Create an Account
username: password:
 
  MemeStreams Logo

RE: The Two Fukuyamas | The National Interest

search

ubernoir
Picture of ubernoir
My Blog
My Profile
My Audience
My Sources
Send Me a Message

sponsored links

ubernoir's topics
Arts
  Literature
   Fiction
   Sci-Fi/Fantasy Literature
Business
Games
Health and Wellness
Home and Garden
Miscellaneous
Current Events
Recreation
Local Information
  Events in Washington D.C.
Science
  Astronomy
  Space
Society
  International Relations
  History
Sports
  Football
Technology
  Computers

support us

Get MemeStreams Stuff!


 
RE: The Two Fukuyamas | The National Interest
Topic: Society 8:59 am EDT, Jun 12, 2006

Jello wrote:

In defense against the charge that he himself helped initiate the Bush Administration's revolutionary attitude to spreading democracy, Fukuyama stresses in his latest book that The End of History described a democratic capitalist version of an anti-Leninist Marxian approach--stressing slow cultural, social and economic change, not sudden revolution. He maintains that he is a Gramscian, emphasizing the intellectual and cultural hegemony of capitalist democracy, not claiming that it would inevitably work well everywhere or solve all problems. By contrast, he describes the Bush Administration as having become "Leninist" in its belief that history can be subjected to violent pushes.

Fukuyama Tukutama Fukyama Honeymama

nice
i do like the idea that the Bush admin is "Leninist"
question though is being a Leninist automatically wrong?
u live in a country born out of revolution (the first successful one against the British Empire)
1917 was a disaster
1789 went wrong in 1792
the English Civil War and Cromwell's Protectorate led to the velvet revolution of 1688, the beginning of constitutional/parliamentary government and produced John Locke
does history sometimes needs to be pushed?
certainly the american revolution was a great leap forward for liberalism
i think the division between Leninism bad and incrementalism good is rigid and dogmatic
"history" like evolution lurches "forward" sometimes through sudden sifts. There are sudden changes in the fossil record: sudden explosions of diversity: all is not a steady incremental march forward: sometimes there are siasmic sifts which are not down to disaster but rather innovation genetically (or memetically in the case of "history")
feminism is both a revolutionary break with the past and an intellectual tradition with a long history so the changes wrought in the 60s may be regarded as evolutionary. Or even if it was a revolution it might be argued that it was the overturning of a moribound hegemony (and so we're back with Gramsci).

RE: The Two Fukuyamas | The National Interest



 
 
Powered By Industrial Memetics
RSS2.0