Thread: Capitalism, Fukuyama and Teleology

I agree with him for the most part, but there is one problem with that. Which is that the capitalism we get isn't always capitalism. I think this is related to corruption, and there is still a lot of corruption in government around the world. The US has been slowly shifting from capitalism to more socialism, as it has become more and more corrupt. I think in general socialism is very easily corruptible, and government that are corrupt tend to slowly become more socialist or communist as well.

I always thought utopia through capitalism and small government was possible. If everyone is doing well, people are happy to share and help each other out. There is no need for all this force all the time. I think when people believe in them self, and trust their follow man enough that they can give up the security blanket of government, that will be the point when we will reach the absolute pinnacle of history, and I think that will be done with capitalism.

I hope this guy isn't talking about the "capitalism" we have now, or the "liberal democracy" we have now.

Yes recently in America capitalism has been somewhat merged with elements of socialism which I don't think is inherently a negative thing. Why do you believe that socialism and communism lead to corruption?

I for one am skeptical of the idea that any form of government can cater to all the peoples needs. Capitalism has tried really hard to sculpt peoples desires toward unnecessary things in order to fulfill them producing the illusion of a high standard of living. Materialism is a form of social repression. I believe this to be only one of the factors responsible for (American) apathy towards politics, as long as we are fat and happy with our ipod and starfucks we have no reason to complain right? Sorry bout the rant.

I think it would be great if people shared and helped each other out towards a common goal of benefiting all, but often times we are only motivated to enrich ourselves not our community, no matter whose teeth we have to kick in to get to the top, an attitude which capitalism breeds.Not to mention capitalism is destructive to the earth as well as destructive to our relations to each other(see Marx's theory of alienation) and perpetuates inequality.

I agree about the idea that a form of self-governance(hopefully a stateless, classless society) would be ideal but I do not think this goal is compatible with capitalism.

If a form of self-government (lets drop the political correctness and just call it anarchism) is achieved, human history would have completed a circle and ended like it began.

Socialism and communism require a large central government to work. The bigger government gets the more corrupt it becomes. So socialism always ends up with high corruption because of the government getting so large.

Most of the issues with capitalism, isn't a problem with capitalism itself but issues with the government messing around with capitalism, to try to alter it in a way that suits them better. People really do care about their community, and I am sure most people you know are not motivated entirely by money. How many people do you know is always trying to cheap and steal from people to make a quick buck? Unless you live in a horrible neighborhood or something, I would guess not that many.

People like to try to make out capitalism as everyone trying to grab stuff for them self but most people are fairly responsible and are not going to use unethical methods to get what they want. There are some, but in a pure capitalism system the people can still be punished for it. Capitalism and anarchism go hand in hand though, and complement each other nicely.

I like to think that the ideal end goal of anarchy and socialism is the same thing. The difference is that socialism is for little kids, who needed to be protected and told what to do by their mommy government, while anarchy is the more adult version where people can just share and do the right thing because they are a responsible person. A lot of humans are still on that child level and that is why we have so much socialism. When humanity grows up enough to act mature on a global level, we will probably go back to anarchy and self government.

Originally Posted by Alric

Socialism and communism require a large central government to work.

Ummmm, I'm pretty sure that the aim of communism is to have no government.

Anyway, this guy sounds like a moron. "The End of History" is a retarded concept; severely stupid.

How can it be the end of history? Unless he means that we will end up in a 1984-like scenario where the government controls history. But going by your description, he doesn't think that. So he's a moron.

Anyway, I think that the next step is either going to be anarchy after a massive societal collapse, or the link in my signature VVVV

Alternatively we could become socialist, but it's bloody unlikely. And not the best option either.

OR we will stay relatively the same, but the political process (like what the government decides to do on certain issues and what laws the implement etc.) will be decided by groups/people like Anonymous. I think this because we rely so heavily on computers and the internet now, so it is quite obvious that people who know how to manipulate this will get their way. Just as the people who know how to convince and con others and manipulate the monetary and political system get their way now.

How does history end? Can someone explain this to me?

Doesn't. Impossibility; History is past happenings anyway.

Probably thought it sounded cool or something (which it doesn't) and didn't realise it had nothing to do with what he was saying and is just moronic.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Yes recently in America capitalism has been somewhat merged with elements of socialism which I don't think is inherently a negative thing. Why do you believe that socialism and communism lead to corruption?

The timeline of the departure from any sort of notion of free-market capitalism in the U.S. stretches quite a bit longer than "recently."

I don't care about whether socialism and communism lead to corruption. What I care about is how they're inherently unstable (an attribute usually given to capitalism) and doomed to fail. Socialistic and communistic economies cannot rationally distribute resources, and so all they lead to is a poor, starving, and pissed off population.

I for one am skeptical of the idea that any form of government can cater to all the peoples needs.

They can't. Central planners lack the knowledge necessary cater to everyone's needs. Only the cooperation (even if people don't know each other personally) of individuals can do this.

Capitalism has tried really hard to sculpt peoples desires toward unnecessary things in order to fulfill them producing the illusion of a high standard of living.

This is rather subjective, don't you think? What you deem unnecessary others deem important.

Materialism is a form of social repression. I believe this to be only one of the factors responsible for (American) apathy towards politics, as long as we are fat and happy with our ipod and starfucks we have no reason to complain right? Sorry bout the rant.

Again, very subjective. Some people bask in their material objects and are content, while others relinquish all but a few worldly items.

I think it would be great if people shared and helped each other out towards a common goal of benefiting all, but often times we are only motivated to enrich ourselves not our community, no matter whose teeth we have to kick in to get to the top, an attitude which capitalism breeds. Not to mention capitalism is destructive to the earth as well as destructive to our relations to each other(see Marx's theory of alienation) and perpetuates inequality.

A very utopian ideal. Unless you plan on kick-starting a real-life experiment based on Brave New World and condition people from birth to have a common goal in mind in other to achieve some sort of "new economic man," I don't see such a system working.

The thing about capitalism (and for clarification purposes, I do not mean the mercantilistic/Keynesian system the U.S. has at the moment) is that you don't need everyone working toward a common goal. Billions of people across the globe work in their own self-interests, without knowing each other, probably never having the chance to meet each other, who share vastly difference political and religious beliefs, and amazingly, as Bastiat noted, "Paris gets fed."

Regarding the environment, that is a fairly complex issue. It has a lot to do with who-owns-what-land, and the tragedy of the commons tends to play a large role. Saying "capitalism destroys the environment" glosses over the issue, IMO.

I agree about the idea that a form of self-governance(hopefully a stateless, classless society) would be ideal but I do not think this goal is compatible with capitalism.

I know why you think this, and I obviously disagree, but is it possible in any other system?

If a form of self-government (lets drop the political correctness and just call it anarchism) is achieved, human history would have completed a circle and ended like it began.

Why?

...obviously it's a metaphor for when all major events have occurred; political progress reaches its apex and hence stops. I didn't think it was that obscure at all.

I'm not sure I agree the current system we have is so great. The only method available to us for massive research projects (Manhattan is the canonical example) is a centralised effort, contrary to pure capitalism. Yet in my opinion this is exactly what we currently need (in fusion) to prevent a looming energy crisis. All governments, however, seem inherently myopic. Governments are too stupid, and most importantly, due to the party system, too self interested, to ever do anything more than react to current events. Has there ever been any government with substantial foresight and a will to act substantively on what is coming?

When the oil continues to rocket and people realise exactly how terminal, irreversible, and deep this shit is, I don't think anybody will be lending credence any more to 'this system is the pinnacle'.

Originally Posted by Xei

...obviously it's a metaphor for when all major events have occurred; political progress reaches its apex and hence stops. I didn't think it was that obscure at all.

Well it's a shite metaphor.

I agree with the rest of your post.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

I just read an essay by Francis Fukuyama called The End of History? which argues that mankind has arrived at the pinnacle of history, which in his opinion, is capitalism and liberal democracy.

He argues that it is the best possible society and the end of our ideological evolution (for Hegel the dialectical process) resulting in a universal government (he uses examples like the widespread adoption of capitalism in 3rd and 1st world countries and capitalism's "triumph" over communism) and claims that all the possible alternatives to capitalism have failed and they only step left to take is to improve upon capitalism.

Both Hegel and Marx believed that history would end when mankind achieved a form of government that would fulfill our fundamental desires and provide a high quality of life for all. For Hegel it was a constitutional monarchy and for Marx it was the Communist state.

Fukuyama's ideas have been heavily criticized by a number of leftist thinkers like Derrida who says:"Never in history has the horizon of the thing whose survival is being celebrated been as dark, threatening and threatened." He also mentions the fact that under capitalism never has famine, war, inequality etc. been more prevalent.

So what I wanted to ask you is: Is capitalism and liberal democracy the triumph of history that can only now be improved upon? Is there another form of government that is looming on the horizon? Is communism over and done with? Are utopias just a fantasy?

Anyway I would sincerely appreciate your opinions on this matter. Thank you.

It is both very naive and very arrogant of him to hold this position. As long as there's scientific and technological advancement to be made, it's pretty much guaranteed the game will change, and so will politics.

And really, it doesn't take a genius to see our current system is far from perfect.

Just to clarify what Fukuyama means by the “end of history” is simply that all of human history is leading up to an end of our ideological evolution which will result in finding a form of government that suits everyone’s needs and basically is a utopia. He doesn’t mean that nothing will happen after this or that the world will end or anything, this is just Hegel’s vision whom Fukuyama cites a lot during the essay.

@Blueline
Yes historically socialism and communism have led to low standards of living and famine while failing at distrusting resources but keep in mind how capitalism distributes resources, which is often at the cost of other third world countries. The diamond trade is a good example. People all over Africa are getting paid bread crumbs to destroy their own environment to dig up diamonds to sell to bourgeoisie housewives who are paying up to thousands of dollars for these shiny little rocks. Is there something wrong with this or am I just crazy? Which leads to my next point.

Yes it is fairy subjective but I stand by it, I believe capitalism has created false needs. Take the diamond example from above. People do consider diamonds to be important, you “must” buy a diamond for your bride-to-be or what have you. This is not a natural necessity it is a social construction. Does the bourgeoisie house wife care that her precious diamonds extraction causes social/political upheaval and environmental destruction across the pond? Not likely.

This is why I say that materialism is a form of social repression, as long as we get what we “need” we could care less about injustice, war, and environmental destruction. My point is, to gain something like a diamond or oil you have to take it from somewhere. This leads to exploitation and violence. Materialism is destructive no matter what you buy or buy into, but we are indifferent as long as we get personal gratification.

Also regarding the environment I think Thailand is a great example. The people who “own the land” have sold massive amounts of it to foreign interests, like us in America. So basically what happened was the 1st world needed wood so for the past couple decades Thailand has been heavily deforested to cater to the needs of basically people like you and me. A lot of their rainforest is gone and what do the people have to show for it? Nothing. Only a few private land owners got rich (and probably moved out of Thailand) and left the rest of the country in squalor. To say capitalism destroys the environment is not a gloss over the issue it is an understatement.

Do you mean if self-governance is possible with any other system besides capitalism? There are a lot of “Anarcho-capitalists” out there nowadays but I’m not really sure if capitalism is compatible with anarchism. Like I said before I believe capitalism breeds inequality and any would-be anarchist community would be a classless society. Why do you disagree?

I have thought about that last statement a bit and changed my mind. We didn’t start out a classless society, they were likely patriarchs in power in prehistoric times.

The aim of communism is to have no central government, but look at all the communist countries there has been, they all have huge governments. It is obvious why. They seek to redistribute everything so everyone has an equal share, and the only way they can think to do that is with a large government stepping in to do the redistribution for them. Which goes back to how it is a flawed system.

The only way to share everything without a government is for people to voluntarily share. Otherwise, if you force them to share you need government to do the forcing. Which means the only way to reach that goal is through anarchy, not communism.

Also an anarchist society doesn't have to be classless. In the ideal situation everyone is happy and has what they want, but that doesn't mean everyone has to be identical to each other, or own exactly the same things. Capitalism promotes prosperty for everyone, not equality for everyone. If everyone is doing well, that is a good system. When people are not doing well others help them out and give them a boost up. There is no reason you need to have a second car just because someone else has a second car though.

Originally Posted by Alric

The aim of communism is to have no central government, but look at all the communist countries there has been, they all have huge governments. It is obvious why. They seek to redistribute everything so everyone has an equal share, and the only way they can think to do that is with a large government stepping in to do the redistribution for them. Which goes back to how it is a flawed system.

The only way to share everything without a government is for people to voluntarily share. Otherwise, if you force them to share you need government to do the forcing. Which means the only way to reach that goal is through anarchy, not communism.

Also an anarchist society doesn't have to be classless. In the ideal situation everyone is happy and has what they want, but that doesn't mean everyone has to be identical to each other, or own exactly the same things. Capitalism promotes prosperty for everyone, not equality for everyone. If everyone is doing well, that is a good system. When people are not doing well others help them out and give them a boost up. There is no reason you need to have a second car just because someone else has a second car though.

I agree forcing people to share wont work they have to want to share because they know that it will benefit all. Anarchism is the next logical step in my opinion. I have always reluctantly considered myself an anarchist only because some people have such a distorted view of what it really means so I just say I am an anti-capitalist.

I don't necessarily agree that capitalism promotes prosperity for everyone. Think of it this way, pimping the capitalist system is like getting in the NBA. Lets pretend that everyone has an equal chance of success despite social/economic handicaps. Even if everyone tries really hard only a select few people will actually join the NBA team. What I'm trying to get at is that the capitalist system only benefits a few people while it fails the vast majority of people. It would be ideal if everyone became rich but who would get ride of your garbage or fix your toilet? I think it is a failed system because it doesn't benefit the majority of people.

Rather than a few people with a high standard of living while the rest live in poverty, I would like to see everyone meet somewhere in the middle. (Any republicans reading that are gonna shit their pants)

That is a bad example. If you are going to compare capitalism to sports, then you have to compare it to all sports. Not everyone can get into the NBA but there is also professional wrestling, boxing, golf, womans football, beach volleyball, baseball, tennis, swimming, biking, running, weight lifting, bobsledding. That is how capitalism is, it has something for everyone.

Capitalism works for everyone. It is funny you mention the garbage men and plumbers as the loosers in the capitalist system, because in a lot of areas garbage men actually make a pretty good wage, and plumbers can actually make quiet a lot of money, especially a good one with thier own business. Sound like your examples of losers are winners to me.

It sounds like you are looking at the goal as being rich but that isn't really the goal. The goal is to have a happy life, and you have a job to meet your basics needs and any of the stuff you feel you want in order to make yourself happy. For a lot of people you don't need to be rich to do this.

And even if your goal was to be rich, nearly everyone in the US could become a millionare through savings. Even working in a bad job, if you save money by the time your older you could retire with millions. People don't save though, and that is their problem. If they did they would see capitalism is an amazing thing.

Surely the garbage man had other aspirations besides taking out peoples trash. Yes capitalism can provide alot of people with the means to survive but I know alot of people living from paycheck to paycheck and that isnt what they had in mind. My point was that all these capitalism success stories (like going from rags to riches) actually represent a very tiny percent of the population.

If capitalism is the end result, then why have so many first world countries been progressing towards socialism since the early 20th century? Capitalism (in all its forms) leaves far too much inequality to please the majority of the population or last a significant amount of time in an unregulated fashion.

Capitalism seems much more like a stepping stone, it rapidly develops a country to the point that there is enough wealth flowing around to meet everybody's basic living requirements, after which society can progress at a more civilized pace.

Yeah, I think the other key point is post-scarcity. What about the (hypothetical) point where the Earth has built a renewable and automated society? At any rate, human progress can't go on indefinitely. Most jobs will be effectively pointless, meaning that 'income' doesn't come from labour, and also rendering the idea competing businesses irrelevant. It's hard to see how such a state could be called capitalist. No doubt politics would also be totally different, if the state even existed in a meaningful sense.

I am sure you also noticed that the massive debt all the first world countries seem to have as well. They are all suffering from economic problems too. I personally take a crippling debt and the potential collapse of the entire economy to be a step backwards, not a step forward. If you look back you will see you are right about capitalism in that it rapidly develops a country(and I not talking about rapidly in the boom bust cycle sort of way, which is bad). How is developing production a bad thing? We could continue to develop more and more, but for some reason people moved away from it to a system that is far worse to the economy and puts us all in danger.

My country's public debt is quite tame and manageable (and had been declining up until the most recent recession).

Various Western European countries have been in heavy debt since the World Wars of last century when they were completely destroyed.

The USA's heavy debt is due to the unrealistic expectation of significant public spending while maintaining a phobia of levying taxes. That and spending billions per day on nonsense wars.

I think Xei has a good point about indefinite progress. The population is increasing and jobs on the other hand are not, politicians say they are but anyone who has ever worked at a grocery store in the past couple years knows the detrimental job loss due to self-checkout lines. Many jobs are redundant because of technology and this trend is only going to continue.

Its great for the capitalist because they don’t have to pay machines wages but for the well-being of the population something has to change. This is not to say that progress must stop but we might have to implement, as much as I am reluctant to say it, some sort of Venus Project type of socialism where machines work most menial jobs but everyone is taken care of and benefits the community in some way other than labor. I don’t know, the Venus Project sounds a little too utopian for my taste but I admittedly don’t know much about it.

Like I said the trend of jobs becoming redundant is on the rise as well as the population, we have to find another way in my opinion.

@Spariate- Just throwing it out there "spending" is how we got out of the great depression with the New Deal. Not to mention Eisenhower spent billions on interstate highways knowing that it would impact the economy in a significant way. Not that I'm glad we are in debt but its definitely tricky business, I dont have much answers.

If you spend on the infrastructure of your country in times of crisis (public works like building roads or dams, subsidies, etc.), it is because you expect a "return" in the form of economic stability or increased quality of life.

There is no return on invading countries on the other side of the world.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

I think Xei has a good point about indefinite progress. The population is increasing and jobs on the other hand are not, politicians say they are but anyone who has ever worked at a grocery store in the past couple years knows the detrimental job loss due to self-checkout lines. Many jobs are redundant because of technology and this trend is only going to continue.

Its great for the capitalist because they don’t have to pay machines wages but for the well-being of the population something has to change. This is not to say that progress must stop but we might have to implement, as much as I am reluctant to say it, some sort of Venus Project type of socialism where machines work most menial jobs but everyone is taken care of and benefits the community in some way other than labor. I don’t know, the Venus Project sounds a little too utopian for my taste but I admittedly don’t know much about it.

Like I said the trend of jobs becoming redundant is on the rise as well as the population, we have to find another way in my opinion.

@Spariate- Just throwing it out there "spending" is how we got out of the great depression with the New Deal. Not to mention Eisenhower spent billions on interstate highways knowing that it would impact the economy in a significant way. Not that I'm glad we are in debt but its definitely tricky business, I dont have much answers.

I think in these circumstances it's also useful to consider just how miniscule the period of industrialisation has been. Don't even think about worrying about the details; entire systems of human thought and activity have come and gone in geological blinks of an eye. Two centuries is literally nothing; civilisation and agriculture began more than ten thousand years before that, and modern thinking humans have been round for a hundred thousand, and should continue to be around for millions more.

We are really at an amazing point in human history. Anybody who looks at the current systems as objects of permanence, indeed, as objects that will even have any relevance or make any sense whatsoever in even the near future, is severely myopic.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

If you spend on the infrastructure of your country in times of crisis (public works like building roads or dams, subsidies, etc.), it is because you expect a "return" in the form of economic stability or increased quality of life.

There is no return on invading countries on the other side of the world.

Oh I agree I wasn't referring to war I thought you were just talking about spending in general.