy own hands punching thy own face day and night!
Is that the same Helen Lewis that debated Jordan Peterson?!
yeah i think i recognized her too.
I'd like you to invite Prof. Dan Schueftan chairman of the National Security Studies Center at the University of Haifa, Israel. A brilliant mind and with a great sense of humour!
wait, isnt fukuyama obsolete already?!
Students shared "i" AM command all the Gods of Men in front? Students shared "i" AM will say, Lord can't exist! Why? Same with all our names! Well said!
Angels who persevere and heard the WORD will say, What is Fear? Fear HIM! Who love with patience? Yes, likewise if denied. Love thee enough to DEPART FROM thee!
46:25 No one in Latin America move to Cube. No one in Africa move to Somalia
Beloved some will say, there's a New Table made from a hand without blood stains upon HIS hand. Resting upon SUSTAINED! For all the RENOWNED can put upon the NEW Table! Together! Likewise the NEW Table knows? Can be kept nor needed to be reminded and comes with comfort! Never will hearkened their shared Hearts!
Fukuyama is softcore Kissinger. John Gray has more grasp of Liberalism and its Essence.
Sorry....had to stop listening after 10 mins....so naive .....so many blindspots...so shallow concerning economic realities for the people on the ground.
Does FF believe in the Easter bunny?
I admire John very much but he seems less informed on the issue of controversies and side efffects of the mRNA-vaccines.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs.
The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues.
The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many.
The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to.
The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests.
It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
How else? Is like what is You? Without the shared "i" AM You!
It seems to me like its all a balance. Take any idea and stretch it out without any tempering influences and you end up in a bad place.
The problem is things are always changing and the balance point is always shifting. So how do we create institutions and social norms that do that better. Maybe humanity isn't up to that challenge and its humanity that needs the upgrade, as scary as that project might be.
How's that "End of History" Francis?
Boring.
Fukuyama is insightful and lucid
1:20:12 the problem is who define what hate speech is? In the UK a lot of people have been put in prison for sharing a meme that someone else felt it was hate speech. So,
Is that Helen Lewis?
Edit: yes it is
Mr. Fukushima unawareness to decouple linking immigration with resource plunder/ brain drain is just hilariously phenomenal. And yea he's mr Fukushima 😂😅
Great discussion though hardly a debate, in spite of the host's now infamous partisanship.