IN WATCHING the flow of events over the past decade or so, it is hard to avoid the feeling that something very fundamental has happened in world history. březen Před patnácti lety jsem ve své knize Konec dějin a poslední člověk prohlásil, že chce-li být společnost moderní, neexistuje alternativa k tržnímu. Francis Fukuyama a Samuel Huntington (Konec dějin nebo střet civilizací?) že se nacházíme na konci dějin v důsledku vítězství liberální demokracie jako.
|Published (Last):||21 June 2017|
|PDF File Size:||2.81 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.55 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In the weeks after the attacks, Fareed Zakaria called the events “the end of the end of history”, while George Will wrote that history had “returned from vacation”. It is hard to believe that when they return home to run the country they will be content for China to be the only country in Asia unaffected by the larger democratizing trend.
Barber described ” Fukjyama ” as a secular, liberal, corporate-friendly transformation of the world and used the word ” jihad ” to refer to the competing forces of tribalism and religious fundamentalism, with a special emphasis on Islamic fundamentalism.
Dějiny na konci dějin by Francis Fukuyama – Project Syndicate
In this century, states have adopted ddjin articulated doctrines with explicit foreign policy agendas legitimizing expansionism, like Marxism-Leninism or National Socialism. To take the “neo-realist” theory seriously, one would have to believe that “natural” competitive behavior would reassert itself among the OECD states were Russia and China to disappear from the face of the earth. In fact, modern economists, recognizing that man does not always behave as a profit -maximizer, posit a “utility” function, utility being either income or some other good that can be maximized: Fukuyama’s celebration of liberal hegemony is criticized by Derrida:.
Dehin is still not clear whether the Soviet people are as “Protestant” as Gorbachev and will follow him down that path. In the essay and book, Huntington argued that the temporary conflict between ideologies is being replaced by the ancient conflict between civilizations.
This is most evident in the economic sphere, where the reform economists around Gorbachev have become steadily more radical in their support for free markets, to the point where some like Nikolai Shmelev do not mind being compared in public to Milton Friedman.
Its best known propagator was Karl Marx, who believed that the direction of historical development was a purposeful one determined by the interplay of material forces, and would come to an end only with the achievement of a communist utopia that would finally resolve all prior contradictions.
Believers in this line of thought take the relations that existed between the participants in the classical nineteenth century European balance of power as a model for what a de-ideologized contemporary world would look like.
Therefore, Marxists like Perry Anderson have been among Fukuyama’s fiercest critics.
But those who believe that the future must inevitably be socialist tend to be very old, or very marginal to the real political discourse of their societies. Fukuyama did discuss radical Islam briefly in The End of History. The fukuyana between two opposing systems is no longer a determining tendency of the present-day era.
The end of history according to Francis Fukuyama and Czech comments twenty years after
Some argue [ fukuyamw But in fact, in many traditional peasant communities, raising the piece-work rate actually had the opposite effect of komec labor productivity: Some have argued against the book due to an ideological disagreement with the concept of liberal democracy. If you can’t find this email, please check your spam folder.
International life for the part of the world that has reached the end of history is far more preoccupied with economics than with politics or strategy.
Thus black poverty fukuyzma the United States is not the inherent product of liberalism, but is rather the “legacy of slavery and racism” which persisted long after the formal abolition of slavery.
In fact, the notion that ideology is a superstructure imposed on a substratum of permanent great power interest is a highly questionable proposition.
While Marxists disagree with Koonec claim that capitalist democracy represents the end of history, they support the idea that the “end of history” will consist of the victory of democracy: I want to avoid the materialist determinism that fukiyama that liberal economics inevitably produces liberal politics, because I believe that both economics and politics presuppose an autonomous prior state of consciousness that makes them possible.
But what both groups desire is tradition, order, and authority; they manifest no deep commitment to Marxism-Leninism, except insofar as they have invested much of their own lives dejih it. See also list of wars between democracies. Many of the wars and revolutions fought since that time have been undertaken in the name of ideologies which claimed to be more advanced than liberalism, but whose pretensions were ultimately unmasked by history.
The End of History? – Francis Fukuyama
Unlike the propagators of traditional Marxism-Leninism, however, ultranationalists in the USSR believe in their Slavophile cause passionately, and one gets the sense that the fascist alternative is not one that has played itself out entirely there. South Korea had developed into a modern, urbanized society with an increasingly large and well-educated middle class that could not possibly be isolated from the larger fkuuyama trends around them.
Surely free markets and stable political systems are a necessary precondition to capitalist economic growth. It is precisely this kind of individual and his pursuit of material incentives that is posited as the basis for economic life as such in economic textbooks.
Dějiny na konci dějin
But while man’s very perception of the material world is shaped by his historical consciousness of it, the material world can clearly affect in return the viability of a particular state of consciousness. There would still be a high and perhaps rising level of ethnic and nationalist violence, since those are impulses incompletely played out, even in parts of the post-historical world.
I mention the last man either, the creature at the end of history. Hegel was the first philosopher to speak the language of modern social science, insofar as man for him was the product of his concrete historical and social environment and not, as earlier natural right theorists would have it, a collection of more or less fixed “natural” attributes.