Archives for posts with tag: Fukuyama

Putem negocia si cu stră-strănepoții lui Kim-Ir-Sen…
Toate negocierile astea vor avea același rezultat!

Dacă vrem să rupem cercul vicios, dacă vrem să evităm apariția unor noi Putini/Stalini/Zedongi, trebuie să înțelegem că Putin este consecința modului în care am negociat, noi, cu Stalin.
Că Xi este consecința modului în care noi am re-integrat China în lume. După ce am negociat acest lucru cu Mao Zedong.

Da, evident, orice război se încheie printr-o negociere.
Da, Macron are dreptate. O Rusie umilita va fi un partener de negociere mai dificil decât o Rusie care va reuși să-și salveze ‘fața’.
NB. Vorbim aici de Rusia, nu de Putin!
Rusia trebuie să găsească o cale cât mai onorabilă de ieșire din această situație.
Situație în care a fost pusă de Putin…
Că Rusia va ieși din această situație împreună cu Putin… sau fără… asta e treaba Rusiei.

Treaba noastră este să ne asigurăm că Rusia care va fi ieșit din această situație nu va mai reprezenta un pericol pentru noi.
Și asta nu pentru că Rusia va fi slabă!
Ci pentru că noi ne vom fi organizat astfel încât să nu mai fim la mâna Rusiei. Sau la mâna oricui altcuiva.

Suntem suficient de multi si de diferiți – Europa, America de Nord, Japonia, Australia, încât să putem face față oricăror provocări. Dacă vom reuși să devenim un exemplu pentru restul lumii…

Doar că înainte de a deveni un exemplu cu adevărat demn de urmat, avem mare nevoie să facem curățenie în curtea din spate!

(Priveşte înapoi cu mânie este un text dramatic care exprimă foarte clar şi fără echivoc o atitudine, anume) atitudinea tinerilor furioşi, cei care s-au trezit (după cel de al doilea război mondial) că nu prea au perspective, şanse de a se realiza, că trăiesc într-o societate dărâmată, în reconstrucţie şi care îşi concentra toate forţele către această reconstrucţie, ei resimţind acut lipsa de orizont cu care se confruntau. În acelaşi timp, acest text cere la rândul său o atitudine, cel care se apropie de el trebuie să resimtă această furie, dar să o folosească în scopuri constructive, creative.”

Geaca lui Jimmy sau modalităţi de resuscitare – Priveşte înapoi cu mânie
Mircea Sorin Rusu, Agenda Liternet, Mai 2005

Mai ține cineva minte spectocolul? Sau filmul?
Eu nu.
Dar continuă să mă obsedeze titlul!

Recunoașteți situația?
Și înjuratura?
„Tineri frumoși și liberi”?

Cum de-am ajuns să ne înjurăm tinerii?!? Viitorul?

Să vă povestesc.

Sfârșitul.

Ceașcă reușise să-i unească pe toți.

Aveam 7 ani când sovieticii au strivit Primăvara de la Praga.
Nu mai țin minte discursul lui Ceaușescu dar țin minte sentimentul de mândrie cu care vorbeau oamenii despre el.
Despre curajul cu care EL le-a ținut piept ‘cotropitorilor’.
Pe vremea aia o duceam binișor. Pușcăriile politice fuseseră golite, alimentarele erau din ce în ce mai pline, macaralele construiau de zor locuințe pentru oamenii muncii, aveam căldură și apă caldă la discreție, electricitatea ajunsese până în cele mai depărtate cătune. Iar Romania reîncepuse să producă autoturisme!
Ceaușescu reușise să ne unească – pe noi, cei din-lăuntrul țării, în jurul lui!
Mai mult, atitudinea de frondă față de politica externă a Uniunii Sovietice îi adusese și un enorm prestigiu internațional. Un mare număr de susținători din lumea largă.

În următorii 21 de ani, Ceaușescu avea să reușească contrariul.
Să ne unească, pe toți, împotriva lui.
Nouă ne era frig, foame și scârbă. Ne întrebam cum de-am ajuns în halul ăla. Și ne era atât de scârbă de noi înșine încât nici măcar nu mai aveam vreo speranță. Unii încercau să fugă, foarte puțini să organizeze o rezistență iar marea masă, resemnată, îi percepea, pe toți ăștia, ca fiind ‘nebuni’. Ca pe niște descreierați care își puneau familiile în pericol. Ca pe niște zănateci care clatinau barca. Care puneau în pericol umbra de confort care mai putea fi obținută. De către unii dintre noi…
Cei din Vest se lămuriseră și ei. De unde-l plimbaseră în caleașcă, acum îl arătau cu degetul.
Lui Gorbaciov, care încerca să dreagă busuiocul comunist, îi era pur și simplu rușine. Faptul că Ceaușescu era singurul care refuza orice idee de reformă periclita însuși conceptul de Perestroika. Care trebuia să aibă loc, simultan, în întreg lagărul. Pentru că era, nu-i așa, vorba despre o chestie ‘legică’. Conform materialismului dialectic, atunci când o dai de gard, te întorci din drum. Doar că Gorbaciov nu putea să se întoarcă de unul singur. Trebuia să ia cu el întreg Tratatul de la Varșovia. Și tot CAER-ul. Orice ‘disidență’ ar fi demonstrat caracterul arbitrar al hotarârilor luate la nivel ‘centralizat’. Ar fi demontat, cât se poate de elocvent, pretenția de ‘legitate’ a „materialismului științific și dialectic”.

Ritual de trecere.

Noi, cei din-lăuntru, n-aveam habar de ce avea să vie.
Marea majoritate a observatorilor au fost uluiți.
Nimeni nu vedea sfărșitul comunismului.

Până în primăvara lui 1989. Da, primăvara!
Francis Fukuyama a publicat „The End of History?” pe 22 Iunie 1989. Nu cred că a scris tot articolul într-o seară… Versiunea inițială are 18 pagini…

„The triumph of the West, of the
Western idea, is evident first of all in
the total exhaustion of viable
systematic alternatives to Western
liberalism.”

„Triumful vestului, a variantei de liberalism care il animă, este demonstrat – în primul rând, extenuarea tuturor celorlate alternative sistemice care au încercat să-l concureze.”

Avem deja cel puțin doi oameni care întrevedeau ce urma să se întâmple.
Gorbaciov încerca să dreagă căruța care o luase deja la vale iar Fukuyama se bucura, deja, de pielea ursului din pădure.

Acțiunile lor contrazic afirmația pe care am făcut-o mai sus.
Chiar dacă cei mai mulți dintre noi – trăitori și observatori, împreună, nu realizam ce urma să se întâmple, erau totuși câte unii care se pregăteau.

Cei 6 se apucaseră deja de scris.

Nu vom ști niciodată cât de spontane, sau cât de organizate, au fost evenimentele din România anului 1989.
Cert este că tensiunea socială era deja ‘suficientă’ – chiar dacă cei aflați în ‘ceaun’ nu sesizaserăm încă, iar unii dintre noi – dintre ‘ei’, mai degrabă, se pregătiseră pentru a folosi orice prilej ce urma să apară. Când va fi urmat să apară… Viitoarea ‘aparție’ fiind deja ‘anunțată’ de ambele părți ale fostei cortine de fier.

Am să fac o scurtă paranteză.
Nu sunt conspiraționist. Sunt convins că nici o conspirație nu poate pune la cale chestii atât de complicate precum căderea unui întreg sistem de state. Un lucru atât de complicat presupune cooperarea a prea multor oameni. O astfel de complicățenie nu poate fi păstrată sub obroc pentru prea multă vreme.
Am să o iau altfel.
Nimeni nu poate prevedea cutremurele. Sau erupțiile vulcanice. Dar trebuie să fii tâmpit să nu-ți iei ceva măsuri de prevedere atunci când pămantul începe să tremure. Când iese fum din vârful munților. Când începe să miroasă a pucioasă… Oricât de obișnuit ai fi devenit de-a lungul timpului…

Ei bine, cei mai mulți dintre noi… am fost tâmpiți!
N-am simțit că lui Ceaușescu îi ajunsese funia la par.
Că regimul său urma să se prăbușească.

Nu ne-am pregătit!

Acum, dacă vrem să înțelegem – în sfârșit, ce ni s-a întâmplat, ar fi cazul să lăsăm mânia la o parte.

Ca să putem trece mai departe.

Altfel… nu mai scăpăm din ceaun!

Cei mai mulți dintre noi sunt de părere că broasca va fi ucisă de apa care va să fiarbă.
În realitate, broasca va muri doar în măsura în care nu se va hotărî, la timp, să sară din ceaun.

Until recently – historically speaking, people had two ideologies to choose from.

Conservative and liberal.

The conservatives used to posit ‘law’ as a ‘cage’ which didn’t allow any transgression while the liberals understood ‘law’ as an agreed upon environment which allowed people an individual but orderly pursuit of happiness.

The advent of Marx’s communism changed everything. His promotion of ‘class warfare’ as a legitimate political instrument had effectively muddled that which had previously been considered a clear choice.

After communism proved itself to be an abject failure, the naifs have forgotten about Marx.
Flying under the ideological radar, ‘class warfare’ has metastasized.

Nowadays, Regular Joe is confronted with three ideologies. And to make things worse, their names – attributed and/or assumed, are misleading.

We have a line of thought which uses (natural) ‘law’ as a line of defense against any kind of change. And as a means of bringing back the ‘better yesterday’.

Another line of thought which sees (man made) ‘law’ as an instrument to implement – forcefully, if needed, whatever the ‘implementer’ wants to achieve. One of the most often professed goals being ‘equality’. Close on its heels comes ‘diversity’.

And the ‘classical’ liberals who are squeezed between the previous two.

The state/government – whose job is to keep ‘the playing field’ level and functional, is paralyzed by the first two factions fighting to control it.
The ‘conservatives’ want to use the state/government as a ‘preserving agent’ for what they consider to be their (natural) ‘rights’.
The ‘progressives’ want to use the state/government as an instrument of (forceful, if needed) change towards what they consider to be ‘the common good’.

Meanwhile, the classical liberals – berated by both of the above, have a hard time explaining to a shrinking audience that the state/government is an extremely dangerous instrument if allowed to fall into the hands of ‘single-minded’ operators. That as soon as the freedom of the markets (the economic and, way more importantly, the ideatic ones) is curtailed, everything starts to go south. Fast!

Democracy and the free market have brought us so far.
The freedom of thought/expression and the freedom to act as an honest entrepreneur have been instrumental in us reaching the present state. With the goods and the bads in it.

Each instance in which the state/government had fallen prisoner in the hands of ‘men of state’ with ‘focused vision’, history started to run backwards.
No matter whether that ‘limited vision’ had been focused in the past or on “a certain” future.

Each time this subject comes about I remember about Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History.
About how concentrated he was on the future he considered to be forthcoming.
About how his ‘hard focus’ had prevented him from noticing the sunken part of the iceberg.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/10/texas-abortion-law-jonathan-f-mitchell-profile
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

As much as I love writing, I do have to eat.
And to provide for my family.
Earning money takes time.
If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button.
Your contribution will be appreciated!
Another very efficient way to help would be to share my posts.

As much as I love writing, I do have to eat.
And to provide for my family.
Earning money takes time.
If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button.
Your contribution will be appreciated!

As much as I love writing, I do have to eat.
And to provide for my family.
Earning money takes time.
If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button.
Your contribution will be appreciated!

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

30 years ago – 32, to be precise, Francis Fukuyama had come up with the notion that people – as in the human race, had finally realized that liberal democracy was the only reasonable way forward. Hence ‘the end of history’. The end of conflict… the end of ‘misunderstanding’ between people…

“WASHINGTON (AP) — The Democrats’ sweeping attempt to rewrite U.S. election and voting law suffered a major setback in the Senate Tuesday, blocked by a filibuster wall of Republican opposition to what would be the largest overhaul of the electoral system in a generation.”
“The bill, known as the For the People Act, would touch on virtually every aspect of how elections are conducted, striking down hurdles to voting that advocates view as the Civil Rights fight of the era, while also curbing the influence of money in politics and limiting partisan influence over the drawing of congressional districts.
But many in the GOP say the measure represents instead a breathtaking federal infringement on states’ authority to conduct their own elections without fraud — and is meant to ultimately benefit Democrats.
It failed on a 50-50 vote after Republicans, some of whom derided the bill as the “Screw the People Act,” denied Democrats the 60 votes needed to begin debate under Senate rules. Vice President Kamala Harris, the first Black woman to hold her office, presided over the chamber as the bill failed to break past that filibuster barrier.”

The end of misunderstanding between people?!?

During the Cold War – the end of which had prompted Fukuyama to draw his conclusion, the ‘misunderstanding’ was dividing the two ideological blocs. Between those who had learned to value of the individual and those who didn’t yet had a real chance at doing this.

Nowadays the misunderstanding had seeped deeper. Way deeper…
The two parties of the country which had been the stalwart of democracy during the Cold War don’t see eye to eye as to how the electoral process should be organized.
The Guardians of the Revolution and the Supreme Leader do not agree – at least apparently, on who should be approved to run for office.

Meanwhile, Putin enjoys the limelight….

The end of history, eh?!?

Maybe, but not the one envisioned by Fukuyama…

PS
Fukuyama must be so fed up about this…
Well, I don’t think he was wrong!
I do see liberal democracy as the only reasonable way forward.
The enthusiasm with which the world had met his work was a very strong signal that things were going in the right direction…
The problem resides in the fact that other people had other plans. Had identified other ‘opportunities’.
And in the fact that we, the people, have been sleeping with out boots on!

LE.
The Moldovan officials in charge with running the 2021 snap legislative elections are tying hard to keep the Moldovan citizens living abroad away from the polling stations.


Last minute edit
The Electoral Committee, CEC, had unanimously decided that 150 polling stations will be organized, despite the Foreign Ministry asking for 191 and the Supreme Court ordering them to comply…

Do you see a pattern here?
Well. I see a question mark!
If things like gerrymandering and voter suppression can happen in America, what chances are that authoritarian wannabees won’t spring up all over the world?

“The most common name this group is given is Gen Z; I call them Generation K, after Katniss Everdeen, the determined heroine of the Hunger Games. Like Katniss, they feel the world they inhabit is one of perpetual struggle – dystopian, unequal and harsh.”

Each successive generation has to make do with the situation they had inherited from the old one.
And whatever it ‘builds’ on top of that will constitute the starting point for the next one.

We – those born between the early 50-ies and the middle 70-ies, and who constitute the vast majority of today’s significant decision makers, have had a ‘once in the entire history’ opportunity. The fall of the communist regimes almost all over the world had lifted many of the ‘practical’ hurdles left around from the previous generations. We had been freed from all limitations but those we’ve imposed – willingly and/or unwittingly, upon ourselves. So much so that Francis Fukuyama had described the situation as ‘the end of history’.

We’ve been, indeed, the first generation in modern history – or ‘contemporary’?!?, which didn’t start a ‘wholesale’ war… if we discard the ‘war on terror’! Or that ‘on drugs’…

The point being that we’ve failed. To use the huge opportunity presented to us.
By Lady Luck… our fathers had done nothing but continued the traditions imposed upon them by their fathers…

We, on our turn, don’t have that excuse.
We didn’t have had to continue anything… Conditions had been perfect for a fresh start!
Yet we had ‘preferred’ to ‘carry on’… As if we had learned nothing from what had just happened!

Fukuyama himself, after having been lionized by his peers and then contradicted by Clio, had ‘relapsed’.
After prophesying that ‘liberalism uber alles’ he had recently attempted to explain away his failure using ‘the need for recognition‘.

In fact, he wasn’t exactly wrong in 1989 – we did have a chance to move in that direction, nor is he totally off the mark now. ‘The need for recognition’ did play a role in our failure.
Fukuyama – along with the rest of us, had made the capital error of over-trusting his own intellect.
Of convincing himself that ‘the world’ can be understood.

Hence predicted.

And who has to make do in the present situation?
To deal with our failure?

As always, the next generation!
Our children…

For the first time in 100 years, Britons are dying earlier.

Plato, without actually saying so, was planning to ‘kill’ it.
A society run by his king-priests would have been ‘perfect’. Hence in no need of improvement. Not exactly dead but how would you describe something that doesn’t change in time? Anything but alive, right? And since ‘no change’ means ‘no history’…

Four centuries later, Jesus Christ had warned us about the ‘Final Countdown‘. Last Judgement, sorry. But what difference does it make? Final… Last…

Fast forward to the XIXth century, when Karl Marx was breathing new life into Plato’s ideas.
The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.” (Karl Marx et al, Manifesto of the Communist Party),
Which very able and extremely wise communists were supposed to solve all past, present and future problems through a very simple measure. Abolition of private property and of the state needed to protect such property.
And since not everybody was yet ready to receive ‘the good news’, the communists were given a free hand to use revolutionary force in order to accomplish what they had to do.

To finally bring order to the World. To end history, that is.

Am I thick headed or the difference between Marx’s and Plato’s words is small enough to be insignificant?

You have again forgotten, my friend, said I, that the law is not concerned with the special happines of any class in the state, but is trying to produce this condition in the city as a whole, harmonizing and adapting the citizens to one another by persuasion and compulsion, and requiring them to impart to one another any benefit which they are severally able to bestow upon the community, and that it itself creates such men in the state, not that it may allow each to take what course pleases him, but with a view to using them to the binding together of the commonwealth.” (Plato, Collected Dialogues, The Cave)

A short century later, another optimist announced that ‘now, after the communist gulag had finally imploded, liberal democracy – a system flexible enough to absorb/solve any input/problem – will take over the entire planet. And, of course, bring over “The End of History” “.

Three decades later things are going on, as if nothing had happened.

There are still plenty rulers who behave as if “L’etat c’est moi” was coined yesterday and, even more sadly, too many people who look up to them.

The end of history has been postponed. Indefinitely.

 

%d bloggers like this: