Loosely translated by me: (In the first paragraph he is still talking about both the extreme-right and the "woke-left" by the way)
"Experience tells us that when people cant fight for good causes, because those good causes already triumphed in a previous generation, they will instead fight against those good causes. They will fight just because of the fight. In other words, they will fight out of a certain sense of boredom, because they cant imagine living in a world without struggle. And when the greater part of the world they live in is characterised by a peaceful and prosperous liberal democracy, they will fight against that peace and prospering, and against democracy."
"The people who attacked the Capitol had materially no reason to be discontent. (...) They weren't your average factory workers who lost their jobs to overseas competition. Most were fairly well-off middle-class people with a job.
But more and more people live in a kind of fantasyworld, borrowed from videogames and movies. any far-right extremists see movies like The Matrix as symbolic of what has happened to society."
"Take the blue pill, and the world looks normal - you go to the office and everything is pais en vree. Take the red pill and you realise that everything is one big façade, created by elites, and that nothing is what it seems.
I have the idea that many people have started believing this story about the red pill. Something like that can only happen in a wealthy society. Where people have enough time on their hands to live in virtual worlds, divorced from reality. Technology has allowed them to fantasise themselves as characters who are greater than life, and who are fighting in a worldwide struggle against evil. Thirty years ago i would have never tought that videogames and actionmovies could lead to such delusions."
He also called the attack on the capitol the "largest attack on American democracy since the civil war"
I once heard someone say on here that the debate between Liberalism and Marxism was decisively won by Marxism over a hundred years ago and this piece makes me fully agree with that sentiment. Marxist writers published far more accurate and insightfull analyses of Fascism and the role of the upper middle-class in Fascism back in the 1920s!
Francis Fukuyama continues to do what he's best at, being dangerously wrong about everything.
history ended (good), :dean-smile:
but then vibeo gabe (bab) :dean-frown:
take a big bowl of material conditions and just jam Francis' face into it
In other words, they will fight out of a certain sense of boredom, because they cant imagine living in a world without struggle. And when the greater part of the world they live in is characterised by a peaceful and prosperous liberal democracy, they will fight against that peace and prospering, and against democracy.
"Humans are actually just sapient green space fungus." - The History Denier
This is totally in line with mainstream managerial liberalism and its fear of mass power and action; the role of the state it not to reflect but to neuter any demands for radical, destabilising action.
The proles are just entitled needy children who can't see the sacrifices and delayed gratification that are necessary for common prosperity.
high pangyrist of neoliberalism declares every belief outside the neoliberal status quo to be erroneous fantasy, more at 8 :sit-back-and-enjoy:
thinking about that tweet about liberals and not having any idea why anything ever happens
:same-picture: neoliberal being a kinda catchall term containing neocons & most modern liberals
is not opposed to public works, social safety nets
/r/NeoLiberal ghouls on :reddit-logo: often claim in their own words that they want those things too, but under profit-seeking oligarchy boosting conditions, usually by colonialism abroad and privatized versions of public services domestically.
Doesn't help un-blur the line with how often the same /r/NeoLiberal ghouls talk about "the end of history" even to this day as if the collapse of the Soviet Union was a permanent victory for their favorite oligarchs.
Can you really blame people for people identifying people on /r/NeoLiberal as neoliberals instead of using your very specific (and not yet cited) particular definitions to your satisfaction?
You are right but at the same time neoliberals and neoconservatives are ultimately aligned in most of their goals so it is easy for people to mistake them for being the same thing
idk sounds like the hawkish side of the same political project to me. silence about economics while working with neolibs is tacit endorsement imo
i think this says more about social democrats relationship to economic justice but point taken, neocons are agreeable to social imperialism. -but- are the neolibs particularly hostile? they've certainly compromised with social democracy too
A lot of Neoliberal thinkers from the 90's to early 2000's are really exposing themselves as idiots on the same scale as the far-right.
Let op je woorden kameraad, we hebben tientallen nutteloze Trotskisten en ze zijn niet bang om je te confronteren! Na ja, online dan.
Small domino: doom releasing in 1993
Big dominó: oops all fascists
if i had been as loudly and publicly wrong about everything as francis fukuyama i would simply shut the fuck up and not draw further attention to myself
Seriously what a dumb bitch, you'd think some people would have the humility to reflect on everything they said after being proven wrong but some people gotta keep selling books I guess.
Every liberal analysis begins with the implicit assumption that the status quo cannot be wrong.
They will fight just because of the fight. In other words, they will fight out of a certain sense of boredom, because they cant imagine living in a world without struggle. And when the greater part of the world they live in is characterised by a peaceful and prosperous liberal democracy, they will fight against that peace and prospering, and against democracy.
It's always the fault of individuals or human nature that there is chaos and discontent, and never the responsibility of the government to adapt to the real needs and concerns of their citizens rather than their imagined, ideal ones
